# Stationary Air Conditioning

Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version Search:

EPA Home > Ozone Depletion > Rule & Regulations > Stationary AC > Final Rule

Vol. 58 No. 92 Friday, May 14, 1993 p 28660 (Rule)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL

- 4625

- 3]

RIN 2060

- AC80

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA promulgates regulations under Section

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

program for ozone

- depleting refrigerants recovered during the

servicing and disposal of air

- conditioning or refrigeration

equipment. Together with the prohibition on venting during servicing,

repair, and disposal of class I and class II substances that

took effect on July 1, 1992, these regulations should substantially

reduce emissions of ozone

- depleting refrigerants. The regulations

require persons servicing air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce refrigerant

emissions and establish equipment and off

- site reclaimer certification

programs, as well as a technician certification program. A sales

restriction on refrigerant is included, whereby only certified

technicians will legally be authorized to purchase such refrigerant.

EPA's regulations also require repair of significant leaks,

based on annual leak rates of equipment. In addition, these

regulations require that ozone

- depleting compounds contained

"in bulk" in appliances be removed prior to disposal of the

appliances, and that all air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment, except for small appliances, be provided with a servicing

aperture that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1993.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained

in Air Docket No. A

- 92

- 01 at: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Docket

is located in Room M

- 1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC. Dockets may be inspected from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, and

from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Information

Hotline at 1

- 800

- 296

- 1996 can be contacted for further information

on weekdays from 10 to 4, Eastern Time. Debbie Ottinger, Program

Implementation Branch, Global Programs Branch, Office

of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, can also

be contacted at Mail Code: 6205

- J, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460, (202) 233

- 9200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble

are listed in the following outline:

I. Background 

### Page 1 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlA. Ozone Depletion

B. Montreal Protocol

C. London Amendments to the Protocol

D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling

E. Excise Tax

F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

G. Accelerated Phaseout

H. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling

II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

III. This Final Rule

A. Equipment and Refrigerants Affected

B. Overview of Requirements

C. Factors Considered in the Development of This Rule

D. Public Participation

E. Definitions and Interpretations

F. Required Practices

1. Evacuation of Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment

a. Evacuation Requirements for Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration

Equipment Besides Small Appliances

b. Evacuation of Leaky Equipment

c. Removal of Entrained Refrigerant From Oil

d. Evacuation Requirements for Small Appliances

2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant

3. Leak Repair

4. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery

Equipment

G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment

1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended

for Use with Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment

Except Small Appliances, MVACs and MVAC

- like Appliances

a. Recovery Efficiency

b. Passive or System

- dependent Recovery Equipment

c. Refrigerant Recovery Rates

d. Low

- loss Fittings

e. Purge Loss 

### Page 2 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlf. Volume

- sensitive Shutoff

2. Standards for Recovery Machines Intended for Use with Small

Appliances

3. Standards for Recycling and Recovery Machines Used with

Equipment Identical to MVACs

4. Testing of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for

Use with Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except

Small Appliances

5. Testing of Recovery Machines Intended for Use with Small

Appliances

6. Effective Dates and Grandfathering Provisions

H. Certification of Technicians

1. Description of Proposed Voluntary Technician Training and

Certification

2. Decision to Establish a Mandatory Program

a. Overwhelming Technician Response

b. Lessened Burden to EPA and Technicians

c. Better Environmental Protection

d. Improved Productivity

3. Program Elements

a. A Mandatory Program

b. A National Program

c. Personnel to be Certified

d. Types of Certification

e. Test Content

f. Test Bank

g. Test Conditions

h. Proof of Certification

i. Additional Requirements

j. Approval Process

k. Grandfathering

I. Restriction on Sales of Refrigerants to Certified Technicians

1. Description of Proposal And Final Requirement

2. Response to Major Comments

J. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment 

### Page 3 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html1. Description of Proposal and Final Rule

2. Response to Major Comments

K. Certification of Reclaimers

1. Description of Proposed and Final Requirement

2. Response to Major Commenters

L. Recordkeeping Requirements

M. The Safe Disposal Program

N. Servicing Apertures

O. Exemption from Regulatory Requirements for Refrigerant

Uses for Which No High

- Efficiency Recovery Technology Exists

IV. Summary of Changes to Proposed Rule

V. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Background

A. Ozone Depletion

The stratospheric ozone layer protects the Earth from the

penetration of harmful ultraviolet (UV

- B) radiation. On the

basis of substantial scientific evidence, a national and international

consensus exists that certain man

- made halocarbons, including

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and

methyl chloroform, must be restricted because of the risk of

depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer through the release

of chlorine and bromine (WMO/UNEP Science Assessment). To the

extent depletion occurs, penetration of UV

- B radiation increases,

resulting in potential health and environmental harm including

increased incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts, suppression

of the immune system, damage to plants including crops and aquatic

organisms, increased formation of ground

- level ozone and increased

weathering of outdoor plastics. (See 53 FR 30566 for more information

on the effects of ozone depletion.)

The original theory linking CFCs to ozone depletion was first

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

considerable advances in measuring and understanding the atmospheric

processes affecting stratospheric ozone science. Repeatedly,

these scientific advances have indicated that the impact of

man

- made ozone

- depleting substances on the stratosphere was

more severe than previously thought. As discussed below, the

U.S. and the international community have adopted increasingly

stringent policies regarding the manufacture and use of ozone

depleting substances in response to this evolving scientific

understanding.

B. Montreal Protocol

In response to the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica

and to growing evidence that chlorine and bromine could destroy

stratospheric ozone on a global basis, many members of the international 

### Page 4 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlcommunity came to the conclusion that an international agreement

to reduce global production of ozone

- depleting substances was

needed. Because releases of CFCs from all areas mix in the atmosphere

to affect stratospheric ozone globally, efforts to reduce emissions

from specific products by only a few nations could quickly be

offset by increases in emissions from other nations, leaving

the risks to the ozone layer unchanged. EPA evaluated the risks

of ozone depletion in Assessing the Risks of Trace Gases That

Can Modify the Stratosphere (1987) and concluded that an international

approach was necessary to effectively safeguard the ozone layer.

In September 1987, the United States and 22 other countries

signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the

Ozone Layer (the Protocol). As originally drafted, the Protocol

called for production and consumption of certain CFCs (CFC

- 11,

12, 113, 114, 115) and halons (Halon

- 1211,

- 1301 and

- 2402)

to be frozen at 1986 levels beginning July 1, 1989, and January

1, 1992, respectively, and for the CFCs to be reduced to 50

percent of 1986 levels by 1998. To date, over 90 nations representing

approximately 95% of the world's production capacity for CFCs

and halons have signed the Montreal Protocol. EPA promulgated

regulations implementing the requirements of the 1987 Protocol

through a system of tradeable allowances. EPA apportioned the

allowances to producers and importers of ozone

- depleting substances

(controlled substances) based on their 1986 level of production

and importation. It then reduced the allowances for the controlled

substances according to the schedule specified in the Protocol.

(See 56 FR 49548 (September 30, 1991)) for a more detailed discussion

of the Protocol and EPA's regulations to implement the phaseout

of ozone

- depleting substances.)

C. London Amendments to the Protocol

Under Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties are

required to assess the science, economics and alternative technologies

related to protection of the ozone layer every two years. In

response to this requirement, the Parties issued their first

scientific assessment in 1989 (Scientific Assessment of Ozone

Depletion). During this assessment, scientists examined the

data from land

- based monitoring stations and the total ozone

mapping spectrometer (TOMS) satellite instrument and found that

there had been global ozone depletion over the northern hemisphere

as well as over the southern hemisphere. The scientific assessment

also reported that a three to five percent decrease in stratospheric

ozone levels had occurred between 1969

- 1986 in the northern

hemisphere in the winter months that could not be attributed

to known natural processes.

At the Second Meeting of the Protocol Parties, held in London

on June 29, 1990, the Parties responded to this new evidence

by tightening the restrictions placed on these chemicals. The

Parties to the Protocol passed amendments and adjustments which

called for a full phaseout of the already regulated CFCs and

halons by 2000, a phaseout of carbon tetrachloride and "other

CFCs" by 2000 and a phaseout of methyl chloroform by 2004. The

parties also passed a non

- binding resolution regarding the use

of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs have been identified

as interim substitutes for CFCs because they add much less chlorine

to the stratosphere than fully halogenated CFCs. The Parties

were concerned, however, that rapid growth in the amount of

use of these chemicals over time would still pose a threat to

the ozone layer. As a result, the resolution called for the

phaseout of HCFCs by 2020 if feasible and no later than 2040

in any case.

D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling 

### Page 5 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlOn May 1, 1990, EPA published an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM, 55 FR 18256) addressing issues related to

the development of a national CFC recycling program. This notice

emphasized that recycling is important because it would allow

the continued use of equipment requiring CFCs for service past

the year in which CFC production is phased out, thereby eliminating

or deferring the cost of early retirement or retrofit of such

equipment. The Agency continues to believe that the continued

use of these substances in existing equipment that recycling

would allow can serve as a useful bridge to alternative products

while minimizing disruption of the current capital stock of

equipment.

The ANPRM asked for comment on the feasibility of recycling

in various CFC end uses and also asked for comment on methods,

such as a deposit/refund system, that could be employed to encourage

recycling. The Agency received 110 public comment letters in

response to the ANPRM. In general, most commenters recognized

the need for recycling to help protect the ozone layer and to

provide a source of refrigerant to service existing capital

equipment after the phaseout of CFC production is complete.

E. Excise Tax

As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989,

the U.S. Congress levied an excise tax on the sale of CFCs and

other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, with specific

exemptions for exports and recycling. The tax has operated as

a complement to EPA's regulations limiting production and consumption

by increasing the costs of using virgin controlled substances.

The original excise tax was amended in 1991 to include methyl

chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and other CFCs regulated by

the amended Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air

Act. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 1931 of Public Law

102

- 486, revised and further increased the excise tax, effective

January 1, 1993. By raising the cost of virgin controlled substances,

the tax has created an additional incentive for industry to

shift out of these substances and increase recycling activities,

and it has encouraged the development of a market for alternative

chemicals and processes.

F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed November 15,

1990, include requirements for controlling ozone

- depleting substances

that are generally consistent with, but in some cases more stringent

than those contained in the Montreal Protocol as revised in

1990. For the substances covered by the revised Protocol's control

measures, Title VI of the Act calls for a phaseout of CFCs by

January 1, 2000 with deeper interim reductions and, in the case

of methyl chloroform, an earlier phaseout date (2002 instead

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

a production freeze in 2015 and a phaseout in 2030. EPA issued

a temporary final rule on March 6, 1991 implementing the production

and consumption limits contained in the Act for calendar year

1991. (See 56 FR 9518.) The Agency published proposed regulations

for 1992 and beyond on September 30, 1991 (See 56 FR 49548).

As discussed below, on January 19, 1993, EPA proposed regulations

to implement an accelerated phaseout of class I substances and

some class II substances.

In addition to the phaseout of ozone

- depleting substances,

title VI includes a variety of other provisions intended to

reduce emissions of ozone

- depleting substances. Section 608,

the foundation for the regulations promulgated today, provides

for EPA to promulgate regulations to achieve the "lowest achievable 

### Page 6 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmllevel" of emissions of ozone

- depleting substances and to maximize

recycling of such substances. Section 608 also bans the knowing

venting of ozone

- depleting substances during the maintenance,

service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process

refrigeration. Section 609 establishes a specific program requiring

the recovery and recycling of refrigerant used in motor vehicle

air conditioners, specifically requires training and certification

of technicians, and restricts the sale of small containers of

CFCs. Other Title VI sections call for mandatory labeling, a

ban on nonessential products, a program to review the safety

of alternatives to class I and class II substances, and requirements

of federal entities to conform to Title VI regulations and to

maximize the use of safe alternatives.

G. Accelerated Phaseout

Based on new scientific evidence developed since the passage

of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the issuance of implementing

regulations, the international community, led by the United

States, has agreed to further accelerate the phaseout of already

regulated ozone

- depleting substances. Virtually all class I

substances will be phased out in less than three (3) years (by

January 1, 1996) and halons will be phased out by January 1,

1994. The following section describes the most recent scientific

and international developments regarding ozone depletion.

1. New Scientific Data Regarding Ozone Depletion

Significant scientific advances have occurred since the initial

Protocol assessments in 1989. Several subsequent reports since

that time have indicated a more rapid rate of ozone depletion

than previously believed. The most recent Montreal Protocol

Scientific Assessment, issued December 17, 1991, contains information

from ground

- based monitoring instruments, as well as from satellite

instruments, from the years 1979

- 1991. The data indicate significant

decreases in total

- column ozone have occurred in winter, and

for the first time, also show decreases in spring and summer,

in both the northern and southern hemispheres at middle and

high latitudes. The data further show no significant depletion

has occurred in the tropics. TOMS data indicate that for the

period 1979 to 1991, decreases in total ozone at 45 degrees

south latitude ranged between 4.4 percent in the fall to as

much as 6.2 percent in the summer, while depletion at 45 degrees

north latitude ranged between 1.7 percent in the fall to 5.6

percent in the winter. Data from the ground

- based Dobson network

confirm these losses in total column ozone during the thirteen

year period. These findings show almost twice as much depletion

as the average rate measured by the ground

- based network over

a twenty

- year period. Based on this new data, scientists have

concluded that the ozone in the stratosphere during the 1980s

disappeared at a much faster rate than experienced in the previous

decade.

The recent UNEP Science Assessment also includes new data

on the estimated ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) of ozone

depleting substances. The assessment placed the ODP of methyl

bromide, a chemical previously thought to have an insignificant

effect on stratospheric ozone, at 0.6, with a range of uncertainty

between 0.44

- 0.69. On November 25, 1992, the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol agreed to assign methyl bromide an ODP of

0.7 (based on an update of the science assessment).

On February 3, 1992, NASA released preliminary data acquired

by the ongoing Arctic Airborne Stratospheric Experiment

- II (AASE

II), a series of high

- altitude instrument

- laden plane flights

over the northern hemisphere (see Interim Findings: Second Airborne

Arctic Stratospheric Expedition). Additional data were also 

### Page 7 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlobtained from the initial observations by NASA's Upper Atmosphere

Research Satellite (UARS), launched in September 1991. The measurements

show higher levels of chlorine monoxide (ClO) (the key agent

responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion) over Canada and

New England than were observed during any previous series of

aircraft flights. In fact, the ClO levels over the United States

and Canada and as far south as the Caribbean were many times

greater than gas phase models had predicted. These levels are

only partially explainable by enhanced aerosol surface reactions

due to emissions from the volcanic eruptions of Mount Pinatubo.

The expedition also found that the levels of hydrogen chloride

(Hcl), a chemical species that stores atmospheric chlorine in

a less reactive state, to be low, providing new evidence for

the existence of chemical processes that convert stable forms

of chlorine into ozone

- destroying species.

In addition, the levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were also

observed to be low, providing evidence of reactions that take

place on the surface of aerosols that diminish the ability of

the atmosphere to control the buildup of chlorine radicals.

New observations of Hcl and nitrogen oxide (NO) imply that chlorine

and bromine are more effective in destroying ozone than previously

believed.

The NASA findings indicate that in late January of 1992,

the Arctic air was chemically "primed" for the potential formation

of a springtime ozone "hole" similar to that formed each spring

over Antarctica. These findings also are consistent with theories

that ozone depletion may occur at an accelerated rate on aerosol

surfaces in the stratosphere anywhere around the globe, and

not only on polar stratospheric clouds as was previously believed.

After collecting more data, NASA released an April 30, 1992

"End of Mission Statement," which indicated that while a rise

in stratospheric temperatures in late January prevented severe

ozone depletion from occurring in the Arctic this year, observed

ozone levels were nonetheless lower than had previously been

recorded for this time of year. This information has further

increased the Agency's concern that significant ozone loss may

occur over populated regions of the earth, thus exposing humans,

plants and animals to harmful levels of UV

- B radiation, and

adds support to the need for further efforts to limit emissions

of anthropogenic chlorine and bromine.

In response to the preliminary findings, President Bush announced

on February 11, 1992, that the United States would unilaterally

accelerate the phaseout schedule for ozone

- depleting substances,

and he called upon other nations to agree to an accelerated

phaseout schedule as well. The President also asked U.S. producers

to reduce voluntarily 1992 output of class I substances to half

of the 1986 baseline levels. In addition, the President directed

EPA to re

- evaluate the phaseout schedule for HCFCs, and to consider

the phaseout of methyl bromide.

2. Copenhagen Revisions to the Montreal Protocol

On November 25, 1992, the Fourth Meeting of the Montreal

Protocol was convened. In this meeting, the Parties took a number

of actions, including accelerating the phaseout schedule of

CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform and

added HCFCs and methyl bromide to the list of chemicals to be

controlled under the Montreal Protocol.

The following adjustments to the phaseout schedules of previously

controlled substances were adopted at the Copenhagen meeting:

(a) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for the originally

controlled CFCs (class I, group I substances) to require a 75%

reduction in production and consumption (production plus imports

minus exports) from 1986 baseline levels for 1994 and 1995, 

### Page 8 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmland a complete phaseout by 1996;

(b) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for halons (class

I, group II substances) to require a complete phaseout in production

and consumption by 1994:

(c) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for other fully halogenated

CFCs (class I, group III substances) to require a reduction

from 1989 levels, 75% in 1994 and 1995, and a complete phaseout

of production and consumption by 1996;

(d) Accelerating the reduction schedules for carbon tetrachloride

(class I, group IV) by requiring a reduction from 1989 levels

of 85% in 1995, and a complete phaseout in 1996;

(e) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for methyl chloroform

(class I, group V) by reducing production and consumption to

50% of 1989 levels in 1994, and phasing out completely by 1996.

(f) Establishing criteria for identifying essential uses

and a process for excepting limited production and consumption

of the above chemicals following their phaseout (see below).

These adjustments go into effect in approximately six months.

In addition, the Parties adopted the following amendments

to the Protocol:

(a) Freezing consumption of HCFCs (class II substances) beginning

in 1996 to a baseline ceiling of: 100% of 1989 the ozone depletion

potential (ODP) weighted level of HCFC consumption, plus 3.1%

of the ODP

- weighted 1989 CFC consumption, followed by reductions

in the baseline to 65% by 2010, 90% by 2015, and 99.5% by 2020;

and completely phasing out consumption by 2030;

(b) Adding hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the list of

controlled substances, specifying their ozone depletion potential,

and phasing their production and consumption out completely

by 1996;

(c) Listing methyl bromide as a controlled substance with

an ozone depletion potential of 0.7, and freezing production

and consumption beginning in 1995 at 1991 consumption levels;

(not including amounts used for quarantine and preshipment uses);

(d) Establishing a procedure for the approval by the Parties

for continued production and consumption after phaseout to meet

essential use requirements; essential uses are defined as those

necessary for health or safety, or critical to the functioning

of society, and where there are no available alternatives or

existing stocks of banked or recycled material;

(e) Establishing reporting requirements for HCFCs, HBFCs,

and methyl bromide;

(f) Establishing reporting requirements for imports and exports

of controlled substances to and from non

- parties to the Protocol;

and

(g) Extending the prohibitions on trade with respect to foreign

states not party

- specified, which include banning imports from

foreign states not a party of Annex C, Group II ozone

- depleting

substances (HBFCs) and banning exports to foreign states not

a party of HBFCs, commencing 1 year of the Copenhagen Amendments

entry into force.

The Amendments will enter into force under the Protocol following

their ratification by at least twenty Parties. This is projected

to be accomplished by January 1, 1994.

The Parties also made a number of procedural and definitional

changes that affect implementation of the Protocol and that

are included in the proposed accelerated phaseout regulation.

The changes include:

(a) The approval of destruction technologies and the requirement

that Parties that plan to operate destruction facilities do

so in accordance with Good Housekeeping Procedures developed

by the Parties or with their equivalent;

(b) Clarification of the definition of controlled substances

to exclude insignificant quantities under defined circumstances,

and to encourage Parties to minimize emissions of such excluded 

### Page 9 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlsubstances;

(c) Clarification of the reporting requirements and treatment

of international transshipments;

(d) Clarification of the definition of controlled substance

to exclude the import and export of recycled and used controlled

substances from the calculation of consumption, but to require

reporting of data concerning these imports and exports.

3. The Proposed Accelerated Phaseout Regulation

In July 1992, EPA issued its final rule and regulatory program

implementing section 604 of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Section

604 limits the production and consumption of ozone

- depleting

chemicals. EPA controls production and consumption by issuing

allowances or permits that are expended in the production or

importation of these chemicals. Trading of these allowances

is permitted.

The regulation requires producers of class I substances to

gradually reduce their production of these chemicals and to

phase them out completely as of January 1, 2000 (2002 for methyl

chloroform). In addition to the production limits, the rule

requires a similar reduction in consumption.

In February 1992, the President requested that U.S. producers

voluntarily reduce their production of CFCs by half of the baseline

year levels and phase out CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl

chloroform and halons by January 1, 1996. He also announced

that the U.S. would revisit the phaseout schedule for HCFCs.

Several months earlier, EPA had received a petition from

the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Environmental

Defense Fund (EDF) and Friends of the Earth (FOE), requesting

earlier phaseouts of ozone

- depleting substances and that EPA

add methyl bromide to the list of class I substances and also

phase out its production. Another petition was submitted by

the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy that also supported

earlier phaseouts of CFCs and certain HCFCs.

Based on these national and international developments, EPA

proposed on January 19, 1993, to accelerate the phaseout of

CFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, halons, HCFC

141b, HCFC

- 142b, and HCFC

- 22. The Agency is also proposing to

add methyl bromide and HBFCs to the list of major class I substances

and phase them out by 2000 and 1996, respectively. In addition,

the proposal addresses various trade provisions required by

the Montreal Protocol.

H. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling

On December 10, 1992, EPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM, 57 FR 238). In that notice, EPA proposed regulations

under section 608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that would

have established a recycling program for ozone

- depleting refrigerants

recovered during the servicing and disposal of air

- conditioning

or refrigeration equipment. The proposed regulations would have

required persons servicing air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce refrigerant

emissions and would have established equipment and off

- site

reclaimer certification programs. The proposal did not include

a mandatory program for certifying technicians; however, comments

were solicited on the need and prudence of such a mandatory

program. In addition, EPA would have required that ozone

- depleting

compounds contained "in bulk" in appliances be removed prior

to disposal of the appliances, and that all air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment, except for small appliances and

room air conditioners, be provided with a servicing aperture

that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant. 

### Page 10 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlII. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides

the legal basis for this rulemaking. It requires EPA to establish

a comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone

- depleting

substances during their use and disposal.

Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief,

the first requires regulations to reduce the use and emission

of class I substances (CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and

methyl chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs) to the lowest

achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of such substances.

The second subsection requires that the regulations promulgated

pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements concerning the

safe disposal of class I and class II substances. Finally, the

third subsection establishes self

- effectuating prohibitions

on the venting into the environment of class I or class II substances,

and eventually their substitutes, during servicing and disposal

of air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment.

In particular, subsection (a) of section 608 requires EPA

to promulgate regulations "establishing standards and requirements

regarding the use and disposal" of both class I and class II

substances. The regulations required are to "reduce the use

and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level"

and are to "maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances."

Subsection (a) calls for EPA to promulgate such regulations

with respect to "the use and disposal of class I substances

during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial

process refrigeration" by January 1, 1992. (Appliance is defined

by section 601(1) as "any device which contains and uses a class

I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is used for

household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner,

refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA believes that motor

vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) are included within the scope

of the term "appliance" but that the servicing regulations promulgated

pursuant to section 609 of the Act eliminate the need to promulgate

servicing regulations for MVACs under section 608. MVACs, however,

are subject to disposal regulations promulgated today under

section 608.) These regulations were to become effective by

July 1, 1992.

Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) expands the scope of the

recycling and emission reduction regulations by requiring EPA

to promulgate additional regulations by November 15, 1994, that

establish standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal

of both class I and class II substances not covered by the initial

set of regulations, i.e., all other uses of class I and class

II substances. These regulations are to go into effect not later

than 12 months after their promulgation. Subsection (a) further

provides that the regulations promulgated pursuant to it may

include requirements to use alternative substances, to minimize

the use of class I or class II substances, or to promote the

use of safe alternatives to class I and class II substances.

Subsection (b) of section 608 requires that the regulations

under section 608(a) establish standards and requirements for

the safe disposal of class I and class II substances. These

are to include (1) requirements that such substances contained

"in bulk in appliances, machines or other goods" be removed

prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery for recycling;

(2) requirements that "any appliance, machine or other good

containing a class I or class II substances in bulk" be "equipped

with a servicing aperture or an equally effective design feature

which will facilitate the recapture of such substance;" and

(3) requirements that products in which a class I or class II

substance is an "inherent element" be disposed of "in a manner

that reduces, to the maximum extent practicable, the release 

### Page 11 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlof such substance into the environment."

The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) ultimately (by

November, 1994) apply to all uses of class I and class II substances,

including air

- conditioning and refrigeration, solvents, foam

blowing, and fire control. However, these subsections focus

first on the use and disposal of refrigerants during the service,

repair, or disposal of air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment.

Refrigerants also receive special emphasis in subsection

(c) of section 608, which provides in paragraph (1) that, effective

July 1, 1992, it is "unlawful for any person, in the course

of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance

or industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise

knowingly release or dispose of" class I or class II refrigerants

in a manner that "permits such substances to enter the environment."

Certain de minimis releases are exempted from this self

- effectuating

prohibition. As discussed below in Section III. D, EPA will

consider releases to be de minimis when they occur while the

recycling and recovery requirements of this regulation are followed.

Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition on venting to substances

that are substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants effective

November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that

such venting or releases do not pose a threat to the environment.

The Agency notes that since MVACs are covered by the term "appliance,"

the servicing and disposal of MVACs are subject to the prohibition

on venting.

The refrigerant recycling and safe disposal requirements

promulgated today are a major step in the implementation of

section 608. EPA research indicates that in all air

- conditioning

or refrigeration sectors, emissions during servicing and disposal

of equipment account for between 50 and 94 percent of total

emissions during the life cycle of the equipment (Regulatory

Impact Analysis: the National Recycling and Emission Reduction

Program, (RIA)). The recovery and recycling requirements published

today should significantly reduce emissions during servicing

and disposal. In those sectors where leakage during use accounts

for a significant percentage of total emissions, EPA is establishing

a program for requiring the repair of such leaks. EPA will consider

in the future the regulation of non

- refrigerant applications

of class I and class II compounds under section 608. These regulations

may include requirements for emission

- reducing engineering controls

and work practices and/or requirements to use alternative substances

in those uses for which substitutes exist. In determining what

further actions to take under section 608, EPA will consider

the accelerated phaseout dates for class I substances, the expected

costs, and environmental benefits of further regulation.

III. This Rule

A. Equipment and Refrigerants Affected

1. Equipment Affected

Today's final rule applies to the servicing and disposal

of most air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment, including

household air conditioners and refrigerators, commercial air

conditioners and chillers, commercial refrigeration, industrial

process refrigeration, refrigerated transport, and air

- conditioning

in vehicles not covered by EPA's regulations under section 609

of the Clean Air Act (which apply to the service of motor vehicle

air conditioners, or MVACS). As mentioned above, the rule also

applies to the disposal of air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment, including MVACs. Following is a description of the 

### Page 12 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlmajor categories of equipment that will be affected by the rule:

Household Refrigeration. This category consists of refrigerators

and freezers intended primarily for household use, though they

may be used outside the home (e.g., in an office). In terms

of the number of units currently in operation, this is the largest

sector affected by this rule, with an estimated 159 million

units. The amount of refrigerant (charge) in each of these units,

however, is quite small relative to the charge in equipment

in other sectors, ranging from six ounces to approximately one

pound of CFC

- 12. The quantity of refrigerant in this sector

that is available for recycling at servicing and disposal is

estimated to be approximately 6,000 metric tons per year when

weighted by the ozone

- depletion potential of the refrigerant.

(This and other estimates in this section are based on figures

from 1990.) This makes up approximately 19% of the total available

from the sectors affected by this rule when these quantities

are weighted by the ozone depletion potentials (or ODPs) of

the refrigerants. Because servicing is relatively rare in this

sector, approximately 90% of this 17% would be recovered at

disposal.

Other Refrigerated Appliances. Other refrigerated appliances

include dehumidifiers, vending machines, ice makers, and water

coolers. These equipment types have charge sizes and service

characteristics similar to those in the Household Refrigeration

sector. The total number of units of these types in current

operation is approximately 23 million units. The quantity of

refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available

for recycling at servicing and disposal is 700 metric tons per

year (ODP

- weighted), which makes up approximately two percent

of the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.

Residential Air

- conditioning. This sector includes window

units, packaged terminal air conditioners, central air conditioners,

light commercial air conditioners, and heat pumps. There are

approximately 85 million units in this sector, making it the

second largest. The residential air

- conditioning sector is similar

to the household refrigeration and other appliances sectors

because the equipment stock is large, the equipment is infrequently

serviced, and charge sizes are small (4

- 7 pounds). The quantity

of refrigerant in this sector that is available for recycling

at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 1800 metric tons

per year (when weighted by the ozone

- depletion potential of

the refrigerant), which makes up approximately six percent of

the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.

This figure is lower than that for household refrigeration because

residential and light commercial air

- conditioning relies exclusively

upon HCFC

- 22, which has approximately five percent of the ozone

depletion potential of CFC

- 12.

Transport Refrigeration. The Transport Refrigeration sector

consists of refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway

freight cars, and other shipping containers. With less than

one million transport refrigeration units currently in use,

this sector is relatively small. Trailers, railway cars, and

shipping containers are commonly charged with CFC

- 12. Ship holds,

on the other hand, rely on HCFC

- 22 and ammonia. The average

charge size in this sector is approximately 18 pounds, which

is relatively small compared to all but household sectors. The

quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to

be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 1900

metric tons per year (ODP

- weighted), which makes up approximately

six percent of the total available from the sectors affected

by this rule. Unlike equipment in the household sectors, equipment

in the transport refrigeration sector is usually serviced every

year. Thus, refrigerant recovered and recycled at servicing

would account for approximately 25% of the total recovered and

recycled in this sector. 

### Page 13 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlRetail Food. The retail food sector includes refrigerated

equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants,

and other food service establishments. The equipment includes

small reach

- in refrigerators and freezers, refrigerated display

cases, walk

- in coolers and freezers, as well as large parallel

systems. Convenience stores and restaurants typically use stand

alone refrigerators, freezers, and walk

- in coolers. In contrast,

supermarkets usually employ large parallel systems, which connect

many display cases to a central condensing unit by means of

extensive refrigerant piping. Because the piping required to

connect all of the cases may be miles long, these systems can

contain charges of over 500 pounds. Charges are typically CFC

12, CFC

- 502, or HCFC

- 22. The estimated total stock of retail

food equipment is approximately 1.6 million units. The quantity

of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available

for recycling at servicing and disposal is 9,000 metric tons

per year (ODP

- weighted), which makes up approximately 28% of

the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.

Cold Storage Warehouses. Cold storage warehouses are used

to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable

goods. There are approximately 665 million cubic feet of refrigerated

space in cold storage warehouses throughout the United States.

This sector is similar to the retail food sector, but its equipment

is serviced even more frequently (up to four times each year)

and can be charged with even greater quantities of refrigerant.

The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated

to be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 83

metric tons per year (ODP

- weighted), which makes up less than

one percent of the total available from the sectors affected

by this rule.

Commercial Comfort Air

- conditioning. Chillers are used to

regulate the temperature and humidity in offices, hotels, shopping

centers, and other large buildings. There are approximately

170,000 units currently installed, making this sector one of

the smallest affected by the recycling rule in terms of stock

size.

There are three major types of chillers: centrifugal, reciprocating,

and screw. Each of these is named for the type of compressor

employed. Centrifugal chillers, used to cool areas ranging from

30,000 to 600,000 square feet, are generally the largest and

can be charged with up to 900 kg (about 2000 pounds) of refrigerant.

These chillers may use CFC

- 11, CFC

- 12, CFC

- 500, or HCFC

- 22.

(Recently, centrifugal chillers utilizing HCFC

- 123 have been

introduced to the market; however, these new chillers currently

have a very small fraction of the market and are therefore not

included in this analysis.) Reciprocating chillers, used to

cool areas of less than 30,000 feet, are generally the smallest

and typically contain charges of about 160 pounds of CFC

- 12

or HCFC

- 22. Screw chillers are used to cool areas from 30,000

to 100,000 square feet and are charged with about 500 pounds

of HCFC

- 22. All of the systems are serviced frequently. The

quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available for

recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 5200

metric tons per year (ODP

- weighted), which makes up approximately

16% of the total available from the sectors affected by this

rule.

Chillers are long

- lasting relative to most air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment. Most will last over 20 years and

some will last 30 years or more. EPA believes that recovery

and recycling is already common in the chiller sector due to

the large charges of refrigerant involved.

Industrial Process Refrigeration. The industrial process

refrigeration sector includes industrial ice machines and ice

rinks, as well as many complex, customized systems used in the 

### Page 14 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlchemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and manufacturing industries.

Equipment in this sector is often critical to the continuous

production of valuable materials. As a result, industrial process

equipment is usually designed, manufactured, and installed with

special care to minimize down

- time for servicing and repair.

This sector uses a variety of refrigerants, including CFC

11, CFC

- 12, CFC

- 500, CFC

- 502, and HCFC

- 22. Charge sizes can

be very large, ranging from 750

- 3000 lbs for ice rinks, and

rising as high as 20,000 lbs for built

- up centrifugal units.

The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available

for recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 2000

metric tons per year (ODP

- weighted), which makes up approximately

six percent of the total available from the sectors affected

by this rule. Due to the high reliability of industrial process

equipment, servicing is uncommon, and most recovery will occur

at disposal. EPA believes that recycling is already common in

this sector.

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs). Motor vehicle air

conditioners (MVACs) include air conditioners in automobiles

and trucks. These recycling regulations only affect the disposal

of MVACs, because the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations

implementing section 609 of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Nevertheless,

with between 120 and 140 million MVACs currently on the road,

this sector is one of the largest sectors affected by the recycling

rule. Most MVACs use CFC

- 12, but some now use HFC

- 134a.

MVACs have the highest leakage rates of refrigerant charges

of any equipment type affected by the recycling rule. Limited

studies suggest that only 40 percent of all MVACs still contain

a refrigerant charge at disposal. The original charge, moreover,

is small (two to four pounds). However, the quantity of refrigerant

in this sector that is available for recycling at disposal is

estimated to be 5000 metric tons per year, which makes up approximately

17% of the total available from the sectors affected by this

rule.

Comfort Cooling in Vehicles Other Than Trucks and Automobiles.

Although the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations implementing

section 609 of the Act, the servicing (and disposal) of air

conditioners in other vehicles, such as trains, airplanes, ships,

buses, construction equipment, and farm vehicles would be covered

by these recycling regulations. Due to the lack of data available

on releases from the cooling systems used in these applications,

these uses were not analyzed. However, the quantity of refrigerant

available for recycling from this sector is expected to comprise

only a small fraction of the total available from the sectors

affected by this rule.

2. Refrigerants Affected

Although EPA is not expressly required to include class II

substances in the recycling regulations to become effective

on July 1, 1992, EPA proposed to include class II substances

in today's rule for a number of reasons. First, the prohibition

on venting that became effective on July 1 covers both class

I and class II substances, and EPA considered it desirable to

provide a clear, consistent framework for fully implementing

the prohibition on venting for all refrigerants. The Agency

believed that this framework would minimize confusion and maximize

compliance with the prohibition. Second, the goals of this regulation,

to minimize refrigerant emissions and to help ensure that a

supply of high

- quality refrigerant is available to service equipment

in the future, apply to both class I and class II refrigerants.

Without specific requirements, recycling could proceed improperly,

leading to excessive HCFC emissions, contamination of refrigerant,

and damage to equipment. Third, most technicians routinely work

with both types of refrigerants and therefore would need the

equipment to handle refrigerants in accordance with the rule

even if class II substances were not included. Industry representatives 

### Page 15 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlon the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling agreed with this rationale

and with the inclusion of class II substances in the regulation.

A number of commenters also supported the inclusion of class

II substances in the regulation, citing the reasons above. Several

of these stated that including class II substances would result

in a more consistent and less confusing regulatory structure

for the industry, especially since the prohibition on venting

affects both class I and class II substances. Commenters believed

that compliance with the prohibition on venting and with the

regulations would be diminished if only class I substances were

covered by the rule. Commenters also noted that most recycling

and recovery equipment handles both class I and class II substances,

implying that the cost of purchasing certified equipment to

process class II substances would be negligible. One commenter

noted that inclusion of class II substances in the regulation

would provide additional protection to human health and the

environment.

Commenters who opposed including class II substances in the

regulation argued that efforts to comply with Section 608 for

class I substances would consume significant industry resources

and that users of both class I and class II substances would

probably recycle class II substances if they were complying

with regulations for class I substances. Commenters also stated

that a delay in regulating class II substances could encourage

borderline uses to convert from class I to class II based on

the savings realized from avoiding the cost of complying with

the regulation. However, one commenter believed that EPA should

examine other possibilities for making the conversion from class

I to class II substances economically attractive, for instance

by easing equipment certification and recordkeeping standards.

After reviewing the comments, EPA continues to believe that

the inclusion of class II substances in this regulation is warranted.

The positive consequences of regulating class II substances

at this time far outweigh the possible negative consequences.

As a number of commenters observed, the prohibition on venting

requires persons servicing and disposing of appliances containing

class II substances to recover or recycle the refrigerant in

any event, and the cost of the recycling and recovery procedure

itself is by far the most important component of the costs of

this rule. By extending this rule to class II substances, EPA

expects to facilitate compliance with the venting prohibition

by providing: (1) Clear guidance to technicians recovering class

II substances on what releases do and do not constitute violations

of the prohibition, (2) information on the performance of recycling

and recovery equipment intended for use with class II substances

through the equipment certification program, and (3) information

on how to recycle effectively and efficiently through the technician

certification program. EPA believes that this will both reduce

emissions and increase the quality of recycled refrigerant.

At the same time, the rule will provide incentives for moving

from class I to class II substances because it establishes somewhat

less stringent requirements for HCFCs (such as HCFC

- 22) than

for CFCs. EPA further notes that section 608(a)(2) requires

EPA to promulgate regulations concerning the recovery and recycling

of class II substances by November 15, 1994, approximately 18

months after the promulgation of this rule. This relatively

short period before regulations are mandated minimizes any possible

benefits of delaying the regulations.

B. Overview of Requirements

EPA's final rule has five main elements, which, taken together,

satisfy the criteria of section 608 concerning recycling, emissions

reduction, and disposal. First, the Agency requires technicians 

### Page 16 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlservicing and disposing of air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce refrigerant

emissions. Second, EPA requires technicians servicing air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment to obtain certification through

an EPA

- approved testing organization and restricts sales of

refrigerant to these certified technicians. Third, EPA establishes

equipment and reclaimer certification programs. These would

have the goals of verifying: (1) That all recycling or recovery

equipment sold was capable of minimizing emissions and (2) that

reclaimed refrigerant on the market was of known and acceptable

quality to avoid equipment failures from contaminated refrigerant.

Fourth, EPA requires repair of substantial leaks, based on annual

leak rates which vary according to two categories of refrigeration

equipment. Fifth, to implement the safe disposal requirements

of section 608, EPA requires that ozone

- depleting refrigerants

in appliances, machines, and other goods be removed from those

items prior to their disposal, and that all air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment except for small appliances and

room air conditioners be provided with a servicing aperture

that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant. Small appliances

will require a process stub for easy access.

In order to allow the regulated community sufficient time

to come into compliance with the requirements, EPA will phase

them in over a period of one to eighteen months. In addition,

the Agency will "grandfather in" equipment meeting certain minimum

requirements set forth in Section III, as well as "grandfather"

technicians who have fulfilled certain requirements. These grandfathering

provisions are intended to encourage the regulated community

to begin recycling as soon as possible using available equipment

rather than delaying action until certified equipment is available.

C. Factors Considered in the Development of this Rule

Section 608 of the Clean Air Act provides the statutory basis

for the standards and requirements contained in these regulations.

The statutory standards against which the regulations concerning

the use and disposal of ozone

- depleting substances are to be

measured is whether they "reduce the use and emission of such

substances to the lowest achievable level" and "maximize the

recapture and recycling of such substances." EPA believes that,

in the context of recycling, these standards are complementary,

i.e., that maximizing recycling will also mean reducing the

use and emission of these substances to the lowest achievable

level. EPA also believes that these standards bear a relationship

to the de minimis releases permitted, notwithstanding the general

prohibition on venting or other releases contained in section

608(c). In other words, emissions that occur while complying

with EPA's recovery and recycling requirements, which achieve

the lowest achievable level of emissions, will only be de minimis

releases.

In applying the statutory standards concerning use, emissions,

and recycling, EPA is taking into account both technological

and economic factors. The phrases "lowest achievable level"

and "maximize recycling" are not defined in the Act. EPA does

not believe that these standards are solely technological in

nature, but rather contemplate a role for economic factors in

determining the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximum

amount of recycling. As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA's

program takes into account in an appropriate manner the technology

available, costs, benefits, and leadtimes involved. EPA believes

that the language of the Clean Air Act and the legislative history

of section 608 both support its approach.

In jointly

- submitted comments, two environmental organizations

(Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Friends of the

Earth (FOE)) contended that EPA's consideration of costs and 

### Page 17 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlbenefits in this rulemaking was unlawful. The organizations

stated that they "do not assert that the statutory language

totally precludes any economic considerations. But we do insist

that the legally permissible scope for such considerations is

far more limited than the broad cost

- benefit test EPA has asserted."

The commenters then assert that the "term `lowest achievable

emission level' clearly reflects the term `lowest achievable

emission rate,' or `LAER,' used since 1977 in part D of title

I" and proceed to argue that a variant of this standard, described

as "the most stringent test for technology

- based standards under

the Act" controls EPA's standard

- setting authority under section

608 of the Act. According to NRDC/FOE, "standards under section

608 should be set at levels reflecting the best controlled sources

in each relevant sector of the air

- conditioning and refrigeration

industry. As long as those levels have been achieved by some

members of a given sector, they must be considered achievable

across the sector. The only basis for lessening the stringency

of such requirements would be if they are so costly that typical

firms in that sector could not bear them."

Other commenters, however, supported the method used by EPA

to analyze costs and benefits in determining what standards

to propose.

EPA has carefully considered the comments of NRDC and FOE

on this issue, as well as those of other parties, and continues

to believe that its approach to the analysis of costs and benefits

is appropriate and permissible under section 608. EPA first

notes that, in determining the appropriate standards, EPA has

not applied a strict cost

- benefit test. Rather, EPA has focussed

primarily on the state of recovery technology and only secondarily

considered costs and benefits, along with the varied applications

of air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment and the structure

of the equipment service and disposal industry. The Agency is

allowing use of less than the most efficient technology available

only when the costs of using this technology in the field far

outweigh the benefits.

The Agency believes that it has fulfilled its statutory obligation

to establish "the lowest achievable level of emissions" and

that in many cases its standards represent the best that can

be technologically achieved. The standards proposed by EPA generally

reflect the performance of the "best controlled source" in each

sector under commonly encountered conditions in the field. The

variability of these conditions is considerably greater in each

air

- conditioning and refrigeration industry sector than it is

in most other industry sectors, particularly those affected

by LAER. Thus, for instance, the fact that a recovery device

removing R

- 12 from an appliance at 70 degrees F can achieve

a twenty

- inch vacuum does not imply that EPA should set its

evacuation requirements at this level, because the same recovery

device would scarcely be able to reach a ten

- inch vacuum on

R

- 502 at 90 degrees F.

Where the performance of the best controlled sources is not

the standard, EPA has found that the costs of implementing the

controls far outweigh the benefits. For instance, according

to appliance manufacturers, between 80 and 90 percent of firms

in the small appliance sector make fewer than 10 repairs a year

that require recovery of refrigerant. The most efficient recovery

devices intended for use in this sector may recover between

5 and 10 percent more refrigerant from a small appliance than

the least efficient, but they also cost approximately four times

as much ($900 vs. $215). For a firm performing 10 recovery jobs

per year on refrigerators charged with 6 ounces of refrigerant,

this difference results in the recovery of no more than 6 additional

ounces of refrigerant per year. At the same time, the cost of

the more efficient equipment could have an appreciable impact 

### Page 18 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlon firms in this sector, approximately 37 percent of which EPA

estimates are in poor financial condition prior to imposition

of the regulation (RIA). Thus, EPA is permitting the use of

the less efficient recovery equipment. This is in accord with

the comments of NRDC and FOE, which acknowledge that if controls

are "so costly that typical firms in that sector could not bear

them," then less stringent controls are warranted.

Nevertheless, as discussed further in the response to the

comments document, to the extent that there is a difference

between EPA's approach and the approach suggested by NRDC and

FOE, EPA does not believe that it is legally compelled to adopt

the approach to economic considerations suggested by NRDC/FOE.

In sum, the Agency believes that its approach of focusing primarily

on the technological feasibility and only secondarily on economic

issues is authorized by section 608.

The stringency of the regulations promulgated to implement

these standards are affected by the amount of leadtime between

their date of promulgation and their effective date. The longer

the leadtime, the more time there would have been for technological

innovations and development to occur, thereby permitting the

establishment of more stringent standards. Conversely, shorter

leadtimes necessitate standards based more on the degree of

emission control and performance achievable by equipment already

available or equipment that will be available in the near future.

With respect to the present set of regulations, the leadtime

is necessarily short as section 608(a)(1) provides for an effective

date of July 1, 1992, for the regulations covering the use and

disposal of class I substances used in appliances and industrial

process refrigeration. Because the effective date has passed,

these regulations as they pertain to recovery/recycling of class

I and class II substances will go into effect thirty days following

publication of this rule (unless stated otherwise). For regulations

authorized by section 608(a)(2), the initial effective date

must be within 12 months of promulgation.

EPA has considered these factors in developing these regulations,

and the Agency believes that it has designed a program that

will achieve the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximize

recycling, taking into account in an appropriate manner the

technology available, costs, benefits, and the leadtimes involved.

Through extensive discussions with industry representatives

and environmental organizations, EPA has attempted to identify

significant emissions and methods for controlling them during

the repair, service, and disposal of air

- conditioning or refrigeration

equipment. In many cases, the requirements will mandate activity

already being undertaken by standard

- setting and equipment certification

organizations in the heating, ventilation, air

- conditioning,

and refrigeration (HVAC/R) sector. They are also very similar

to the steps being taken to recycle refrigerant in MVACs, an

area where recycling has been successfully implemented.

EPA also took into consideration the over 15,000 comments

requesting that a mandatory technician certification be included

in the final rule. EPA views a mandatory technician certification

program as instrumental in facilitating a workable recovery

and recycling program. Commenters expressed the need of technicians

for a level playing field, as well as for consistent knowledge

with which to perform recovery and recycling properly.

EPA has attempted to develop a regulatory program that accommodates

the wide variety of sizes and types of equipment subject to

this regulation. In setting its efficiency standards for recycling

and recovery equipment, EPA has considered among other factors

both the charge size and frequency of servicing for different

types of equipment. In general, as charge size and frequency

of servicing increase, potential emissions increase, and higher

recovery efficiencies are justified. For instance, the household

refrigeration and other refrigerated appliances categories that 

### Page 19 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlcombine to make up the "small appliances" category in today's

rule have small charges and are serviced infrequently. Under

today's final rule, recovery equipment in this category would

be subject to a standard that requires recovery of between 80

and 90% of the refrigerant (depending upon whether or not the

compressor of the small appliance is operational). On the other

hand, equipment containing more than 200 lbs of charge would

be subject to a standard that requires recovery of over 99%

of the refrigerant. Equipment standards are discussed in detail

in section III.G.

EPA additionally considered average leak rates of average

maintained equipment in setting the three levels of annual leak

rates that would trigger mandatory repair of such leaks. EPA

also considered the numerous comments that requested EPA to

include a mandatory provision in this rulemaking for repairing

substantial leaks.

EPA has also considered typical methods of disposal in developing

these regulations. Under this proposal, equipment that is typically

dismantled on

- site before disposal (retail food refrigeration,

cold storage warehouse refrigeration, chillers, and industrial

process refrigeration) must have the refrigerant removed and

recovered in accordance with EPA's proposed requirements for

servicing. For these types of equipment, the persons who perform

servicing usually also perform disposal. This is generally not

the case, however, for smaller items such as household refrigerators

and freezers, room air conditioners, and motor vehicle air conditioners.

This equipment is disposed of by consumers and generally enters

the waste stream with the charge intact. EPA is proposing distinct

safe disposal requirements for this equipment, which would make

the final person in the disposal chain (e.g., a scrap metal

recycler) responsible for ensuring that refrigerant has been

recovered from equipment before the final disposal of the equipment.

Equipment covered by these requirements also includes dehumidifiers,

water coolers, and other relatively portable equipment in addition

to household refrigerators and freezers and MVACs. EPA's safe

disposal program is discussed in detail in section III.M.

D. Public Participation

EPA has worked extensively with outside groups in developing

this proposal. In particular, the Agency established and met

repeatedly with the Subcommittee for Recycling and Emissions

Reduction of EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory Committee

(STOPAC). The STOPAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered

in 1989 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.

section 9(c), to provide independent counsel to EPA on specific

issues affecting the international negotiations and domestic

implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Since the enactment

of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, the STOPAC has also

provided advice on the implementation of Title VI of this legislation.

The Subcommittee for Recycling has over 50 members representing

air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufacturers,

wholesalers, servicers, and users, manufacturers of recycling

and recovery equipment, refrigerant manufacturers and reclaimers,

educational organizations, state and local governments, and

environmental groups. To date, EPA has met with members of the

Subcommittee six times: The Subcommittee as a whole met twice,

and smaller groups met to discuss equipment certification, technician

certification, reclaimer certification and safe disposal. Summaries

of these meetings are available in the public docket for this

rulemaking.

EPA also worked with the air

- conditioning and refrigeration

industry's primary standards

- setting organizations, the Air

conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American 

### Page 20 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlSociety of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

- Conditioning Engineers,

Inc. (ASHRAE), in developing its rule. Wherever appropriate,

EPA has incorporated standards and guidelines from these organizations

into the proposed rule. Examples of incorporated standards include

the ARI Standard 700

- 1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,

and the ARI Standard 740

- 1993 (an update of 700

- 1991), Performance

of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling, and/or Reclaim Equipment.

EPA also considered the ASHRAE Guideline 3, Reducing Emission

of Fully Halogenated Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Refrigerants in

Refrigeration and Air

- Conditioning Equipment and Applications,

in developing its rule.

In addition to convening the Subcommittee for Recycling,

EPA met with various industry representatives to gather data

on refrigerant emissions, to better understand current industry

practices, and to discuss a range of technical issues. The data

on refrigerant emissions were used to update EPA's vintaging

analysis, which analyzes emissions by equipment type and life

cycle stage (e.g., manufacturing, use, servicing, or disposal).

This analysis has been used to calculate the potential costs

and benefits of this rule and to identify opportunities for

further emissions reductions. The data used in the analysis

is presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this

proposal, also available in the public docket. Industry groups

that have provided or commented on data include appliance manufacturers,

chiller manufacturers and servicers, industrial process refrigeration

manufacturers and users, commercial refrigeration manufacturers

and users, refrigerated transport manufacturers, servicers and

users, and manufacturers and users of comfort air cooling systems

for commercial vehicles.

Following proposal of the rule, EPA held a public hearing

on December 23, 1992. During the comment period, over 20,000

comments were submitted to EPA. All of these comments were considered

in the development of the final rule. Major comments are addressed

in the preamble to this rulemaking. All other comments are addressed

in the "Response to Comments Document" that can be found in

Air Docket A

- 92

- 01.

E. Definitions and Interpretations

Appliance

As was proposed, EPA is adopting the Act's definition of

"appliance". The Act defines "appliance" as "any device which

contains and uses a class I or class II substance as a refrigerant

and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including

any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA

interprets this definition to include all air

- conditioning and

refrigeration equipment except that designed and used exclusively

for military applications. Thus, the term "appliance" includes

all the sectors of air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment

described under Section III.A. above, including household refrigerators

and freezers (which may be used outside the home), other refrigerated

appliances, residential and light commercial air

- conditioning,

transport refrigeration, retail food refrigeration, cold storage

warehouses, commercial comfort air

- conditioning, motor vehicle

air conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under

section 609, and industrial process refrigeration. (In sections

608(a) and 608(c), the Act refers specifically to "industrial

process refrigeration," a term that is not defined. EPA believes

that all refrigeration equipment categorized as industrial process

refrigeration in Section III.A. above also falls within the

broad statutory definition of "appliance.")

In the proposal, the Agency requested comment on using its

authority under section 608(a)(2) to adopt a broader definition 

### Page 21 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlof appliance that would include equipment designed and used

exclusively for military applications. EPA received comments

both favoring and opposing the inclusion of military equipment

in the term "appliance." Commenters favoring inclusion noted

that the military is a large user of CFCs and argued that military

equipment should be exempt from the regulation only in time

of war or when compliance with the regulations would lessen

the military effectiveness of the equipment. Commenters opposing

inclusion (the Department of Defense, or DOD) argued that regulation

of equipment designed and used exclusively for military applications

was not necessary, because DOD was committed to meeting recovery

and recycling standards at least as stringent as those in the

commercial sector, "except where the unique design and use of

the equipment or other mission critical operations preclude

this." In cases in which commercial standards could not be met,

DOD stated that it would set its own standards to minimize environmental

hazards while ensuring mission accomplishment. DOD also stated

that "equipment designed and used exclusively for military applications"

comprised a relatively small percentage of their equipment,

further reducing environmental concerns.

EPA agrees that there may be situations in which the unique

design and use of military equipment makes it impossible to

recover or recycle refrigerant during the servicing, maintenance,

repair, or disposal of the equipment. However, the Agency reemphasizes

that if the air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment used

in a military application is identical to equipment used in

a commercial application, then it is covered by the Act's definition

(and hence by these regulations). For example, a room air conditioner

used on a military base is still considered an appliance even

though the use of that particular piece of equipment may not

be for commercial or household purposes. Similarly, although

a refrigerator in some other government facility is not used

for household or commercial purposes, that refrigerator is still

considered an appliance because that identical kind of equipment

is used for household or commercial purposes in other contexts.

For purposes of enforcing these regulations, EPA will consider

"identical equipment" to include air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment whose system of working parts (e.g., compressor, motor,

evaporator, and condenser) is identical to that in equipment

used for a household or commercial purpose. Equipment that has

been modified only externally for a military application (e.g.,

painted or encased in a new cabinet) will still be considered

"identical" to equipment used for household or commercial purposes

and will therefore be subject to these regulations.

Approved Equipment Testing Organization

EPA defines Approved Equipment Testing Organization as any

organization which has applied for and received approval from

EPA to test recycling and recovery equipment.

Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment

EPA defines Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment as

equipment certified by an approved testing organization to meet

EPA's final standards on equipment purchased before November

15, 1993, that meets EPA's standards for grandfathered equipment.

Commercial Refrigeration

As is discussed in more detail in section III.F.3, EPA is

establishing a maximum allowable leak rate of 35% per year for

industrial process and commercial refrigeration. EPA is defining

commercial refrigerant as the refrigeration appliances utilized 

### Page 22 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlin the retail food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail

food includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets,

convenience stores, restaurants and other food service establishments.

Cold storage includes the equipment used to store meat, produce,

dairy products, and other perishable goods. All of the equipment

contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds.

Disposal

EPA is defining "disposal" as the process leading to and

including:

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded

appliance into or on any land or water,

(2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit,

dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or

on any land or water, or

(3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component

parts.

High

- Pressure Appliance

Because the physical properties of high, very high, and low

pressure refrigerants differ, EPA is establishing somewhat different

requirements for technicians and equipment servicing high, very

high, and low

- pressure appliances. EPA defines high

- pressure

appliances as appliances that use a refrigerant with a boiling

point between

- 50 and 10 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure

(29.9 inches Hg). This definition would include equipment using

CFCs

- 12,

- 114,

- 500, and

- 502, and HCFC

- 22. EPA has changed

this definition since the proposal to include CFC

- 114 in response

to comments stating that the physical differences between CFC

114 and the other high

- pressure refrigerants did not warrant

a special category for the latter. The proposed intermediate

pressure appliance category has consequently been eliminated.

Industrial Process Refrigeration

As is discussed in more detail in section III.F.3, EPA is

establishing a maximum allowable leak rate of 35% per year for

industrial process and commercial refrigeration. EPA is defining

industrial process refrigeration as complex customized appliances

used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing

industries. The sector is also defined to include industrial

ice machines and ice rinks.

Low

- Loss Fitting

EPA is requiring that recovery or recycling machines manufactured

after November 15, 1993, possess low

- loss fittings. EPA had

proposed that the term "low

- loss" fitting include only automatically

closing fittings. A number of commenters disagreed with this

definition, noting that automatically closing fittings can restrict

refrigerant flow in some cases, slowing the recovery process,

and that automatic fittings sometimes open or close unexpectedly,

releasing refrigerant. These commenters recommended that EPA

expand its definition of low

- loss fitting to include fittings

that can be closed manually, such as manual ball valve fittings.

The commenters noted that "manual ball valves are in wide use

in the refrigeration industry and have proven themselves to

be safe and reliable." In response to these comments, EPA is

defining a low

- loss fitting as any device that is intended to

establish a connection between hoses, air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment, or recovery or recycling machines and that is designed

to close automatically or manually when disconnected, minimizing 

### Page 23 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlthe release of refrigerant from hoses, air

- conditioning or refrigeration

equipment, and recovery or recycling machines.

Low

- Pressure Appliance

EPA defines low

- pressure appliances as appliances that use

a refrigerant with a boiling point above 10 degrees Centigrade

at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches Hg). This definition includes

appliances using CFCs

- 11 and

- 113, and HCFC

- 123.

Major Maintenance, Service, or Repair

EPA is permitting persons servicing appliances to evacuate

(or, in the case of low

- pressure appliances, to pressurize)

appliances to atmospheric pressure when the maintenance, service,

or repair is not major and when an evacuation of the appliance

to the environment is not performed after the servicing or repair

is completed. As is discussed in section III.F.1.b, many non

major repairs involve uncovering only a small opening in the

appliance and take place in only a few minutes, limiting both

the quantity of refrigerant that escapes and the quantity of

air and moisture that enter the system. However, major repairs

involve uncovering larger openings in the system and are more

time consuming, allowing refrigerant to escape and air to enter.

This in turn necessitates an evacuation of the appliance to

the environment at the conclusion of service. EPA is defining

"major maintenance, service, or repair" as maintenance, service,

or repair that involves removal of the appliance compressor,

condenser, evaporator, or auxiliary heat exchanger coil.

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC)

Although the servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners

(MVACs) is covered by the MVAC refrigerant recycling rule, 40

CFR part 82 subpart B, the disposal of motor vehicle air conditioners

is covered by this rule. EPA is adopting the definition of MVAC

in the MVAC refrigerant recycling rule as the definition of

MVAC in this rule. In the MVAC rule, MVAC is defined as mechanical

vapor compression refrigeration equipment used to cool the driver's

or passenger's compartment of any motor vehicle. Motor vehicle

is in turn defined as "any vehicle which is self

- propelled and

designed for transporting persons or property on a street or

highway, including but not limited to passenger cars, light

duty vehicles, and heavy duty vehicles." Transport refrigeration

and air conditioning systems using HCFC

- 22 are excluded from

the definition of MVAC.

MVAC

- like Appliance

Some of the air conditioners that are covered by this rule

are identical to MVACs, but they are not covered by the MVACs

refrigerant recycling rule (40 CFR part 82 subpart B, 57 FR

31241) because they are used in vehicles that are not defined

as "motor vehicles." These air conditioners include many systems

used in construction equipment and farm vehicles. Like MVACs

in cars and trucks, these air conditioners typically contain

two to three pounds of CFC

- 12 and use open

- drive compressors

to cool the passenger compartments of vehicles. As is discussed

in section III.G.3, EPA is adopting the requirements regarding

the certification and use of recycling and recovery equipment

in the MVACs rule for MVAC

- like appliances covered by this rule.

EPA is also allowing technicians who service MVAC

- like appliances

to be certified by a certification program approved under the

MVAC rule, if they wish. EPA is defining MVAC

- like appliance

as mechanical vapor compression, open

- drive compressor appliances 

### Page 24 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlused to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of a non

road vehicle, including agricultural and construction vehicles.

The definition excludes appliances using HCFC

- 22.

Normally Containing

EPA is establishing stricter evacuation requirements for

high pressure appliances or appliance components "normally containing"

more than 200 pounds of refrigerant. As is discussed in section

III.G, EPA considered the environmental impact of the refrigerant

that remains in the large appliance or appliance component after

recovery is complete in setting the more stringent standards.

(During disposal and during many service procedures, this remaining

refrigerant is ultimately released to the environment). The

quantity of refrigerant that remains in an appliance or appliance

component is related to two variables: (1) The internal pressure

of the appliance or appliance component, and (2) the internal

volume of the appliance or appliance component. The internal

volume is in turn related to the mass of refrigerant that is

inside the appliance or appliance component when the appliance

is operating with a full charge of refrigerant. Thus, EPA is

defining "normally containing" as containing the quantity of

refrigerant within the appliance or appliance component when

the appliance is operating with a full charge of refrigerant.

It is important to note that although the mass of refrigerant

in an appliance or appliance component can be changed through

leakage or system pump

- down, only the quantity of refrigerant

normally contained by the appliance or appliance component can

be considered in determining whether or not the stricter requirements

apply.

Opening

EPA is requiring that technicians recover refrigerant from

appliances before "opening" them for maintenance, service or

repair. EPA defines "opening" an appliance as any service, maintenance,

or repair on an appliance that could be reasonably expected

to release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere

unless the refrigerant were previously recovered from the appliance.

Person

EPA is requiring that refrigerant transferred between air

conditioning or refrigeration equipment owned by different persons

must be fully reclaimed. EPA defines person as any individual

or legal entity, including an individual, corporation, partnership,

association, state, municipality, political subdivision of a

state, Indian tribe, and any agency, department, or instrumentality

of the United States, and any officer, agent, or employee thereof.

This is identical to the definition used in the regulations

concerning the production and consumption of ozone

- depleting

substances (40 CFR 82.3(r)).

Process Stub

EPA is requiring that small appliances and room air conditioners

sold after November 15, 1993 be provided with a process stub

to facilitate removal of the refrigerant at servicing. The Agency

defines process stub as a length of tubing that provides access

to the refrigerant inside a small appliance or room air conditioner

and that can be resealed at the conclusion of repair or service.

Reclaim 

### Page 25 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlEPA is adopting a slightly modified form of ASHRAE's definition

of "reclaim." According to ASHRAE, to reclaim refrigerant is

to:

Reprocess refrigerant to new product specifications by means

which may include distillation. Will require chemical analysis

of the refrigerant to determine that appropriate product specifications

are met. This term usually implies the use of processes or procedures

available only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.

EPA is refining this definition to refer specifically to the

ARI Standard 700

- 1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants

(included as Appendix A to the proposed rule) for the "new product

specifications" and also for the appropriate type of chemical

analysis to ensure that these specifications are met. For the

Agency's purposes, the most important part of the definition

of reclaim is the requirement to chemically analyze the final

product to verify purity. Without such analysis and verification,

the Agency will not consider refrigerant to have been reclaimed.

Recover

EPA also is adopting ASHRAE's definition of "recover:" to

remove refrigerant in any condition from a system without necessarily

testing or processing it in any way.

Recycle

Although the Act's usage of the term "recycle" is very broad,

encompassing, for instance, the term "reclaim" as defined above,

EPA defines the term more narrowly in its regulations. Once

again, EPA is adopting ASHRAE's definition, with minor changes.

ASHRAE states that to recycle is to:

Clean refrigerant for reuse by oil separation and single

or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable core

filter

- driers, which reduce moisture, acidity and particulate

matter. This term usually applies to procedures implemented

at the field job site or at a local service shop.

The key difference between "recycle" and "reclaim" is that the

former does not involve chemical analysis of the product. Recycling

essentially encompasses all types of treatment of refrigerant

that do not involve such chemical analysis. As explained in

a later section of this notice, EPA is requiring for two years

that all refrigerant changing hands must be fully reclaimed,

implying that the vast majority of recycling will take place

on site as opposed to at a local service shop.

Self

- contained Recovery Equipment

Recovery equipment can be divided into two main types: Self

contained and system

- dependent. EPA referred to these two types

of equipment as "active" and "passive" respectively in the proposal,

but has changed the terminology in response to comments indicating

that "self

- contained" and "system

- dependent" are the more common

terms used in the industry. While self

- contained equipment has

its own means to draw refrigerant out of the refrigerator system,

system

- dependent equipment relies solely upon the compressor

in the appliance and/or the pressure of the refrigerant in the

appliance to recover the refrigerant. EPA defines these two

types of equipment accordingly.

Small Appliance 

### Page 26 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlEPA proposed to define as a "small appliance" air

- conditioning

or refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound of

charge during normal operation. This classification was intended

to include household refrigerators, household freezers, dehumidifiers,

vending machines, and water coolers, for which EPA proposed

to establish special servicing and safe disposal requirements.

The rule establishes separate requirements for small appliances

in three areas. First, small appliances, unlike other appliances,

can be evacuated using equipment certified under Appendix C.

Second, technicians servicing small appliances can be certified

by taking an unproctored rather than proctored test. Third,

small appliances can be manufactured with a process stub rather

than a servicing aperture. The rationale for establishing somewhat

less stringent requirements for the servicing and disposal of

small appliances is that they contain smaller quantities of

refrigerant and are serviced less often than other appliances.

EPA received a number of comments stating that the use of

the one

- pound limit to define "small appliances" was inappropriate.

These comments stated that the one

- pound limit excluded some

household refrigerators and freezers, and also excluded equipment,

such as room air conditioners, that had the same technical attributes

and was serviced by the same work force as household refrigerators

and freezers. The commenters suggested that EPA adopt a definition

that would include room air conditioners, packaged terminal

air conditioners, and packaged terminal heat pumps in addition

to household refrigerators and freezers, dehumidifiers, vending

machines, and drinking water coolers. The commenters argued

that the former types of equipment, like the latter, are charged

and sealed at the factory, contain relatively small quantities

of refrigerant (particularly when that quantity is weighted

by the relatively low ozone

- depletion potential of HCFC

- 22),

and are serviced infrequently by the same technicians who service

household refrigerators and freezers. Thus, they should be treated

the same way in the rule as household refrigerators and freezers.

EPA believes that the commenters are correct that room air

conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs), and

packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) are sufficiently similar

in these respects to household refrigerators and freezers to

justify inclusion in the definition of "small appliance." EPA

is therefore revising its proposed definition of "small appliance"

to:

Small appliance means any of the following products that

are fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in

a factory with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant: Refrigerators

and freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners (including

window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners),

packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under

- the

- counter

ice makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.

System

- dependent Recovery Equipment

As discussed above in the explanation of the term "self

- contained

equipment," EPA defines a system

- dependent recovery device as

a device that relies upon the compressor in an appliance to

remove the refrigerant into an external container.

Technician

EPA is establishing in today's rule a number of requirements

that apply to technicians. EPA defines technician as any person

who performs maintenance, service, or repair to air

- conditioning

or refrigeration equipment that could reasonably be expected

to release CFCs or HCFCs into the atmosphere, e.g., installer, 

### Page 27 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlcontractor employee, in

- house service personnel, and in some

cases, owner. Technician also means any person disposing of

air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment except for small

appliances and MVACs.

Very High

- Pressure Equipment

EPA defines very high

- pressure equipment as air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment that uses a refrigerant with a boiling

point below

- 50 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure.

This definition includes equipment using refrigerants 13 and

503.

F. Required Practices

EPA is requiring persons servicing or disposing of air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment to observe certain service practices

that minimize emissions of ozone

- depleting refrigerants. The

most fundamental of these practices is the requirement to recover

refrigerant rather than vent it to the atmosphere. As noted

above, the knowing venting of class I or class II refrigerant

during servicing or disposal (except for de minimis releases

associated with a good faith attempt to recapture, recycle,

or safely dispose of the refrigerant) has been expressly prohibited

by section 608(c) of the Act since July 1, 1992.

Knowing venting is any release that permits a class I or

class II substance to enter the environment and that takes place

with the knowledge of the technician during the maintenance,

servicing, repairing, or disposal of air

- conditioning or refrigeration

equipment. Two commenters argued that EPA was interpreting "knowing

release" too narrowly. These commenters asserted that a technician

who fills a leaking system is knowingly venting refrigerant.

As discussed below in Section III.F.3, this rule requires repair

of leaks above a certain size in equipment normally containing

more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. However, the venting prohibition

itself, which applies to the maintenance, service, repair, and

disposal of equipment, does not prohibit "topping off" systems,

which leads to emissions of refrigerant during the use of equipment.

The provision on knowing releases does, however, include the

situation in which a technician is practically certain that

his or her conduct will cause a release of refrigerant during

the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of equipment.

Knowing releases also include situations in which a technician

closes his or her eyes to obvious facts or fails to investigate

them when aware of facts that demand investigation.

Section 608(c)(1) of the CAA exempts "de minimis" releases

associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle

or safely dispose of these substances from the prohibition.

In their statement prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, the Senate managers explained that, "The

exception is included to account for the fact that in the course

of properly using recapture and recycling equipment, it may

not be possible to prevent some small amount of leakage." (Congressional

Record S16948, October 26, 1990). From this statement and the

statutory text, EPA considers it appropriate to conclude that

emissions accompanying the proper use of recapture and recycling

equipment would generally be considered "de minimis." EPA is

therefore interpreting as "de minimis" those emissions that

take place at servicing and disposal when:

( i ) The required practices set forth in 82.158 of this

proposed regulation are observed and recovery or recycling machines

that meet the requirements set forth in 82.158 of this proposed

regulation are used, or

(ii) The requirements of the MVAC regulation (40 CFR part

82, subpart B) are observed. 

### Page 28 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlSuch emissions represent the lowest achievable level of emissions,

but because the requirements for recovery and recycling machines

would vary somewhat from sector to sector and because the charge

sizes involved vary considerably from sector to sector, the

quantities considered de minimis would also vary from sector

to sector.

1. Evacuation of Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment.

EPA is requiring that before air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment is opened for maintenance, service, or repair, the

refrigerant in either the entire system or the part to be serviced

(if the latter can be isolated) must be transferred to a system

receiver (a component of the system that is designed to hold

excess refrigerant charge and that can be used to hold the charge

during servicing or repair) or to a certified recycling or recovery

machine. The same requirements apply to equipment that is to

be disposed of, except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

like appliances, whose disposal is covered by Section III.M.

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

possible is captured rather than released, EPA is requiring

that air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment be evacuated

to or below specified levels of vacuum. As discussed in the

proposal, the Agency has considered a number of factors in developing

these levels, including the technical capabilities, ease of

use, and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the possible

impact of evacuation on the air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment, the servicing times that would be necessary to achieve

different vacuums, and the amounts of refrigerant that would

be released under different evacuation requirements and their

predicted impact on the ozone layer (and indirectly, on human

health and the environment). Since the rule was proposed, the

Agency has reviewed numerous public comments regarding the proposed

evacuation levels and has refined its analysis. As a result,

some of the proposed requirements have been changed. These changes

are discussed below.

As was proposed, the required levels of evacuation vary depending

upon the type of equipment to be serviced or disposed of and

the date of manufacture of the recovery or recycling machine

(i.e., whether it met certification requirements for new equipment

or had been grandfathered). However, some of the distinctions

between different types of equipment have been changed since

the rule was proposed. For small appliances, the requirements

also vary depending on the capacities of the recovery system

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

nonoperating refrigerator compressor).

Technicians repairing MVAC

- like appliances are not subject

to the evacuation requirements below, but are subject to a requirement

to "properly use" (as defined at 40 CFR 82.32(e)) recycling

and recovery equipment approved pursuant to 82.36 ( a ). As is

discussed in more detail in section III.G.3, EPA is adopting

the equipment certification and use requirements of the MVACs

refrigerant recycling rule (40 CFR part 82, subpart B) for MVAC

like appliances.

The required evacuation levels and equipment standards (for

"grandfathered" equipment) become effective 60 days after publication

of this rule. Although EPA had proposed that these requirements

become effective 30 days after publication of the rule, some

commenters believed that 30 days would not constitute sufficient

time for technicians to become aware of EPA's requirements and

to acquire equipment that met EPA's grandfathering standards.

Upon reconsideration of the issue, EPA agreed. The Agency again

notes, however, that the prohibition on venting refrigerants

during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances

has been in effect since July 1, 1992.

a. Evacuation requirements for air

- conditioning and refrigeration 

### Page 29 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlequipment besides small appliances. When recovery and recycling

machines manufactured or imported after November 15, 1993, are

employed for recovery, EPA is requiring evacuation to 0 inches

of vacuum, 10 inches of vacuum, 15 inches of vacuum, or 29 inches

of vacuum, depending on the size and type of air

- conditioning

or refrigeration equipment being serviced. If grandfathered

recovery or recycling devices are used, EPA proposes to require

evacuation to 0 inches of vacuum in very high

- pressure systems

and in small systems using HCFC

- 22, 4 inches of vacuum in high

pressure systems, and 25 inches of vacuum in low

- pressure systems,

because the grandfathered equipment may not be capable of achieving

higher levels (see Section III.G.). The table below lists requirements

for evacuation (pressure readings) for each type of air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment and for certified and grandfathered

recovery and recycling machines.

Table 1.

- Required Levels of Evacuation for Air

- Conditioning or

Refrigeration Equipment

[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like equipment]

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 Inches of vacuum (relative to

3 standard atmospheric pressure

3 of 29.9 inches Hg) {1}

ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 Using recovery 3 Using recovery

Type of air

- conditioning or refrigeration 3 or recycling 3 or recycling

equipment 3 equipment 3 equipment

3 manufactured 3 manufactured

3 before 3 on or after

3 November 15, 3 November 15,

3 1993 3 1993

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3

HCFC

- 22 equipment, or isolated component 3 0 3 0

of such equipment, normally containing 3 3

less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. 3 3

HCFC

- 22 equipment, or isolated component 3 4 3 10

of such equipment, normally containing 3 3

200 pounds or more of refrigerant. 3 3

Other high

- pressure equipment, or 3 4 3 10

isolated component of such equipment, 3 3

normally containing less than 200 pounds 3 3

of refrigerant. 3 3

Other high

- pressure equipment, or 3 4 3 15

isolated component of such equipment, 3 3

normally containing 200 pounds or more 3 3

of refrigerant. 3 3

Very high

- pressure equipment ............ 3 0 3 0

Low

- pressure equipment .................. 3 25 3 29

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

{ 1} EPA is explicitly defining the required evacuation levels in relation

to standard, as opposed to local, atmospheric pressure. A number of

commenters noted that because local atmospheric pressure drops with

elevation, it is difficult (and sometimes physically impossible) for

persons working at high elevations to attain the required vacuums if they

are measured relative to local atmospheric pressure. Because the quantity

of refrigerant remaining in a piece of air

- conditioning or refrigeration

equipment is related to its absolute rather than relative pressure,

pulling a shallower gauge vacuum at a higher elevation has the same impact

on the environment as pulling a deeper vacuum at sea level. Persons

performing appliance repair, maintenance, service or disposal at high

elevations should make appropriate adjustments to the above chart to

account for the difference between standard and local atmospheric pressure. 

### Page 30 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmli. High

- pressure air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

There are a number of differences between the above evacuation

levels and those that were proposed. The most significant of

these is the distinction now made between high

- pressure air

conditioning and refrigeration equipment utilizing HCFC

- 22 and

other high

- pressure equipment. In the proposal, EPA requested

comment on establishing less stringent evacuation standards

for equipment utilizing HCFC

- 22. The Agency noted that the high

saturation pressure of HCFC

- 22 makes it difficult (and in some

cases, impossible) to draw deep vacuums on this refrigerant

but, at the same time, permits a high percentage of this refrigerant

to be recovered at relatively shallow vacuums. EPA stated that

the latter consideration, along with the relatively low ozone

depletion potential of HCFC

- 22 (compared to those of the CFCs)

may make deeper vacuums unnecessary. A number of commenters

concurred with this reasoning. Many commenters emphasized the

difficulty of pulling deep vacuums on air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment using R

- 22 (HCFC

- 22), particularly in the high ambient

temperatures typically found on rooftops during the summer months.

Under these conditions, commenters noted, only recovery equipment

with high

- quality compressors would be able to attain the compression

ratio necessary to draw a 10

- inch vacuum, and even this equipment

would not be able to achieve a 20

- inch vacuum. Moreover, the

discharge temperature of the refrigerant in these situations

would often be high enough to burn the oil in the recovery device

compressor, leading to its failure.

EPA has performed an analysis that attempts to determine

appropriate evacuation levels for various types of refrigerants

and equipment, considering the physical characteristics of the

refrigerants (e.g., saturation pressure, which is related both

to the compression ratio necessary to achieve a certain vacuum

level and to the percentage of refrigerant that is recovered

at that vacuum level), their ozone

- depletion potentials, the

costs of recycling and recovery equipment, and labor costs.

This analysis indicates that recovery of HCFC

- 22 into a vacuum

is justified only for large charge sizes (greater than 200 pounds).

For smaller charges, the avoided damage to human health and

the environment do not appear to justify the time and expense

of drawing a vacuum even if a vacuum were attainable, which

it often would not be. It should be noted that because HCFC

22 has one of the highest saturation pressures of the high

- pressure

refrigerants, evacuating HCFC

- 22 systems to atmospheric pressure

recovers approximately 98.5 percent of the refrigerant at 75

degrees F (more at higher temperatures). Although temperature

was not considered in the analysis, HCFC

- 22 equipment (or isolated

components thereof) with charges of 200 pounds or more is generally

found in equipment rooms, where ambient temperatures are low

enough to make a ten

- inch vacuum feasible.

Some commenters argued that EPA should not set less stringent

standards for HCFC

- 22 because the ODP of HCFC

- 22 is not significantly

different from that of the CFCs in the short term, when the

most serious ozone depletion is expected to occur. As noted

above, the physical characteristics of HCFC

- 22 and the conditions

under which repair and disposal of appliances using HCFC

- 22

are likely to occur (e.g., on hot rooftops) were the primary

considerations in setting less stringent standards for HCFC

22 than for the CFC refrigerants; however, EPA also considered

the impact on human heath and the environment of the HCFC

- 22

that would escape under the less stringent standards. In estimating

this impact, EPA accounted for both the short

- and long

- term

effects of HCFC

- 22 on stratospheric ozone, examining health

and environmental effects over the next 150 years. As discussed

above, the Agency found that these effects were not severe enough 

### Page 31 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlto warrant setting more stringent standards for HCFC

- 22 recovery,

which would be difficult (and, in some cases, impossible) to

meet. The method that EPA used to calculate the impact of HCFC

22 on human health and the environment and the relationship

of this method to the ODP of HCFC

- 22 is discussed in more detail

in the RIA.

Another significant change from the proposal is the provision

that allows the charge in an isolated component of the system,

rather than the charge of the system as a whole, to be used

to determine appropriate levels of evacuation. Several commenters

stated that large air

- conditioning and refrigeration systems

often contain isolation valves that allow individual system

components to be repaired without requiring evacuation of the

entire system. In many cases, the quantity of refrigerant left

in the component is considerably less than 200 (or even 50)

pounds, even if the system as a whole contains several hundred

pounds. In these cases, EPA agrees that drawing a deep vacuum

on the system component is not necessary.

The other significant changes from the proposal are the alteration

of the maximum evacuation level for high

- pressure refrigerants

from 20 inches to 15 inches, and the raising of the cutoff for

"small" high

- pressure equipment to 200 pounds. A number of commenters

criticized the 20

- inch evacuation requirement, stating that

achieving this level of evacuation would place a strain on recovery

equipment, recover little additional refrigerant, be time

- consuming,

and in some cases (e.g., with equipment using R

- 502) be impossible.

In its analysis of evacuation levels, the Agency found that

evacuation levels between approximately 15 and 23 inches of

vacuum (depending upon compressor clearance) were appropriate

for large equipment using R

- 12 (CFC

- 12), while evacuation levels

between 5 inches and 17 inches of vacuum (depending upon compressor

clearance) were appropriate for large equipment using R

- 502.

EPA's analysis confirmed that achievement of a 20

- inch vacuum

on equipment utilizing R

- 502 would be very difficult without

substantial modification of existing recycling and recovery

equipment. (See Section G.1. below.) Rather than set separate

standards for each high

- pressure refrigerant, which could lead

to excessive confusion, the Agency has decided to establish

a single standard based on both of the above ranges, 15 inches

of vacuum. (R

- 12 and R

- 502 represent the commonly used CFC high

pressure refrigerants with the lowest and highest saturation

pressures, respectively. Therefore, an evacuation level that

falls into the range of appropriate levels for both refrigerants

should be appropriate for all high

- pressure CFC refrigerants.)

Similarly, EPA found that evacuation levels between approximately

10 and 22 inches of vacuum (again, depending upon compressor

clearance) were appropriate for small equipment using R

- 12,

while evacuation levels between atmospheric pressure and 14

inches of vacuum were appropriate for small equipment using

R

- 502. The Agency selected 10 inches as an appropriate evacuation

level for all high

- pressure CFC refrigerants.

Supermarkets and chemical manufacturers were concerned that

the proposed levels of evacuation, particularly the 20

- inch

requirement for large, high

- pressure equipment, would be too

time

- consuming, leading to food spoilage or costly shutdowns

of industrial processes. As discussed above, EPA is now requiring

that large, high

- pressure systems be evacuated to 15 rather

than 20 inches of vacuum. EPA believes that this change and

the new provision that permits the charge of an isolated component

to be used as the basis for determining evacuation requirements

will address concerns about excessive time spent evacuating

retail food and industrial process refrigeration systems.

One other change from the proposal is the elimination of

the "intermediate

- pressure refrigerants" category and the inclusion

of CFC

- 114 in the "high

- pressure refrigerants" category. Several 

### Page 32 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlcommenters stated that the physical differences between CFC

114 and the high

- pressure refrigerants did not warrant special

treatment of the former. Other commenters noted that evacuating

CFC

- 114 to 25 inches of vacuum, as was proposed, would be very

time

- consuming. The proposed requirement to evacuate CFC

- 114

to 25 inches of vacuum was based on information from the Department

of Defense (one of the largest users of CFC

- 114), which stated

that 25 inches was the maximum depth of vacuum that its pumpout

equipment could achieve. Other users of CFC

- 114, however, such

as gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants, have stated

that their current (built

- in) recovery equipment cannot evacuate

their 114 systems to this level and that it would be very difficult

and expensive to obtain recovery equipment that could. In consideration

of these comments, the Agency has decided to classify CFC

- 114

as a high

- pressure refrigerant.

ii. Very high

- pressure equipment. Commenters uniformly supported

EPA's proposal to require evacuation of very high

- pressure equipment

(used with refrigerants

- 13 and

- 503) to atmospheric pressure.

Several of these commenters noted that passive equipment could

be used to evacuate very high

- pressure systems, many of which

contain only a few pounds of vapor easily captured by a 50

- lb.

recovery cylinder. (Note that ordinary refrigerant cylinders

are not suited for use with very high

- pressure refrigerants,

but higher

- pressure cylinders are available.) EPA's own analysis

indicates that chilling a cylinder with dry ice would even permit

the recovery of some of the very high

- pressure refrigerant as

a liquid ("Very High Pressure Refrigerant Recovery and Reclamation,"

September 28, 1992, memorandum from Gene Troy, Bernard Eydt,

and John Wasson to David Lee and Debbie Ottinger). Some commenters

stated that using compressor

- bearing equipment to compress and

liquefy very high

- pressure refrigerants could pose a safety

risk, because of the very high pressures required. Because of

this concern and because compressor

- bearing equipment currently

available for use with very high

- pressure refrigerants is extremely

bulky and relatively expensive, EPA is permitting the use of

system

- dependent equipment on very high

- pressure refrigeration

equipment containing less than 15 pounds of refrigerant.

iii. Low

- pressure air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

As was proposed, EPA is requiring evacuation of low

- pressure

systems to 25 inches of vacuum using grandfathered equipment

and to 29 inches using equipment manufactured after November

15, 1993. A number of commenters supported the 29

- inch requirement,

noting that the technology to achieve this level in a timely

fashion (vacuum pumps) is available and is, in fact, now being

used on virtually all low

- pressure recovery and recycling equipment.

One commenter noted that evacuation to 29 inches of vacuum instead

of 25 inches of vacuum would prevent release of 312,000 pounds

of CFC

- 11 annually.

Some commenters supported evacuation to levels less stringent

than 29 inches. Many of these commenters argued that evacuation

to levels below 25 inches would be excessively time

- consuming

and would recover little additional refrigerant.

EPA has examined the feasibility and benefits of evacuating

low

- pressure systems to 29 inches of vacuum. As noted in the

proposal and in several comments, the technology to achieve

a 29

- inch vacuum is available. The time and labor costs involved

in drawing this vacuum depend upon (among other things) the

recovery rate of the recycling or recovery equipment at low

pressures. If a relatively slow recovery device is used to evacuate

low

- pressure equipment from 25 to 29 inches of vacuum, the labor

costs involved in recovering that refrigerant can indeed be

quite high, and may not be justified by the additional refrigerant

recovered. However, EPA believes that use of available, competitively

priced equipment permits evacuation to 29 inches within a reasonable 

### Page 33 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlperiod and is justified by the additional refrigerant recovered

(Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), March 25, 1993).

b. Exceptions to evacuation requirements. EPA is establishing

exceptions to its evacuation requirements for two specific situations:

non

- major repairs that are not followed by an evacuation of

the appliance to the environment and leaks that make the required

evacuation levels impossible to attain. In both cases, commenters

and EPA's research indicate that attempting to achieve the required

vacuums could actually lead to higher emissions than achieving

shallower (or no) vacuums.

i. Non

- major repairs that are not followed by evacuation

of the appliance to the environment. A number of commenters,

including technicians, grocery store managers, contractor trade

groups, and environmentalists, stated that EPA should permit

evacuation of air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment to

atmospheric pressure under limited circumstances, such as when

only minor repairs were performed or when an evacuation of the

equipment to the environment was not planned subsequent to the

repair. Following a major repair to an air

- conditioning or refrigeration

system, the contents of a system or component are typically

evacuated to the environment with a vacuum pump to remove air

and moisture that may have entered the system during the repair

process. This evacuation to the environment is often known as

a "complete" or "high

- level" evacuation. (The contents are expelled

to the environment rather than captured by a recovery device

because recovery device compressors are not able to compress

air, which may make up a significant percentage of the system

contents in many cases.) However, from comments and discussions

with technicians in the field, the Agency understands that many

minor repairs, such as replacement of a filter drier, oil filter,

or safety switch, involve uncovering only a small opening in

the appliance (e.g., a threaded fitting) and take place in only

a few minutes. In these cases, both the quantity of refrigerant

that escapes and the quantity of air and moisture that enter

the system will be limited if the system has been brought to

atmospheric pressure prior to beginning the repair. After such

repairs, the system is generally resealed with no evacuation

to the environment, particularly if the system is a large one.

Commenters argued that release of refrigerant from a system

at atmospheric pressure during a minor repair procedure can

be minimal, and in fact will be smaller in many cases than the

release that would result from drawing the system into a vacuum.

Commenters noted that drawing a vacuum leads to the influx of

either nitrogen or air and moisture, which in turn requires

that a second, deeper vacuum be drawn using a vacuum pump, expelling

any residual refrigerant to the atmosphere. One commenter estimated

that approximately 6 pounds of refrigerant would be released

from its equipment if that equipment were drawn to atmospheric

pressure before servicing, while 50 pounds would be released

if the equipment were drawn first to a 25

- inch vacuum and then

re

- evacuated after servicing. (Commenters universally supported

recovery into a vacuum at disposal.)

In response to these comments, EPA has decided to permit

evacuation (or, in the case of low

- pressure appliances, pressurization)

of appliances to 0 psig (atmospheric pressure) when the maintenance,

service, or repair is not major and when an evacuation of the

appliance to the environment is not performed after the servicing

or repair is completed. As discussed in the definitions section,

EPA is defining as "major" maintenance, service, or repair that

involves removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator, or

auxiliary heat exchanger coil. These procedures are relatively

time

- consuming and/or leave large openings in the system through

which refrigerant can escape (and air and moisture can enter).

After such procedures, evacuation of the system to the environment

is customarily performed. However, EPA recognizes that a second, 

### Page 34 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html"high

- level" evacuation may be appropriate for some types of

appliances even after minor repairs. The Agency emphasizes that

if the system is to be re

- evacuated to any level, then it must

be drawn to the appropriate vacuum in Table 1 to recover the

refrigerant before the repair begins, even if the repair would

otherwise be considered "non

- major." EPA believes that this

approach will most effectively minimize emissions while lowering

the costs of many repairs.

Low

- pressure systems, because they operate below atmospheric

pressure, must be pressurized to equalize the pressure of the

system and the pressure of the air outside of it. EPA is requiring

low pressure systems that undergo minor servicing, such as oil

changes, to be pressurized to atmospheric pressure to minimize

the intrusion and subsequent purging of air. Methods that do

not require subsequent system purging, e.g., heat (not nitrogen),

must be used.

Some commenters argued that EPA should never require evacuation

of high

- pressure equipment to levels below atmospheric pressure,

or should allow the service technician to decide whether further

evacuation was required. Many of these commenters were concerned

that drawing a vacuum during recovery could result in an influx

of air and moisture that would damage equipment. In the proposal,

EPA requested comment on this problem, noting that technicians

can avoid system contamination by either breaking the vacuum

with nitrogen or by drawing a deep second vacuum on the system

to remove any air and moisture that may have penetrated. (EPA

also proposed special evacuation requirements for leaky systems;

these are discussed below.) The Agency expressed a willingness

to consider allowing small systems utilizing HCFC

- 22 to be evacuated

to atmospheric pressure (as it has), but stated that the larger

ODP of other refrigerants appeared to justify requiring that

these be drawn into a vacuum, even if extra measures were required

to prevent system contamination.

A few commenters stated that carrying a cylinder of dry nitrogen

and/or a vacuum pump capable of drawing deep vacuums is not

practical in many situations. These commenters claimed that

space constraints in many equipment installations would often

make it physically impossible to use nitrogen and a vacuum pump.

However, other commenters stated that small, portable nitrogen

cylinders are available and are necessary not only for breaking

the vacuum, but for conducting leak testing after repairs are

complete. Based on its research and review of comments, EPA

believes that breaking vacuums with nitrogen (and, therefore,

drawing vacuums during recovery) will be practical in most equipment

service and maintenance situations. (At disposal, breaking the

vacuum is not necessary because system contamination is no longer

a concern.)

In addition, EPA continues to believe that establishing clear

evacuation standards will minimize overall refrigerant emissions.

Although the Agency is allowing technicians considerable discretion

in determining whether a repair will require a high

- level evacuation

or whether a system is leaky (see Section b.ii. below), it is

reluctant to leave evacuation requirements entirely to the discretion

of technicians for a number of reasons. First, the technician's

private incentives to recover refrigerant are not the same as

society's incentives to ensure that it is recovered. Because

they do not bear the full cost of refrigerant release, technicians

would be expected to recover less refrigerant than should be

recovered, from a social perspective. Although a regulatory

requirement to "minimize emissions" might increase the level

of recovery, it is not likely that this level will be the same

as the socially desirable level. Second, clear evacuation requirements

minimize uncertainty as to whether a given release of refrigerant

is considered "de minimis" or not. Technicians achieving required 

### Page 35 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlvacuums will know that they are complying with section 608 of

the Clean Air Act. A number of commenters agreed with this reasoning

and supported EPA's approach. Thus, the Agency is requiring

that high

- pressure equipment using CFC refrigerants be evacuated

to specific vacuums, except in the specific situations described

in the paragraphs above and in section ii. below.

ii. Evacuation of leaky equipment. The Agency proposed less

stringent evacuation requirements for leaky equipment, proposing

to allow high

- pressure equipment to be evacuated to 0 psig (atmospheric

pressure) if it had a leak large enough to have lowered the

system pressure to two atmospheres. EPA proposed this provision

in response to concerns that it may not be possible to draw

deep vacuums on leaky equipment and that attempting to draw

such vacuums may contaminate the refrigerant, the appliance,

and the recycling or recovery equipment.

EPA received a number of comments supporting less stringent

evacuation standards for equipment with large leaks. Most of

the commenters stated that deep evacuation of leaky appliances

would draw contaminants into the appliance and from there into

the recycling or recovery equipment. The contaminants cited

most often were air and moisture, but chemicals being cooled

by industrial process refrigeration equipment were mentioned

as well. Commenters argued that removal of these contaminants

(particularly air) could result in greater emissions of refrigerant

than would result from release of the refrigerant remaining

in the system at atmospheric pressure.

Several commenters criticized the "two atmospheres" standard

for determining whether a system had a large leak. Some commenters

stated that system pressure was not necessarily an indication

of the size of a leak; even small leaks, given enough time,

could lower system pressure to two atmospheres or less. A number

of commenters believed that EPA needed to develop standards

and requirements for leaky low

- pressure equipment as well as

for leaky high

- pressure equipment.

In response to these comments, EPA has decided to revise

its evacuation provision for leaky equipment to allow consideration

of factors other than initial system pressure in determining

whether a leak is large enough to prevent evacuation to the

levels in Table 1 above. The Agency is also expanding the provision

to include low

- pressure equipment. If the technician determines

that the levels in Table 1 are not attainable, or would substantially

contaminate the refrigerant being recovered, the technician

must: (1) isolate leaking from non

- leaking components wherever

possible, (2) evacuate non

- leaking components to be opened to

the levels specified in Table 1, and (3) evacuate leaking components

to be opened to the lowest level that can be attained without

substantially contaminating the refrigerant. This level cannot

exceed atmospheric pressure.

EPA is aware that both the symptoms of a leak and the lowest

evacuation level that can be attained will vary from situation

to situation. For instance, leaky high

- pressure systems may

activate refrigerant sensors in an equipment room or may simply

have low internal pressure. Leaky low

- pressure systems may purge

noncondensables frequently or, if they are not operating, may

be at atmospheric pressure. Occasionally, leaks may not become

apparent until during the evacuation process itself, when the

system pressure levels off unexpectedly or when the system fails

to hold a vacuum. Based on review of comments and discussions

with industry representatives, EPA believes that it will generally

be appropriate to evacuate high

- pressure systems with large

leaks to atmospheric pressure. Low

- pressure systems, depending

upon the size and nature of the leak, can often be evacuated

to lower levels. For example, low

- pressure systems with leaking

"O" rings or gaskets can usually be drawn to a 25

- inch vacuum.

However, low

- pressure systems with leaks in condensers or evaporators 

### Page 36 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html(where water can enter the system) may be difficult to evacuate

to levels below atmospheric pressure. EPA will incorporate guidelines

on diagnosing and evacuating leaky systems into both its technician

certification program and its enforcement policy.

c. Removal of entrained refrigerant from oil. In the proposal,

the Agency discussed the issue of CFCs dissolved in the oil

left behind in a system after refrigerant has been evacuated.

The Agency did not propose specific requirements but expressed

the concern that in some cases a large amount of the refrigerant

remains entrained in the oil and, as a result, the percentage

of charge evacuated is significantly decreased. The oil could

then slowly release refrigerant once exposed to the atmosphere.

The Agency requested comment on whether procedures to extract

refrigerant from oil prior to exposing the oil to the atmosphere

or disposing of the oil should be required in this rule.

The majority of comments on this issue recommended that EPA

not establish additional procedures for the removal of refrigerant

entrained in oil. The commenters highlighted the fact that the

amount of refrigerant remaining in oil varies by equipment types,

the refrigerant in question and the recovery equipment used.

Many suggested that the amount of CFC remaining in oil is minute

as compared to the charge. They stated that the servicing practices

require vacuums to be drawn when evacuating refrigerant from

the systems and that the majority of the refrigerant will be

removed at that time. Holding the vacuum for an extended amount

of time or heating the crankcase are acceptable procedures in

some cases, while for other equipment the amount of time required

is not commensurate with the small amount of refrigerant recovered.

Some commenters recognized that the ASHRAE Guideline 3 is helpful

in some cases. Many commenters stated that even by using the

guideline, the oil would maintain a CFC contamination rate above

4000 ppm. (For additional information see RCRA Regulations Regarding

the Management of CFCs and CFC contaminated wastes

- 40 CFR part

279.)

Two commenters specifically mentioned that oil sampling,

a procedure that withdraws a small amount of oil from a system

for diagnostic purposes, should not be included in any refrigerant

recovery procedures because the amount of refrigerant contained

in the sample is so small. Several commenters suggested that

guidance was the best way to provide information to technicians

on this issue at this time and that mandatory procedures be

considered if technology is developed to recover the refrigerant

quickly and effectively.

The comments support EPA's proposal that additional procedures

to recover entrained refrigerant from oil are not warranted

at this time. Since the amount of refrigerant entrained in oil

will vary based on the system, the refrigerant used, the temperature,

the recovery equipment used and the length of time that the

vacuum is applied, the Agency was unable to determine procedures

that would result in an acceptable amount of refrigerant recovered

from the oil in each case. The Agency encourages system and

recovery equipment manufacturers to provide information to owners

in order to assist them to recover as much refrigerant as possible

at service.

d. Evacuation requirements for small appliances. Technicians

opening small appliances for service, maintenance, or repair

may use either equipment certified under Appendix B, ARI 740

-

1993, or equipment certified under Appendix C, Method for Testing

Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances, to recover the

refrigerant. Because Appendix B and Appendix C measure refrigerant

recovery efficiency differently, different evacuation requirements

are appropriate for technicians using equipment certified under

the two standards.

Appendix C measures the percentage (by mass) of the refrigerant 

### Page 37 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlrecovered from the small appliance by the recovery equipment.

This percentage depends upon whether the compressor of the small

appliance is operating or not, and therefore the required recovery

efficiency for technicians using equipment certified under Appendix

C also varies depending upon whether the compressor of the small

appliance is operating or not. Technicians recovering refrigerant

from small appliances with operating compressors are required

to capture 90% of the refrigerant in the appliance, while technicians

recovering refrigerant from small appliances with non

- operating

compressors are required to capture 80% of the refrigerant in

the appliance. Because the percentage of refrigerant mass recovered

is very difficult to measure on any given job, technicians must

adhere to the servicing procedure certified for that recovery

system under Appendix C to ensure that they achieve the required

recovery efficiencies.

Technicians using recovery equipment certified under Appendix

B, on the other hand, can measure the vacuum that has been achieved

in the small appliance to determine whether they have achieved

the required recovery efficiency. (As discussed above, Appendix

B assesses the recovery efficiency of recycling and recovery

equipment by measuring its final recovery vacuum.) EPA is setting

the required evacuation level for equipment certified under

Appendix B for use with small appliances at four inches of mercury

vacuum. Technicians using this equipment must also achieve four

inches of vacuum in the field. This level of evacuation is consistent

with that required for larger high pressure systems evacuated

using grandfathered recycling or recovery equipment, and EPA

believes that most recycling and recovery equipment can meet

this standard. Certification of recovery devices and procedures

are discussed in more detail in section III.G.2.

2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant

EPA anticipates that the combination of the proposed January

1, 1996 phaseout of CFCs, the prohibition on venting that became

effective on July 1, 1992, and this rule will ultimately increase

recovery and/or recycling of ozone

- depleting compounds by 60,000

metric tons annually. This large increase in the quantity of

used refrigerant in circulation carries risks, even as it has

the potential to reduce emissions of ozone

- depleting compounds

and to ease the transition to alternatives by prolonging the

life of existing equipment. Recovered refrigerant may contain

moisture, acids, oil, particulates, or other contaminants that

can lead to serious damage to the equipment if it is reused

without taking some action to remove these contaminants. In

many cases, technicians will be recovering and reusing refrigerants

for the first time. Thus, neither they nor their customers may

be aware of the potential dangers involved in charging their

air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment with used refrigerants.

EPA is concerned about damage to air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment for three reasons. First, damage to equipment would

obviously increase costs to equipment owners. Second and more

important from an environmental perspective, damaged equipment

would often leak during operation and would require servicing

or replacement more often than undamaged equipment, increasing

refrigerant emissions. Third, damage to equipment would reduce

consumer confidence in the quality of used refrigerant, leading

to erosion of the market for used refrigerants and possibly

to their release. A reduction of consumer confidence could also

result in the premature retirement or retrofit of CFC or HCFC

equipment.

To prevent contaminated refrigerant from entering the market,

EPA proposed to require technicians servicing air

- conditioning

equipment to reclaim refrigerant before moving it between equipment

owned by different persons. As discussed above in the Definitions 

### Page 38 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlSection, "reclaimed" means that the refrigerant is cleaned to

the ARI 700

- 1988 standard of purity (Appendix A) and is chemically

analyzed to verify that it meets this standard. ARI 700 was

specifically developed to ensure that refrigerant removed from

one piece of air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment could

be cleaned, analyzed, and put into any other piece of air

- conditioning

or refrigeration equipment, in any application (excluding household

appliances, which do not fall under the purview of ARI), without

fear of equipment damage. EPA focused on changes in equipment

ownership because such transfers introduce uncertainties into

the marketplace regarding the purity of the refrigerant. Transfers

between equipment owned by the same person, on the other hand,

are of less concern. First, owners are aware of the source and

history of the refrigerant and are therefore better able to

determine whether use of the refrigerant in a given piece of

equipment is likely to damage that equipment. Second, owners

themselves bear the costs of equipment damage when a refrigerant

transfer is inappropriate.

EPA also requested comment on less stringent alternatives

for ensuring refrigerant purity. One alternative would have

permitted air

- conditioning and refrigeration contractors to

move refrigerant between similar pieces of equipment owned by

different persons. This approach acknowledged that purity concerns

are diminished when at least one party, the contractor, has

knowledge of both the equipment from which the refrigerant is

recovered and the equipment into which the refrigerant is charged,

and when these pieces of equipment are similar. However, EPA

was reluctant to adopt this approach before industry had an

opportunity to develop a "clean

- up" standard for refrigerant

moved between similar pieces of equipment. Such a standard might

be implemented through the certification program for recycling

equipment, ensuring that the equipment could clean up a standard

contaminated refrigerant "cocktail" to a certain level, or it

might be implemented through simplified testing of recycled

refrigerant at the contractor's shop. (The analytical protocol

contained in ARI 700 requires expensive laboratory equipment

and expertise, making it impractical as a methodology for testing

at the contractor's shop.)

EPA received a number of comments both in favor and opposed

to the proposed requirement to reclaim refrigerant moved between

equipment owned by different persons. Those who favored the

requirement reiterated many of the arguments EPA had made in

the proposal. Many stated that a purity standard was necessary

to protect consumers, who lacked the technical knowledge to

enable them to evaluate the risks of using contaminated refrigerant.

The fact that recycled refrigerant would often be less expensive

than reclaimed refrigerant would exacerbate this problem. Many

of the same commenters were concerned that manufacturers with

equipment warranties would also be adversely affected if the

sale of recycled refrigerant to a new owner were allowed. In

addition to private costs, several commenters cited damage to

the environment that could result from use of recycled, contaminated

refrigerant as a justification for the reclamation requirement.

These commenters echoed EPA's concerns that the sale of recycled,

contaminated refrigerant could lead to increased refrigerant

emissions and to loss of consumer confidence in the quality

of used refrigerants.

One commenter noted that ARI 700 was the only available technical

basis for refrigerant purity levels and should therefore be

required to protect equipment. This commenter stated that technology

existed to permit transportable recycling machines capable of

producing refrigerant that meets ARI Standard 700. A few commenters

stated that since reclamation services would be available to

process recovered refrigerant at reasonable cost, there was 

### Page 39 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlno need to relax EPA's proposed reclamation requirement.

Commenters who opposed the reclamation requirement focused

primarily on two points. First, the application and service

history of the refrigerant determine whether it can be safely

moved to another piece of equipment; and second, responsible,

educated contractors are capable of making this determination.

These commenters favored the less stringent option described

by EPA in the proposed rule, which would allow contractors to

move refrigerant between similar pieces of equipment owned by

different persons. According to the commenters, this restriction

would greatly lessen contamination concerns while enabling contractors

and consumers to save money. Many commenters noted that both

the U.S. and international HVAC/R industries are making progress

toward developing guidelines for use of recycled refrigerant,

making the less stringent option more attractive.

One commenter suggested that EPA incorporate a "sunset clause"

for the reclamation requirement into the regulation. This commenter

cited a number of advantages to this approach, stating that

it would: (1) Provide immediate protection to equipment manufacturers,

(2) allow the fledgling refrigerant reclaiming market to develop,

(3) encourage the development of recycling technology, (4) give

the U.S. HVAC/R industry the incentive and the time it needs

to develop its own recycling guideline, and (5) ultimately relieve

the EPA and the taxpayer of the cost of enforcing a purity standard.

EPA has considered these comments and has performed its own

analysis of the costs and benefits of requiring reclamation

of refrigerant transferred between equipment owned by different

persons. This analysis examined the costs and probabilities

of equipment damage associated with four levels of refrigerant

processing: (1) Recovery only, with no purification, (2) recycling,

(3) recycling with on

- site testing of refrigerant, and (4) reclamation.

The analysis then compared these costs and risks to determine

whether each successive level of processing was worthwhile.

EPA found that reclamation appeared to be clearly worthwhile

for refrigerant used in some types of equipment (small appliances)

but was not as clearly worthwhile for refrigerant used in other

types. For the latter, recycling followed by on

- site testing

may be a more cost

- effective form of protection.

Together, the comments and the analysis indicate that limited

off

- site recycling that is supported by a standard of purity

and testing method for recycled refrigerant may be the most

cost

- effective means of carrying out Section 608 while protecting

air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment. As several commenters

noted, both the European Community and the U.S. HVAC/R industry

have taken steps toward developing such a standard. EPA believes

that the contaminant levels and testing methods that would ultimately

be contained in such a standard would be less stringent than

those in the ARI Standard 700, because the latter was designed

to permit transfers between any two or more types of air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment, whereas the former would be designed

only to permit transfers between similar types of equipment.{1}

3 { 1} The nearly universal applicability of ARI 700 dictates

3 a relatively low tolerance for contaminants. For instance,

3 oils used with HCFC

- 22 in residential air conditioning

3 applications have a different viscosity than oils used

3 with HCFC

- 22 in supermarket refrigeration systems. If

3 the former are accidentally added to supermarket systems,

3 they tend to form sludge, damaging the system. Similarly,

3 air conditioning systems generally have a higher tolerance

3 for moisture contamination than systems that run at lower

3 temperatures because in the latter, water can freeze

3 and expand to damage tubing. Thus, contaminant levels

3 in ARI 700 must be set low enough to ensure that the

3 systems most sensitive to that contaminant will not be 

### Page 40 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html3 damaged, even if many systems would not be harmed by

3 higher contaminant levels.

However, as another commenter pointed out, the ARI Standard

700 is the only technical standard of purity and testing method

currently available. Therefore, in order to ensure that air

conditioning and refrigeration equipment is protected while

encouraging the development of a standard for limited off

- site

recycling, EPA is requiring that refrigerant transferred between

different owners be reclaimed for two years after publication

of this rule. EPA believes that two years is an appropriate

interim period to allow industry to develop a standard of purity

for recycled refrigerant and to allow EPA to complete a rulemaking

to adopt the standard. Moreover, the expiration of the full

reclamation requirement follows the date by which technicians

must be certified, ensuring that the judgment of technicians

regarding the disposition of refrigerant will be relatively

well

- informed. If U.S. industry has not made significant progress

in developing a standard for recycled refrigerant within eight

months, EPA may begin rulemaking to adopt an alternative standard,

for instance, the standard being developed by the European Community.

The reclamation requirement will become effective 90 days

after this rule is published. EPA had proposed to make this

requirement effective 30 days after publication, but the Agency

became concerned that 30 days may not constitute sufficient

time for technicians to learn the requirements of this rule,

establish contacts with reclaimers, and begin using reclamation

services.

The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute requested

at the public hearing and in written comments that EPA adopt

the updated version of ARI 700, ARI 700

- 1993, in this rule.

Among other changes and additions, ARI 700

- 1993 will establish

purity requirements for HCFCs not covered by ARI 700

- 1988, including

HCFC

- 123 and

- 124. However, ARI 700

- 1993 has not yet been finalized

and therefore cannot be included in this rule. When ARI 700

-

1993 is finalized, the Agency plans to undertake rulemaking

to adopt it.

3. Leak Repair

In the proposal, the Agency stated that it intended to develop

comprehensive regulations to reduce refrigerant leakage during

equipment use in the next phase of rulemaking under section

608. The Agency requested comment on whether it should include

a provision in this rule requiring the repair of substantial

leaks as an emergency stop

- gap measure to ensure that technicians

do not repeatedly "top off" systems with substantial leaks.

The Agency suggested a figure of 35 percent loss of charge per

year as a leak that must be repaired within 30 days after discovery.

The 35 percent number was chosen because research on emissions

from equipment in different sectors obtained in developing recycling

regulations indicates that this number is five percentage points

above the annual leak rate in the most leak

- prone sectors. The

Agency also discussed establishing different levels for different

sectors. EPA recognized that the 35 percent figure for all sectors

fell short of establishing a lowest achievable level of emissions;

however, it would reduce significant leaks until the additional

analysis is performed.

EPA received a large volume of comments on this issue and

the predominance of these commenters (over 800) requested that

the Agency include a mandatory leak repair requirement. Only

a small percentage of the letters offered any comment on the

suggested 35 percent per year figure or the 30

- day time allowance

for repairing these leaks, however. Most of the commenters suggested

that the recovery of refrigerant at

- service requirements simply

did not go far enough in reducing release of ozone

- depleting 

### Page 41 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlchemicals. Many of the commenters believed that by not repairing

leaks that had been detected, the technician or the owner of

the equipment was "intentionally venting" refrigerant to the

atmosphere. Several commenters mentioned that advances in leak

detection technology have made these procedures reliable, inexpensive

and fast, and repair of leaks results in equipment that runs

more efficiently, therefore saving energy.

Regarding the question of the appropriate definition of the

size of substantial leaks that must be repaired, several commenters

agreed that the 35 percent per year level was appropriate. Questions

about the practicality of such a level were raised, however,

and several commenters mentioned that the technician would need

to remove the entire charge to determine if the percentage had

been exceeded. Suggestions that the percentage be reduced over

time and that different levels be set for each type, or category

of equipment, were made. NRDC and FOE stated that the appropriate

level be determined based not on 5 percent over "average" leak

rate, but by the leak rate of equipment that is maintained the

best (e.g., the 95th percentile lowest leak rate). They believe

this level is feasible since it is derived from existing equipment,

but is a higher standard than an average figure.

Approximately 25 commenters suggested that a mandatory requirement

was premature, not needed, or inappropriate. These commenters

believed that more analysis is necessary to determine realistic

leak levels and one commenter suggested a voluntary leak repair

program. Two commenters from the commercial refrigeration sector

mentioned that their equipment has a range of leak rates and

therefore the average figure would be an arbitrary designation.

The figure could serve as a disincentive to repair leaks smaller

than the average, while requiring repair within 30 days may

interfere with decisions that may actually reduce overall emissions.

An example of this would be in the situation where a company

decides to replace a leaking system but the new equipment will

not be delivered for 60 days. Requiring expensive repairs on

the obsolete unit may result in the company deciding not to

replace the equipment as quickly with new, leak

- free equipment

using a less ozone

- depleting or non

- ozone

- depleting substitute.

One commenter suggested a case

- by

- case waiver be granted from

the 30

- day time limit for repair of substantial leaks to avoid

the type of situation just described.

EPA believes it should respond to the large number of comments

requesting some action in this rule on repair of substantial

leaks by promulgating a leak repair requirement. The Agency

acknowledges that the 35 percent figure for all equipment is

too general and therefore in today's final rule, two different

levels have been established. The 35 percent figure will continue

to be used for the industrial process and commercial refrigeration

sectors. The second leak rate is the 15 percent of charge per

year figure discussed in the proposal and in today's rule this

rate would be applied to all equipment with more than 50 pounds

of charge, other than the industrial process and commercial

refrigeration sectors. The 50

- pound cut

- off is intended to exempt

smaller equipment where the cost of repairing the leak is an

order of magnitude higher than the environmental benefit of

repairing the leak (RIA). The 50

- pound cut

- off is also consistent

with guidance found in the ASHRAE Guideline 3

- 1990.

The two levels have been derived from information on average

maintained equipment because the Agency believes that to be

a fair level that can reasonably be expected to be achievable

in practice by all equipment. Although best maintained equipment

would have a lower leak rate, the Agency understands that older

equipment and some equipment that is difficult to service because

of its location (e.g., commercial refrigeration, which frequently

has lines running under floors) cannot achieve a stricter standard. 

### Page 42 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlFurthermore, EPA would need to inventory equipment and leak

rates to determine emissions from the best maintained equipment.

The Agency will consider lowering the accepted levels to the

best maintained levels of leaks in future rulemaking.

ARI and Robinair commented that it is not necessary to define

the size of the leaks that must be repaired. They commented

that the standard should simply state that leak detection must

be performed and any identifiable leaks be repaired in a timely

fashion. The Agency considered this type of standard, which

has the benefit of simplicity and clarity. Without any type

of lower bound, however, this standard could result in huge

amounts of money being spent to repair even pinhole leaks in

equipment that may soon be obsolete. To be meaningful, lower

bounds must reflect specific equipment and this requires that

additional analysis be performed. The intent of the leak repair

requirement in this rule is to assure that substantial leaks

are repaired. The Agency maintains that the rising price and

lower availability of the substances will also provide the incentive

to repair equipment; however, commenters believed the market

incentive alone was not sufficient.

Today's final rule will also require the 30

- day time limit

for repairing leaks suggested in the proposal. The Agency maintains

that the 30

- day time limit is feasible and a reasonable balance

between commenters suggesting 15 days and those suggesting 60

days. An exception to this requirement has been incorporated

into the rule to address commenters' concerns that the Agency

should preserve flexibility for equipment owners who may be

able to reduce their use of ozone

- depleting substances more

effectively by replacing or retrofitting equipment. Leaks do

not need to be repaired in the 30

- day time limit if the owner

develops a plan for his equipment within 30 days that details

the activities planned to retire equipment and replace it with

equipment that uses a non

- ozone

- depleting or a less ozone

- depleting

substance or to retrofit existing equipment within one year.

The Agency believes the time limit with the exception provides

the proper incentive to reduce the emission of ozone

- depleting

substances and alerts equipment owners to the types of choices

they must make as the phaseout of production approaches. The

plan would not need to be submitted to the Agency. Although

it is the owner's discretion on where to keep the original of

the plan, a copy must be kept at the same site as the leaking

equipment. The original of the plan must be made available to

EPA on request.

One commenter asked how technicians would be able to determine

the size of the leak to be repaired. The Agency believes that

records of the service calls and amounts of refrigerant added

to machines will assist technicians in their determination of

leak rates and would also assist owners of equipment in the

determination of the need for leak repair. The Agency believes

these records, primarily in the form of service invoices, are

already kept by equipment owners and therefore this requirement

is not an additional burden on them. These records must also

include refrigerant purchased and added to equipment each month

in cases where owners add their own refrigerant. The Agency

understands that leak detection technology can also be used

to identify leaks and in some cases technicians will need to

estimate the leak size or refill the system before they can

determine the amount of refrigerant that has leaked out. Many

commenters raised the issue of degree of responsibility for

leak detection. The Agency wishes to clarify that today's requirement

is that leaks of a certain size be repaired, but it does not

explicitly state that leak detection be performed at specific

intervals. The Agency believes that technicians perform leak

detection as part of the diagnosis for repair of equipment.

At the time of the proposal, the Agency did not have sufficient 

### Page 43 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlinformation to require specific leak detection technologies,

although it believes this activity to be important. Today's

rule requires that within 30 days the owner of the equipment

either authorize the repair of substantial leaks or develop

the equipment retirement/retrofit plan discussed above. Technicians

should inform owners when leaks exist and when those leaks should

be repaired. The owner has the legal obligation to ensure that

repairs are made to equipment where the leak rate exceeds the

standard. It is, therefore, in the owner's interest to provide

sufficient information to a technician, so that a technician

can make an accurate determination regarding whether the leak

must be repaired. An owner may not intentionally shield himself

from information which would have revealed a leak.

4. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery

Equipment

In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether it should

require procedures to recover residual refrigerant from recycling

and recovery equipment before that equipment was used with a

different refrigerant. Depending upon the design of the recycling

or recovery equipment, significant quantities of refrigerant

may be left behind in the condenser of the equipment after the

recovery or recycling process is complete. The Agency was concerned

that without a requirement to remove this refrigerant, the residual

refrigerant could mix with the new refrigerant, contaminating

the latter. The proposal listed several possible procedures

for recovering residual refrigerant, including using a second

recovery device, heating the condenser of the recovery or recycling

machine, and/or cooling the container (and/or tubing to it)

to which the recovery or recycling machine was evacuated. The

proposal also noted that the design of equipment (e.g., use

of different condensers with each refrigerant) could help to

avoid refrigerant mixture.

EPA received comments both favoring and opposing an evacuation

requirement for recycling and recovery equipment switched between

different refrigerants. Those favoring an evacuation requirement

stated that without such a requirement, refrigerants could either

be mixed or vented to the atmosphere to avoid such mixture.

These commenters observed that the quantity of refrigerant remaining

in the condenser of a recovery or recycling device may represent

a significant percentage of the total charge of the appliance

being serviced or disposed of (e.g., one pound out of five).

Several commenters noted the importance of equipment design

in minimizing the mixture or emission of residual refrigerant;

while some models of equipment possess separate condensers for

each refrigerant, many other models possess the ability to evacuate

their condensers into either the appliance being serviced or

a recovery cylinder at the conclusion of service. Thus, a number

of commenters believed that an evacuation requirement would

be most effectively implemented through the certification program

for recycling and recovery equipment. Under this approach, the

equipment certification program would require that equipment

either possess instructions for equipment evacuation or be designed

to ensure that residual refrigerant was neither mixed with new

refrigerant nor released to the atmosphere.

Commenters who opposed an evacuation requirement for recycling

and recovery equipment focused more on procedures than equipment

design. Commenters argued that there were sufficient private

incentives to ensure that technicians would take steps to avoid

mixing refrigerants and that it would be difficult to specify

appropriate procedures for all situations and types of equipment.

Commenters also stated that the evacuation methods suggested

in the proposal were either too unwieldy or too expensive to 

### Page 44 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlimplement. One commenter observed that the reclamation requirement

for refrigerant moved between appliances owned by different

persons would provide sufficient protection against refrigerant

mixture. Another commenter believed that it would be difficult

to enforce an evacuation requirement for recycling and recovery

equipment.

EPA agrees with the commenters who oppose the evacuation

requirement that it would be difficult to specify procedures

appropriate for all types of equipment and that private incentives

and the reclamation requirement will help to prevent mixture

of refrigerants. However, EPA is concerned that without some

regulation by EPA, considerable quantities of residual refrigerant

could be vented to the atmosphere in order to avoid refrigerant

mixture. This risk is particularly large with recycling and

recovery equipment that does not possess either multiple condensers

or the ability to evacuate the (probably liquid) contents of

its condenser into either the appliance being serviced or a

recovery cylinder at the conclusion of service or disposal.

Therefore, although the Agency is not prescribing specific procedures

to recover residual refrigerant from recycling and recovery

equipment, the Agency will consider emissions of residual refrigerant

to be violations of the prohibition on venting unless technicians

take steps to minimize emissions of such refrigerants.

Probably the easiest way to minimize emissions of residual

refrigerant is to use recycling and recovery equipment that

possesses the ability to evacuate the contents of its condenser

into either the appliance being serviced or a recovery cylinder

at the conclusion of service. As noted by a number of commenters,

several currently available models of recycling and recovery

equipment possess this simple design feature. (Another feature

of recycling and recovery equipment that would minimize both

emissions and mixture of refrigerants is possession of multiple

condensers; however, this feature appears to be less common

than the self

- evacuation feature.) Other steps to minimize emissions

of residual refrigerant include those cited in the proposal,

such as heating the condenser of the recovery or recycling machine

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

the recovery or recycling machine is evacuated.

Because relatively simple design changes can be made (and,

as pointed out by many commenters, have been made) to minimize

the quantity of residual refrigerant that remains in the recycling

or recovery equipment after recycling or recovery is complete,

the most effective way of avoiding mixture or release of residual

refrigerants may be to include a requirement that equipment

be designed to avoid them in the certification program for recycling

and recovery equipment. It was not possible to consider fully

or to implement such a requirement before this rule was promulgated.

However, the Agency will investigate this possibility in the

future.

G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment

In order to ensure that recycling and recovery equipment

on the market is capable of limiting emissions of CFCs and HCFCs,

EPA is requiring that recovery and recycling equipment manufactured

or imported on or after November 15, 1993, be tested and certified

by an EPA

- approved laboratory or organization. The Agency requires

verification of performance in two areas that affect total recovery

efficiency: (1) Vapor recovery efficiency and (2) efficiency

of noncondensable purge devices on recycling machines. In addition,

EPA is requiring that equipment and hoses be fitted with low

loss fittings.

In addition to the initial testing, manufacturers must have

their equipment models tested or inspected at least once every

three years to ensure that the equipment is still capable of 

### Page 45 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlmeeting EPA requirements. Such "follow

- up" programs are standard

in equipment testing programs throughout industry. Manufacturers

and importers also have to place a label on each piece of certified

equipment indicating that it is certified and showing which

organization tested and certified it. This label is intended

to inform both consumers (technicians) and EPA enforcement personnel

that the equipment meets EPA standards.

1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended for

Use With Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except

Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like Appliances

a. Recovery Efficiency. In developing its evacuation requirements,

EPA has considered the technical capabilities, ease of use,

and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the servicing

times that would be necessary to achieve different vacuums,

and the amounts of refrigerant that would be released under

different evacuation requirements and their predicted impact

on the ozone layer (and therefore, on human health and the environment).

The Agency has attempted to evaluate these factors in both the

short and the long

- term, considering the capabilities of both

existing and possible future equipment.

In particular, the Agency has focused on the recovery rates

and maximum recovery efficiencies (vacuums) of equipment. Although

EPA is not setting minimum standards for recovery rates, the

recovery rate of equipment affects both the speed with which

it can achieve a certain vacuum and its portability. This in

turn affects the depth of vacuum that can be practically achieved

with air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment in the field.

For instance, if the air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment

is located in a space that is small or difficult to approach,

it may not be possible to connect it to recovery equipment with

a high recovery rate, which tends to be relatively large. In

such cases, smaller recovery equipment must be used, making

the achievement of deep vacuums excessively time

- consuming and

impractical. In the proposal, EPA attempted to allow for portability

concerns by setting less stringent standards for equipment containing

less than 50 pounds of high

- pressure refrigerants. However,

the Agency received a number of comments indicating that the

50

- pound limit was too low; the commenters stated that equipment

with more than 50 pounds is frequently located in areas that

make the use of large recovery equipment impossible. Some of

these commenters recommended that EPA adopt a 200

- pound limit

instead because equipment containing more than 200 pounds of

refrigerant is likely to be located in relatively large and

accessible equipment rooms. Based on its research and review

of comments, EPA believes that a 200

- pound limit is appropriate,

and the Agency is adopting this limit in the rule.

The maximum recovery efficiency of recovery and recycling

equipment is the percentage of refrigerant that the equipment

is capable of recovering from an appliance and is directly related

to the depth of vacuum that the equipment can achieve. Since

the proposed rule was developed, ARI has published the results

of its third

- party testing program for recycling and recovery

equipment, providing objective information on the range of performance

of available equipment in the various pressure categories. ARI's

results show that the brands and models tested that are intended

for use with low

- pressure refrigerants are capable of achieving

a 29

- inch vacuum in most instances. Most of the brands and models

intended for use with high

- pressure refrigerants are capable

of achieving a vacuum deeper than 10 inches in the laboratory,

and a number are capable of achieving a vacuum deeper than 15

inches. However, contrary to preliminary information received

by EPA from some equipment manufacturers, no recovery device 

### Page 46 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlintended for use with high

- pressure refrigerants was capable

of reaching the 29

- inch level.

According to comments and to EPA's own research, two limitations

on existing recycling and recovery equipment make achievement

of a 29

- inch vacuum with high

- pressure refrigerants unlikely:

The compression ratio limit of the equipment's compressor, and

the dependency of much of the equipment on the flow of refrigerant

for cooling its motor. Of these two hurdles, the dependency

of equipment on the flow of refrigerant for cooling appears

to be the more easily overcome. Many of the small, portable

recovery devices intended for use with small high

- pressure equipment

possess hermetic compressors, which rely upon the flow of refrigerant

through the compressor to carry heat away from the motor. When

such recovery devices operate in a vacuum, the flow of refrigerant

is decreased and the motor is subject to overheating. Recovery

devices with open compressors, which are not subject to this

problem, have historically weighed more than equipment with

hermetic compressors, making them less attractive in applications

where portability is a major concern. However, at least one

manufacturer of recovery equipment has developed a model that

incorporates a light

- weight open compressor. This recovery device

neither weighs nor costs more than models possessing hermetic

compressors, and is capable of achieving deeper vacuums than

many of its competitors, according to the results of ARI's testing.

(It should be noted, however, that even this equipment was not

capable of achieving a 20

- inch vacuum with all high

- pressure

refrigerants.) EPA recommends that purchasers of recycling and

recovery equipment consider compressor configuration when they

buy their equipment, particularly if they plan to use the equipment

in heavy

- duty applications where overheating could be a problem

(e.g., with large charge sizes or in high temperatures).

The compression ratio limit of recovery and recycling equipment

has proved a somewhat more challenging technical hurdle than

motor cooling. A number of commenters noted that compressors

used in recycling and recovery equipment typically have a compression

ratio limit of between 15 and 30 to 1. For R

- 22, this physically

limits the depth of vacuum that can be attained to between 10

and 20 inches of vacuum at 75 degrees F (the temperature at

which laboratory testing of recovery equipment occurs), and

to between 2 and 16 inches of vacuum at 100 degrees F (a temperature

at which recovery often occurs in the field). For R

- 12, the

limits range between 17 and 23 inches of vacuum at 75 degrees

F, and between 12 and 21 inches of vacuum at 100 degrees F.

Before these physical limits are reached, however, the pumping

efficiency of the compressor drops significantly, greatly slowing

the recovery process. For instance, on a 100

- degree day, a recovery

machine with a compression ratio limit of 30 to 1, which is

a good limit, is pumping R

- 22 at less than five percent of its

initial rate by the time the system pressure reaches atmospheric

pressure. By the time the system pressure reaches ten inches

of vacuum, the recovery machine is pumping at approximately

one percent of its original rate. In practical terms, therefore,

the vacuums achievable by currently available recovery equipment

are not as deep as the numbers in the previous paragraph would

indicate.

The compression ratio limit of recovery and recycling and

equipment can be increased by adding another compressor to the

recovery device in series with the first, by building a multi

stage compressor, or by switching to a different technology

altogether, the vacuum pump. Because the compressor is one of

the heavier components of recovery equipment, the first option

is not practical for recovery equipment for which portability

is a major concern. However, a manufacturer of recovery devices

submitted comments indicating that a multi

- stage compressor

for high

- pressure recycling and recovery equipment could be 

### Page 47 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlavailable within the next year, and a manufacturer of vacuum

pumps stated that a modified vacuum pump for high

- pressure recycling

and recovery equipment could be available within the same period.

According to the commenters, recovery or recycling equipment

built with either technology would be able to pull a 29

- inch

vacuum on high

- pressure refrigerants. The second commenter estimated

that recovery equipment incorporating the vacuum pump would

weigh little more than current equipment and would cost approximately

as much as current recovery equipment plus a vacuum pump for

dehydrating the air

- conditioning and refrigeration system. EPA

plans to monitor development of this recovery equipment and

will evaluate the possibility of setting stricter recovery efficiency

standards for high

- pressure recovery equipment in the future.

In the meantime, the Agency has decided to adopt the same

evacuation standards for recycling and recovery equipment as

it has for service and disposal practices. These standards appear

in table 2 below:

Table 2.

- Levels of Evacuation Which Must be Achieved by Recovery or Recycling

Machines Intended for Use With Air

- Conditioning or Refrigeration Equipment

[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like equipment

- manufactured on or

after November 15, 1993]

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Type of air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment with 3 Inches of Hg vacuum

which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used 3

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3

HCFC

- 22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, 3 0.

normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. 3

HCFC

- 22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, 3 10.

normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant. 3

Very high

- pressure equipment ............................... 3 0.

Other high

- pressure equipment, or isolated component of such 3 10.

equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds of 3

refrigerant. 3

Other high

- pressure equipment, or isolated component of such 3 15.

equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of 3

refrigerant. 3

Low

- pressure equipment ..................................... 3 25 mm Hg absolute.

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Some commenters stated that EPA should establish more stringent

evacuation standards for equipment in the laboratory (certification

requirements) than for equipment in the field (service practice

requirements). EPA recognizes that equipment in the field may

not always perform as well as equipment in the laboratory, due

to poor maintenance, wear, or extremes of temperature. However,

this does not imply that laboratory standards must be more stringent

than field standards, because much recovery and recycling equipment

will be well

- maintained and will not have to function at extreme

high or low temperatures. Moreover, regardless of its laboratory

performance, excessively worn or poorly maintained equipment

will not perform well in the field. Rather than raise laboratory

standards or lower field standards, therefore, EPA has decided

to allow technicians and contractors to decide whether the particular

application of their recovery equipment requires better than

the minimum laboratory performance. Technicians and contractors

are responsible for ensuring that required vacuums are achieved

in the field. Thus, for instance, persons repairing equipment

utilizing R

- 502 in high ambient temperatures would be wise to

purchase recovery equipment that can draw a 15

- inch vacuum on

this refrigerant in the laboratory. In addition, any user of 

### Page 48 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlrecycling and recovery equipment would be well

- advised to maintain

it properly and to replace it when it has worn out.

b. Passive or system

- dependent recovery equipment. In the

proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether it should permit

the use of system

- dependent recovery devices, which lack an

on

- board compressor, to recover refrigerant from high

- pressure

equipment besides small appliances. System

- dependent recovery

devices use the compressor of the air

- conditioning or refrigeration

system being evacuated to perform the evacuation. The proposal

would have allowed the use of the system compressor to evacuate

refrigerant from one component of the system to another (e.g.,

the receiver or pump

- out unit), so long as evacuation requirements

were met, but would not have allowed use of the system compressor

to move the charge out of the system. The Agency also requested

comment on what type of testing would be appropriate to ensure

that system

- dependent recovery devices minimized refrigerant

emissions. ARI 740

- 91, the industry protocol for testing recycling

and recovery equipment that was current when the proposed rule

was published, did not address system

- dependent recovery devices.

EPA has received comments both favoring and opposing the

use of system

- dependent recovery devices. Those favoring system

dependent recovery devices argued that they would not compromise

overall recovery efficiency because: (1) System compressors

are frequently in better condition than the compressors used

in recycling and recovery equipment, which are frequently pressed

beyond their design limits, and (2) when system compressors

are not operating (in approximately one out of ten cases), technicians

must travel back to the shop to pick up a new system compressor

anyway, and can pick up a compressor

- bearing recovery device

at the same time to recover the refrigerant. In addition, these

commenters stated that system

- dependent equipment costs less

than comparable compressor

- bearing equipment and can recover

refrigerant more quickly, because system compressors are generally

larger and more powerful than those used in recovery equipment.

Finally, commenters noted that the revision to ARI 740

- 1991,

ARI 740

- 1993, had incorporated a test for passive equipment

that demonstrated that this equipment was as effective as self

contained equipment, when used with an appliance with a fully

functioning compressor.

Commenters who opposed system

- dependent recovery devices

argued that they were likely to result in greater emissions

than compressor

- bearing equipment, because they rely on a system

compressor that may not always be operational and because they

tend to leave refrigerant on the "high side" of the system.

These commenters also expressed concern that some system compressors,

such as scroll designs, could be damaged by operating in a vacuum,

particularly if oil migrated out of the compressor (which it

tends to do as system pressure is lowered).

EPA has considered these comments and has analyzed the likely

effectiveness of system

- dependent recovery devices. The Agency

has specifically investigated the possibilities that system

dependent equipment may leave refrigerant on the "high side"

of the system and that the performance of the equipment may

be hampered by worn or defective system compressors. After reviewing

the test procedure for system

- dependent equipment in ARI 740

-

1993, EPA believes that this procedure ensures that system

- dependent

equipment certified under 740

- 1993 will not leave refrigerant

on the "high side" of the system. At the same time, EPA understands

that technicians typically return to their shops for a new compressor

when the system compressor is not operable, at which time they

can pick up a self

- contained recovery device to recover the

refrigerant before beginning the compressor changeout. When

system compressors are operable but are not capable of achieving

the required vacuums with a single recovery receptacle (a situation

that EPA believes will be relatively rare), the required vacuums 

### Page 49 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlcan be achieved by using a second, evacuated cylinder. Thus,

EPA is permitting use of system

- dependent equipment that has

been certified under ARI 740

- 1993 with appliances containing

up to 15 pounds of refrigerant (a quantity suggested in comments

from manufacturers of system

- dependent equipment). However,

because system

- dependent equipment will not be able to achieve

the required vacuums if the system compressor is not operating,

EPA is requiring technicians who repair or dispose of appliances

besides small appliances to have at least one self

- contained

recovery device available at the shop to recover the refrigerant

from systems with non operating compressors.

c. Refrigerant recovery rates. EPA did not propose to require

minimum refrigerant recovery rates for recycling and recovery

equipment, believing that contractors and technicians had sufficient

incentives to purchase equipment with rates adequate to their

needs. However, EPA did request comment on the option of establishing

minimum rates, because some members of the STOPAC Subcommittee

for Recycling expressed concern that some contractors might

purchase slower equipment (which is often less expensive than

faster equipment) and might subsequently interrupt the recovery

process before it was complete.

Most commenters agreed with EPA that minimum recovery rates

need not be included in the Agency's equipment certification

program because contractors and technicians wish to maximize

the quantity of refrigerant recovered while minimizing labor

costs. (In general, labor costs make up a much larger share

of the costs of refrigerant recovery than equipment costs.)

EPA performed an analysis that compares the recovery rate that

maximizes private benefits (and that would therefore presumably

be selected by a technician buying recovery or recycling equipment)

to the recovery rate that maximizes public benefits (and that

should be selected from society's perspective) for a number

of different sizes of air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

In general, there was little difference between the two. Thus,

EPA is not requiring minimum recovery rates for recycling or

recovery equipment in today's rule. However, because technicians

need objective information on recovery rates to purchase equipment

adequate to their needs, EPA is including measurement of vapor

and liquid recovery rates under the ARI 740

- 1993 procedure as

a requirement for EPA certification of equipment. As discussed

below, EPA is also working with ARI to add a measurement of

the average vapor recovery rate to the current measurement of

the maximum vapor recovery rate.

d. Low

- loss fittings. Low

- loss fittings prevent refrigerant

from escaping from hoses and equipment during connection and

disconnection of recovery and recycling machines. EPA proposed

to require that hoses on recovery and recycling equipment be

equipped with low

- loss fittings, noting that they appeared to

be cost

- effective on both high and low

- pressure equipment. Most

commenters supported a requirement for low

- loss fittings. However,

as discussed above in the Definitions section, the Agency received

a number of comments stating that automatic shutoff devices

had a number of drawbacks, and that the definition of low

- loss

fitting should be expanded to include manual shut

- off valves.

Thus, in the final rule, EPA is requiring that recycling and

recovery equipment be fitted with either automatic or manual

shutoff valves.

A few commenters opposed the requirement for low

- loss fittings.

One commenter argued that low

- loss fittings should not be required

on equipment with the capability to empty the hoses of refrigerant

before their disconnection. A few commenters stated that if

refrigerant is sealed into hoses by low

- loss fittings on a hot

day, the hose can explode.

EPA understands that most recycling and recovery equipment 

### Page 50 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlhas the ability to empty hoses of liquid refrigerant before

their disconnection, minimizing potential emissions. However,

low

- loss fittings are intended to prevent not only the release

of refrigerant, but the influx of air that would later have

to be purged. Thus, EPA is requiring them on equipment that

can "deinventory" hoses. EPA believes that if hoses are properly

emptied of liquid refrigerant before their disconnection, any

risk of subsequent explosion is eliminated.

e. Purge loss. Most recycling machines (but not recovery

machines) are equipped with air purge devices, which vent air

and other noncondensable contaminants from refrigerant. Because

some refrigerant tends to vaporize and mix with the air, some

refrigerant also escapes during the purging process. EPA proposed

to limit the quantity of refrigerant that could be allowed to

escape during purging to 5% of the quantity being recycled (under

the conditions of the ARI 740 test for recovery and recycling

machines). EPA's analysis indicated that this was probably the

most demanding standard that most existing recycling machines

could meet (RIA). However, some industry representatives stated

that competitively

- priced machines were capable of meeting a

higher standard, perhaps 3%. Because even 2% of a large charge

can be a significant amount (2% of a thousand

- pound charge is

20 pounds), EPA requested comment on setting a limit of 3% (or

still lower) or on lowering the limit from 5% to lower levels

over time.

Most commenters supported an initial purge loss limit of

5%. A number of commenters also supported establishing lower

purge loss limits as technology developed, but differed in their

willingness to establish a fixed schedule for lowering the limits.

Some supported lowering the purge loss limit by one percent

per year.

In view of the expectation of many commenters that a purge

loss limit of 3% would be feasible within the next few years,

EPA has decided to establish a 5% limit initially that will

be lowered to 3% in two years. The Agency believes that this

will encourage technological innovation without placing an undue

burden on manufacturers of recycling and recovery equipment.

f. Volume

- sensitive shutoff. In the proposal, EPA requested

comment on including a requirement that storage cylinders on

recycling and recovery equipment be equipped with a switch that

would automatically stop the recovery operation when 80% of

the available volume in the storage section contains liquid

refrigerant at 70 degrees F. This would be a safety feature

that would prevent overfilling of storage vessels; filling beyond

the recommended maximum level of 80% can lead to explosion of

the cylinder when its temperature rises to levels common in

storage areas during the summer.

EPA received comments both favoring and opposing a requirement

for a volume

- sensitive shutoff switch. A number of commenters

stated that they did not consider volume

- sensitive switches

necessary because technicians can weigh cylinders to ensure

that they are not overfilled, and in fact, some recovery and

recycling machines include built

- in scales. Other commenters

were concerned that volume

- sensitive switches would often be

ineffective. These commenters noted that the various volume

sensitive devices currently included in cylinders are not compatible

with all types and brands of recycling and recovery equipment.

If the cylinder and recovery device are not compatible, the

volume

- sensitive switch will not function. Volume

- sensitive

switches can also be bypassed either deliberately by the technician

or unintentionally through the use of certain recovery methods,

according to commenters. For instance, one commenter noted that

the "push

- pull" recovery method could result in the overfilling

of a cylinder while the recovery equipment itself was already

turned off. Some of the commenters opposing a requirement for 

### Page 51 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlvolume

- sensitive switches believed that concerns about overfilling

cylinders were better addressed through technician training.

In consideration of the technical problems involved in establishing

a requirement for a volume

- sensitive shutoff switch, the Agency

has decided not to include this requirement in the rule. Instead,

EPA will include knowledge of proper cylinder filling in its

requirements for technician certification.

2. Standards for Recovery Machines Intended for Use With Small

Appliances

In the proposal, the Agency required somewhat less stringent

recovery efficiency standards for household refrigerators, household

freezers, and other small appliances, as defined in section

III.E. The Agency proposed that technicians servicing small

appliances could use either active or passive equipment. The

efficiency level required was 90 percent, except for the use

of passive equipment on an appliance with a non

- operating compressor

where an 80 percent efficiency level was allowed. The Agency

requested comment on the proposed levels and on the specific

technologies analyzed.

As discussed in section III.E., in today's final rule, the

Agency will use the terms "self

- contained recovery equipment"

and "system

- dependent equipment" when referring to the active

and passive equipment, respectively. Several commenters supported

the Agency's proposal that both types of equipment be allowed

for use in the small appliance servicing sector. The Association

of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) stated that the efficiency

of both types of equipment is tied closely to the functioning

of the compressor. It also stated that the efficiency levels

are very close for the two types of equipment when the manufacturer

operating procedures for the equipment are properly followed

(i.e. heating and tapping a system when using the Whirlpool

bag). As a result, the technicians should be allowed the flexibility

to choose the method most appropriate for them. Many commenters

stated that the simple

- to

- use passive systems made compliance

with the rules more likely.

Several commenters opposed the use of system

- dependent recovery

equipment. Many stated that the highest

- efficiency equipment

should be required for all air

- conditioning and refrigeration

units and that use of the passive equipment was impractical

because of the longer time needed to wait for the refrigerant

to move from the appliance into the device. The Agency had discussed

in the proposal an option of allowing technicians who performed

less than 20 jobs per year to use the system

- dependent system.

Commenters against the use of the equipment were also against

a special exception for small servicers because of the difficulty

in enforcing this provision.

The Agency believes that the small quantity of refrigerant

involved in this sector and the goal of allowing flexibility

of compliance methods for technicians justifies allowing the

use of either system

- dependent or self

- contained recovery equipment

for the servicing of small appliances. The Agency has modified

the proposed requirements, however, to specify that it is the

operability of the compressor in the equipment containing the

refrigerant that determines the efficiency level for evacuation.

Comments submitted by AHAM illustrated that both self

- contained

and system

- dependent systems can achieve a 90 percent efficiency

of evacuation if manufacturer procedures are followed. Both

types of equipment, however, may have more difficulty reaching

this standard when the compressor is not functioning and, as

a result, an 80 percent efficiency standard will be required

in those cases. EPA would like to clarify that equipment must

be tested to meet these requirements and that the test situation 

### Page 52 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlmust reflect conditions that can be realistically implemented

in the field. As a result, equipment that has passed the equipment

certification requirements will meet the efficiency standards

required in this rule when used properly in the field. For more

information on the test methodology used to evaluate equipment,

see section III.G.5.

The Agency specifically requested comment of the carbon adsorption

technology used for recovering CFCs. The feasibility of recovering

CFCs from the carbon was the Agency's primary concern. Information

submitted by two commenters, Appliance Recycling Centers of

America (ARCA) and Dow, indicates that the refrigerant can be

removed from the carbon with high efficiency. The technology

may be practical for use when servicing small appliances, although

it must meet the same efficiency standard as all other equipment

used on small appliances

- 90 percent efficiency with working

compressors and 80 percent efficiency with non

- operational compressors.

3. Standards for Recycling and Recovery Machines Used with Equipment

Identical to MVACs

Today's final rule covers all air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment (except equipment designed and used exclusively for

a military application) not covered by the requirements of the

section 609 final rule (57 FR 31241, July 14, 1992; 40 CFR part

82, subpart B) for servicing motor vehicle air

- conditioning

equipment. This includes equipment that is identical in operation

to motor vehicle air

- conditioning equipment except that it is

found in vehicles outside the section 609 definition of "on

road motor vehicles". Examples include agricultural and construction

vehicles that do not operate "on

- road" but contain CFC

- 12 open

compressor mechanical vapor compression refrigeration equipment

used to cool the driver's or passengers compartment. For the

purposes of today's rule, this equipment is identified as "MVAC

like appliances." In the proposal, the Agency discussed the

option of using the equipment requirements established under

the section 609 regulation for these MVAC

- like appliances because

the equipment is identical in operation to the equipment covered

by the section 609 regulation except that it is contained in

non

- road vehicles. The Agency believes that the section 609

regulations satisfy the statutory standards of section 608 regarding

the maximization of recycling and reduction of emissions. As

stated in the proposal, adopting the section 609 standards would

allow equipment manufacturers to avoid double certification

of equipment because recycling units certified for use under

section 609 would not need to be certified under ARI Standard

740 (as long as they are used with MVAC

- like equipment).

Three commenters agreed that the MVAC

- like appliances should

be covered by the requirements of the section 609 regulation

because those requirements are specifically designed for this

type of equipment. The section 609 requirements contain specific

procedures for the proper use of recycling equipment that reflect

the needs of MVAC

- like appliances more precisely than the required

practices for small high

- pressure equipment. The equipment certification

procedure for section 609 equipment requires that machines meet

the recycling standard of purity developed by the manufacturers

of the air

- conditioning systems, a standard for which ARI Standard

740 does not specifically test. One commenter stated that the

MVAC

- like appliances should not be covered by the section 608

requirements, but instead should be covered under section 609

because the air

- conditioning systems are not appliances. The

Agency disagrees with the commenter's reasoning because, as

stated in the proposal, MVAC systems are clearly covered by

the definition of appliance. The MVAC systems in on

- road motor

vehicles are not covered by this rule's servicing provision

because of their inclusion in the 40 CFR part 82, subpart B 

### Page 53 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlregulations.

As a result, the Agency has decided to require that MVAC

like appliances follow the equipment requirements of the section

609 regulations, found in 57 FR 31241, July 14, 1992 (40 CFR

part 82, subpart B) and incorporated in today's rule.

4. Testing of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for

Use With Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except

Small Appliances

a. Third

- party certification. As was proposed, EPA is requiring

testing of recovery and recycling equipment for the above performance

characteristics by a third party approved by EPA. In the proposal,

EPA described two major equipment testing programs underway:

The ARI certification program under ARI Standard 740 (Appendix

B to these regulations) and the Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

program under ARI Standard 740 and UL 1963 (not to be confused

with UL's program for testing recycling and recovery equipment

intended for use with MVACs under UL 1963). EPA proposed that

approved recovery and recycling equipment testing organizations

use a modified version of these programs. The ARI and UL programs

use a laboratory test protocol to measure the performance of

equipment in a number of different areas, including vapor recovery

efficiency, purge loss, liquid recovery rate, vapor recovery

rate, and ability to clean refrigerant (in recycling machines).

Except in the area of purge loss, where refrigerant emissions

are limited to 5% of the total charge, no maximum or minimum

performance requirements need to be met for equipment to be

certified under ARI's current program. Under the modified program

proposed by EPA, equipment would have been certified only if

it could achieve the vacuums specified, limited purge losses

to 5%, and was equipped with low

- loss fittings.

ARI and UL test one unit of each make and model to verify

performance initially. Both programs also take measures to verify

that equipment manufactured over the long

- term continues to

perform as rated. Each year, ARI tests one unit each of one

third of the models certified under its program. This means

that over a three

- year period, ARI tests a sample of each make

and model that it certifies. UL conducts periodic inspections

of equipment at manufacturing facilities to ensure that models

have not undergone design changes that may affect their performance.

Following these industry precedents, EPA proposed to require

manufacturers to have equipment testing organizations test one

unit of each make and model initially and then conduct periodic

retests or inspections (at least once every three years) to

ensure the continued performance of each model line. (Equipment

certified under the ARI or UL programs prior to promulgation

of the final rule would not have to be retested in order to

be initially certified under the rule if the first set of tests

demonstrated that the equipment met EPA requirements.)

EPA received a number of comments regarding the need for

third party certification and the scope and methodology of the

certification program proposed. Several comments supported requiring

third

- party certification of recycling and recovery equipment

as the only reliable way to guarantee quality and consistency

of performance in the equipment. Commenters argued that third

party certification was necessary because it would limit the

number of ineffective or unsafe recycling and recovery machines

in use, prevent misleading advertising and thereby protect purchasers

of recycling and recovery equipment, and minimize emissions.

Commenters who opposed third

- party certification argued that

it was too expensive, that it precluded the use of home

- built

and custom

- built equipment that can perform as well as manufactured

equipment, and that it was not necessary because faulty recycling 

### Page 54 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmland recovery equipment would not be a source of emissions.

EPA has decided to require third

- party certification of recycling

and recovery equipment because it continues to believe that

third

- party certification is the most reliable method of obtaining

an accurate and objective evaluation of equipment performance.

While equipment certification alone does not guarantee that

emissions are minimized, it does prevent leaky or ineffective

equipment from entering the market. EPA believes that emissions

from such equipment could be significant. Although EPA recognizes

that some home

- built recovery equipment may perform quite well,

other home

- built equipment may not. Several commenters favoring

third

- party certification noted that home

- built equipment can

be leaky and can lack critical components. Thus, although home

built equipment is eligible for grandfathering until November

15, 1993, after that date, its manufacture will not be allowed

unless it is certified in the same way as equipment manufactured

for sale.

b. The ARI 740 test protocol. The Agency received comments

both supporting and criticizing the ARI 740 test procedure for

recycling and recovery equipment. Criticism was focussed on

four major areas. First, commenters charged that the ARI 740

method measures the vapor recovery efficiency of (or vacuum

achievable by) equipment incorrectly, yielding results that

are higher than could be theoretically achieved by the compressors

used in most recycling and recovery equipment. Second, commenters

stated that the ARI 740 method for measuring vapor recovery

rates yields a maximum, rather than an average, recovery rate.

Third, commenters noted that although the performance of recycling

and recovery equipment varies significantly depending upon ambient

temperature, the ARI 740 test procedure gages performance only

at one temperature, 75 degrees, which will yield optimum performance

measurements. Fourth, commenters stated that the ARI 740 test

procedure should include a test for equipment durability.

The Agency has investigated each of these criticisms and

believes that in some cases, alterations or additions to the

740 test procedure may be warranted in the future, although

it was not possible to consider them fully or implement them

before this rule was promulgated. (Some of the possible alterations

were not proposed and therefore cannot be incorporated into

these regulations until EPA undertakes another rulemaking.)

Responding to the criticisms one at a time, EPA believes that

the method for measuring vapor recovery efficiency in the ARI

740 test protocol is sound, based on engineering judgement.

In addition, most of the published results of this test fall

within expected ranges. In some cases, the published vapor recovery

efficiency does exceed that which would be expected given the

compression ratio limits of typical refrigeration compressors;

however, in the cases that EPA has investigated to date, EPA

has found that an innovative technology (such as a built

- in

subcooling feature) is responsible for the unusually good performance.

EPA will continue to work with ARI (and other testing organizations

using the ARI 740 standard) to ensure that vapor recovery efficiency

measurements are methodologically sound and are in accord with

the known limits of recovery technologies. If the Agency discovers

a flaw in the ARI 740 method for measuring vapor recovery efficiency,

the Agency will take steps to correct it and revise its regulations

if necessary.

Several commenters, including a state environmental protection

agency, an environmental group, and two manufacturers of recycling

and recovery equipment, believed that the ARI 740 test protocol

should be modified to include a test of the equipment's average

vapor recovery rate in addition to its maximum vapor recovery

rate. In general, as vapor recovery progresses, the density

of the vapor in the appliance, and therefore the vapor recovery

rate, declines. Toward the end of the recovery process, this 

### Page 55 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlrate may be only a small fraction (usually less than five percent)

of the original rate. Currently, the ARI 740 test procedure

measures the vapor recovery rate of equipment only at the beginning

of the recovery process, when liquid refrigerant is still present

in the test apparatus. At that time, the vapor density in the

test apparatus is at its maximum (the saturation density) and

so is the vapor recovery rate. Although the maximum vapor recovery

rate of a piece of recycling or recovery equipment is related

to its average recovery rate in the field, other factors, such

as compressor clearance (which is related to the depth of vacuum

that recovery equipment can achieve), are also important in

determining the average recovery rate. Thus, two pieces of equipment

with identical maximum recovery rates can have very different

recovery rates at the end of the recovery process.

While EPA is not regulating equipment recovery rates for

the reasons discussed in section G.1.c, the Agency believes

that the best possible information on these rates should be

available to technicians to ensure that they purchase recycling

and recovery equipment adequate to their needs. EPA is concerned

that technicians who must rely solely on the maximum recovery

rate as a measure of average recovery rate in the field may

inadvertently purchase equipment that performs relatively poorly

as recovery progresses. This will prove costly not only to the

technician but also to the environment if the technician decides

to cut recovery short. According to one of the commenters, who

has been involved in ARI's testing program, modifying the current

test to measure the average, rather than the maximum, vapor

recovery rate would simply require timing the recovery procedure

that is already included in the 740 protocol. EPA has discussed

this possibility with ARI, and ARI has expressed interest in

making the modification in the near future. Equipment entering

the certification program after the modification was made would

have its average recovery rate measured, and equipment that

had been through the certification program already would have

its average recovery rate measured when it came up for recertification

on the three

- year schedule.

One commenter argued that the ARI 740 method for measuring

the maximum vapor recovery rate was itself flawed because the

measurement takes place quickly in "transient" conditions. However,

the ARI 740

- 93 procedure specifies that the measurement take

place "after the equipment reaches stabilized conditions of

condensing temperature and/or storage tank pressure" and the

ARI 740

- 91 procedure, the predecessor to 740

- 93, required measurement

"after the equipment reaches stabilized conditions." ARI representatives

stated that, in practice, the recovery rate is measured after

the system has been running for several minutes, and that three

separate measurements are taken for two

- minute periods. EPA

believes that this methodology should yield an accurate measurement

of the maximum recovery rate.

The other methodological concern raised by commenters was

that the ARI 740 test takes place at only one temperature, 75

degrees, but the performance of equipment varies significantly

at lower and higher temperatures. At low temperatures, the saturation

pressure of refrigerant can be very low, slowing recovery considerably

if equipment is capable only of vapor recovery. (Even the push

pull method, which relies upon the vapor pressure in the recovery

tank, is less effective at low temperatures.) At high temperatures,

on the other hand, the saturation pressure of the refrigerant

in the recovery tank is relatively high, raising the compression

ratio against which the compressor in the recovery device must

work to evacuate the appliance. Consequently, it is often impossible

to achieve vacuums in high temperatures that can be achieved

at 75 degrees.

EPA has discussed the possible need for equipment testing 

### Page 56 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlat multiple temperatures with ARI, with equipment manufacturers,

and with technicians in the field. The Agency is concerned that

some equipment has evidently occasionally failed to function

altogether in the past at high temperatures, although manufacturers

have apparently corrected many early problems. The current version

of the ARI 740 standard requires equipment to function at temperatures

up to 104 degrees F. However, ARI states that performing full

performance testing at high and/or low temperatures would double

or triple the cost of the certification test. Moreover, according

to ARI, equipment manufacturers often provide "application ratings"

that contain information about expected equipment performance

under conditions other than those of the 740 test. EPA will

work with both ARI and contractor organizations to further examine

the possible need for equipment testing at more than one temperature.

Given that the 740 test currently costs approximately $3,300

for each make and model,{2} a price similar to that of individual

pieces of recycling and recovery equipment, doubling or tripling

this cost may be justified if significant new information would

be made available to purchasers of the equipment.

3 { 2} Price based on testing of recycling equipment with

3 four refrigerants.

Finally, a number of commenters believed that the ARI 740

test procedure should include a test of equipment durability.

Durability is a concern because recycling and recovery equipment

is constructed using components very similar to those in refrigeration

and air

- conditioning equipment, but recycling and recovery equipment

is regularly subject to much more stressful conditions than

most air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment. For instance,

compressors in recycling and recovery equipment must repeatedly

pull vacuums. This has two implications. First, the compressor

in a piece of recycling and recovery equipment will operate

at a higher compression ratio than most other compressors, raising

the temperature of the discharge gas. Second, as the vacuum

is drawn, the motor of a hermetic compressor will be starved

of its cooling fluid, the refrigerant. Together, these considerations

imply that recycling and recovery equipment will often operate

at higher than ideal temperatures. In addition, recycling and

recovery equipment will frequently be exposed to contaminated

refrigerant, increasing opportunities for corrosion.

One of the commenters submitted a suggested durability test

that he recommended be included in EPA's required testing regimen.

This durability test has been placed in the docket for this

rulemaking. The durability test involves continuous operation

of the equipment for several hours. ARI representatives, however,

have stated that a test lasting only for such a period would

probably not constitute an adequate test of equipment durability.

According to ARI, equipment manufacturers themselves usually

perform durability tests lasting for much longer periods (months

or years). ARI believes that it was not the role of a third

party performance certification program to test equipment for

durability, and that such testing would greatly increase the

cost of testing.

As it is investigating the need for performance testing at

high and low temperatures, EPA will also investigate the need

and proper procedure for durability testing. If EPA concludes

that such testing is necessary, it may pursue voluntary programs

with industry or further rulemaking as appropriate. Given the

potential value of durability testing, such testing may be worthwhile

even if it is relatively expensive. The Agency may also work

with contractor groups to gather and disseminate information

about equipment performance in the field.

EPA emphasizes that although it may be possible (and even

necessary) to enhance the ARI 740

- 93 testing procedure, the

procedure currently yields valuable, objective information regarding

important performance characteristics of recycling and recovery 

### Page 57 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlequipment. The Agency believes that thoughtful consideration

of this information by well

- trained technicians is likely to

ensure that the recycling and recovery equipment purchased is

adequate to their needs. EPA urges purchasers of recycling and

recovery equipment to use good judgment in selecting and using

this equipment. Purchasers should be aware that equipment using

hermetic compressors may fail when used in high temperatures

or with large charge sizes. They should also be aware of two

rules of thumb regarding recovery rates: (1) The average recovery

rate that they achieve in the field will probably range between

1/3 and 1/2 the maximum rate currently being published by ARI

and UL, and (2) the maximum depth of vacuum achievable by a

piece of equipment is likely to be a good indicator of its recovery

rate in the field. (That is, if two pieces of equipment have

the same maximum recovery rate, but one piece can draw a deeper

vacuum than the other, the piece that can draw the deeper vacuum

probably recovers more quickly in the field than the other piece.)

Finally, recovery techniques in the field can either greatly

expedite or greatly slow the recovery process. Users of recycling

and recovery equipment should obtain training to learn as much

as possible about techniques to make refrigerant recovery and

recycling as effective, safe, fast, and simple as possible.

Since the proposed rule was developed, ARI has expanded and

altered the 740 test protocol to include a test for system

- dependent

equipment, to recognize the push/pull method of recovery, and

to specify the final recovery vacuum instead of the vapor recovery

efficiency of recycling and recovery equipment. ARI described

these changes at the public hearing for the proposed rule and

requested that EPA adopt the latest version of the 740 test

protocol (ARI 740P

- 93) in the final rule. For the reasons described

below, EPA is doing so. First, EPA believes that the changes

will enhance the usefulness of the 740 test procedure. A test

to measure the recovery vacuum of system

- dependent equipment

is needed, and EPA believes that the test procedure developed

by ARI will yield an accurate measure of the performance of

that equipment when used on appliances with fully functioning

compressors. In addition, by publishing the final recovery vacuum

rather than vapor recovery efficiency of equipment, the new

procedure will make it easier for equipment purchasers to compare

equipment performance to EPA's requirements. Second, the changes

to ARI 740 have been adopted through a process that involves

participation not only of ARI's wide industry membership, but

of the general public, indicating that they are widely supported.

All the comments that EPA received concerning the new test methodology

favored the changes. Third, the methods for measuring the performance

of self

- contained equipment in the areas being regulated by

EPA, the ability of equipment to capture refrigerant and the

quantity of refrigerant released during purging, have not been

changed, nor have the minimum requirements for ARI certification.

(By publishing the final recovery vacuum rather than the vapor

recovery efficiency, ARI is simply substituting a raw pressure

measurement for a percentage that was calculated from this measurement

and the saturation pressure of each refrigerant.)

A few commenters stated that EPA should build enough flexibility

into its regulations to permit changes to be made to the ARI

740 procedure without requiring EPA to undertake further rulemaking.

Commenters were particularly concerned that the Agency might

inadvertently prevent or delay the use of recovery technologies

whose ability to recover refrigerant could not be tested by

the current version of ARI 740. In the proposal EPA requested

comment on this issue, noting that two recovery technologies

that had come to its attention could not be tested by the then

current version of ARI 740, ARI 740

- 1991. These recovery technologies

were the system

- dependent equipment discussed in section G.1.b. 

### Page 58 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmland a nitrogen

- forcing technology. As noted above, ARI 740

- 1993

includes a test for the former. Although the designer of the

nitrogen

- forcing technology believes that only minor modifications

to ARI 740

- 1993 would permit testing of this technology, these

modifications were not presented in time to be adopted before

this rule was promulgated.

To permit certification of the nitrogen

- forcing and other

possible technologies without undertaking further rulemaking,

EPA has included a provision to the rule that would allow new

technologies to be certified if an approved third

- party testing

organization adopted and performed a test that showed that the

new technology achieved the same recovery efficiency as comparable

certified equipment. This test would have to be approved by

EPA. This provision is very similar to a provision in EPA's

motor vehicle emissions testing program that allows motor vehicle

manufacturers to request that EPA accept a new test procedure

if existing procedures are not applicable to a certain vehicle

(40 CFR 86.090

- 27).

EPA notes that if ARI 740

- 1993 is altered in a way that relates

to the minimum requirements for ARI certification (Section 4

of 740

- 1993, which EPA is requiring as part of this rule) or

the measurement of the final recovery vacuum, purge efficiency,

or maximum recovery rate of existing recovery technologies,

those changes will not alter the requirements of this rule (and,

therefore, EPA will not recognize certification under the new

version) unless EPA undertakes a notice and comment rulemaking

to adopt the changes. However, approved equipment testing organizations

may add or change their own certification requirements and still

have their certification recognized by EPA so long as they also

continue to test in accordance with EPA's rule's requirements.

c. Revocation of certification. If previously certified equipment

fails a follow

- up test or inspection, the approved equipment

testing organization is required to inform EPA of this fact,

and the certification for that equipment will be revoked or

suspended after allowing the manufacturer an opportunity to

respond. In general, EPA has the authority to revoke or suspend

any certification granted under the provisions of section 608.

If the Agency determines that a person or entity has violated

the regulations, or if the Agency has knowledge that a person

or entity is incapable of fulfilling the requirements of the

regulation, the Agency would revoke or suspend any certification

previously granted. In the case of minor violations, the Agency

may act to suspend certification for a given period of time.

However, in the case of serious or repeat violations, the Agency

may determine that revocation of certification is warranted.

In the event of a revocation of equipment certification, the

affected model of recycling or recovery equipment could no longer

be manufactured. Similarly, in the event of revocation of technician,

equipment

- owner, or reclaimer certification, the affected technician,

owner of recycling or recovery equipment, or reclaimer could

no longer do business.

d. Approval of equipment testing organizations. In addition

to ARI and UL, other testing organizations have indicated an

interest in setting up their own programs to certify performance

to EPA's specifications. EPA will approve any equipment certification

program that can demonstrate that it: (1) Possesses thorough

knowledge of the standards as they appear in 82.158 and ARI

740

- 1993 (appendix B), (2) possesses the equipment described

in ARI 740

- 1993 to test performance in the areas of concern,

(3) possesses expertise in equipment testing, (4) has developed

a program to verify the performance of certified recycling or

recovery equipment manufactured over the long

- term, including

either retests of equipment or inspections of equipment at manufacturing

facilities, and (5) is not financially or otherwise interested

in the outcome of the testing. Organizations seeking approval 

### Page 59 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlto be equipment certifiers should contact EPA.

In addition to the requirements above, equipment testing

organizations are required to submit lists of approved equipment

to EPA annually. They are also required to inform EPA within

30 days of the certification of a new model of equipment or

of the failure of a previously certified model of equipment.

5. Testing of Recovery Machines Intended for Use With Small

Appliances

In the proposal, the Agency required that recycling and recovery

equipment intended for use with small appliances be tested according

to the testing procedures published as appendix C. This was

proposed because, at that time, the ARI 740 test method used

for other recovery and recycling equipment could not accommodate

the technologies specifically designed for recovering CFCs from

small appliances. These technologies include both self

- contained

recovery equipment (active) and system

- dependent (passive) machines.

The test procedure in appendix C was developed by General Electric

and could be used for both self

- contained and system

- dependent

devices used on equipment with operating or nonoperating compressors.

Three commenters specifically agreed that the proposed appendix

C was appropriate for testing recovery and recycling equipment

for small appliances. Three commenters stated that the appendix

was inappropriate and cited as their justification that system

dependent machines should not be used at all with small appliances,

an issue discussed in section III.G.2. AHAM submitted comments

that included changes to the proposed appendix C. They stated

that after submitting the procedure to the Agency, General Electric

worked with the member companies of AHAM to refine and improve

the test procedure. The revisions address several concerns.

First, the procedure was revised to more precisely measure the

refrigerant trapped in shipping containers. Second, calculation

of recovery efficiency for each recovery event was included.

Third, the test to track compressor oil that might be removed

from the test stand was deleted while steps were revised to

account for any oil added to the stand or the recovery system

to properly maintain the equipment. Finally, the number of recoveries

performed as part of the test was reduced to provide for more

cost

- effective testing. All other changes were characterized

as editorial. The Agency believes these changes are improvements

to the procedure and has incorporated them into today's final

rule.

In response to the concern that the ARI 740 testing procedure

could not accommodate the types of technology used to service

small appliances, ARI submitted changes to the 740 test procedure

contained in appendix B. These changes are discussed in section

G.4 above. The Agency agrees that these changes make it possible

to test the technologies and has incorporated the language into

appendix B. The rule language has been changed to allow recovery

or recycling equipment intended for use on small appliances

to be tested to either appendix B or appendix C.

As part of their comments, UL submitted an alternative test

procedure to the procedure proposed in appendix C discussed

above. Although their "Subject 2090, Outline of Investigation

for Passive Refrigerant Recovery Systems" offers adequate testing

of the safety of a passive device, it does not contain the same

level of specificity in test procedure as the proposed GE changes

with the AHAM changes discussed above. The Agency believes appendices

B and C are adequate procedures for both the system

- dependent

and self

- contained devices for small equipment and therefore,

UL's method will not be added at this time.

6. Effective Dates and Grandfathering Provisions 

### Page 60 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlEPA proposed to give manufacturers of recycling and recovery

equipment six months after publication of the final rule to

certify all of their equipment to the new standards. Based on

EPA's analysis of the manufacturer's capabilities to produce

such equipment, EPA believed that this lead time was sufficient.

Commenters expressed a range of opinions regarding the appropriate

effective date for third

- party certification of equipment. Several

agreed with the proposed date, six months after publication

of the final rule. Some, however, believed that six months was

not sufficient time to permit equipment testing organizations

to become approved and complete their testing. Two commenters

stated that because the promulgation date of this rule is known

and equipment testing has already begun, EPA should allow only

three months for manufacturers to have their equipment certified.

As was proposed, EPA is requiring that recycling and recovery

equipment manufactured more than 6 months after publication

of this rule be certified by an approved testing organization.

The Agency believes that 6 months is adequate time for manufacturers

to complete having their equipment tested by an approved testing

organization. As one commenter noted, both manufacturers and

testing organizations have had a great deal of notice regarding

the probable requirements and effective dates of this rule,

and testing of equipment has been in progress at more than one

laboratory for over a year. As EPA stated in the proposal, equipment

that was tested by a testing organization prior to promulgation

of this rule (and, therefore, prior to official approval of

the testing organization) will be considered certified if the

testing showed that the equipment met EPA requirements and if

the testing organization is approved. However, testing of equipment

for use with some types of appliances (e.g., large low

- pressure

systems) has only recently begun, and the Agency does not therefore

believe that it can require third

- party certification of all

recycling and recovery equipment manufactured in less than six

months.

EPA proposed to "grandfather" recycling and recovery equipment

manufactured until 6 months after publication of the final rule,

if it met certain minimum requirements. Equipment intended for

use with high

- pressure refrigerants (except for refrigerants

in small appliances) would have to have been able to evacuate

systems to four inches of vacuum; equipment intended for use

with low

- pressure refrigerants would have to have been able

to evacuate systems to 25 inches. Equipment intended for use

with small appliances would have had to be able to recover 80%

of the refrigerant in the small appliance, whether or not the

compressor of the appliance was operating. (Equipment intended

for use with very high

- pressure refrigerants would have to have

been able to evacuate systems to 0 inches of vacuum, or atmospheric

pressure, as in the proposed requirements effective after 6

months after publication of the final rule.) In addition, EPA

requested comment on whether it should require grandfathered

recycling and recovery equipment to be retrofitted with low

loss fittings.

The grandfathering proposal was intended (1) to avoid penalizing

individuals who had purchased such equipment before it was legally

required and (2) to encourage individuals who had not acquired

such equipment to purchase it as soon as possible, rather than

wait for certified equipment to become available. Although the

standards for grandfathered recycling and recovery equipment

were not as strict as those for certified recycling and recovery

equipment, the Agency concluded that the benefits of beginning

recovery sooner outweighed the small loss in recovery efficiency.

However, because this advantage would disappear if less efficient

equipment were used for too long, EPA requested comment on the

option of requiring grandfathered recycling and recovery equipment 

### Page 61 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlto be retired in five years.

Commenters universally supported the grandfathering of recycling

and recovery equipment, citing the reasons above. Only a small

percentage of the commenters expressed an opinion regarding

the proposed evacuation standards and retrofit requirements

for grandfathered equipment. Of these, two argued for less stringent

evacuation standards, and one argued for more stringent evacuation

standards

, particularly for very large ( 1000 lbs .) high

- pressure

equipment. The two commenters who expressed an opinion regarding

low

- loss fittings were split, with one favoring them and one

opposing them. A few commenters believed that EPA should require

some type of testing of grandfathered equipment to ensure its

performance to EPA's standards.

Some commenters supported mandatory retirement of grandfathered

equipment after five years, noting that most regularly used

recycling and recovery equipment would wear out in that time.

A few commenters argued for retirement after shorter periods

ranging from six months to three years. However, a number of

commenters opposed mandatory retirement of grandfathered equipment.

Many of these commenters stated that recycling and recovery

equipment purchased for in

- house use would not be used as frequently

as equipment purchased by service contractors, and would therefore

be expected to have a much longer useful life than five years.

Some of these commenters argued that use of grandfathered equipment

should be permitted indefinitely, so long as the equipment could

meet the stricter standards required of fully certified equipment.

EPA has decided to retain its proposed grandfathering requirements

and, therefore, is grandfathering recycling and recovery equipment

that meets the minimum evacuation requirements that were proposed.

These requirements are shown in Table 3 below. (As proposed,

grandfathered recovery equipment used with small appliances

must achieve a recovery efficiency of 80%.) The Agency is not

requiring that this equipment be retrofitted with low

- loss fittings

or retired after five years.

Table 3.

- Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or

Recycling Machines Intended for Use With Appliances {1}

[Manufactured before November 15, 1993]

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Type of air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment with which 3 Inches

recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used 3 of

3 vacuum

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3

HCFC

- 22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, 3 0

normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. 3

HCFC

- 22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, 3 4

normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant. 3

Very High

- Pressure Equipment .................................... 3 0

Other high

- pressure equipment, or isolated component of such 3 4

equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds of 3

refrigerant. 3

Other high

- pressure equipment, or isolated component of such 3 4

equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant 3

Low

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

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

{ 1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances.

EPA is grandfathering recycling and recovery equipment for

the reasons cited in the proposal and by numerous commenters.

The Agency is retaining its proposed evacuation requirements 

### Page 62 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlfor this equipment because it continues to believe that most

recycling and recovery equipment manufactured over the past

two years can meet these requirements. Although third

- party

testing would help to ensure the performance of grandfathered

equipment, EPA does not believe that such testing would be practical,

given that a number of models currently in the field may no

longer be produced and may in fact be "home

- made" equipment.

Thus, technicians are responsible for testing their own grandfathered

equipment to ensure that it can meet EPA's requirements.

EPA is not requiring retirement of grandfathered equipment

for two reasons. First, comments and EPA research both indicate

that the expected lifetime of this equipment varies widely depending

upon its application and frequency of use. Thus, a five

- year

retirement provision would tend to punish persons who have purchased

recycling equipment only for in

- house use and who may otherwise

expect to be able to use their equipment for another five to

ten years. Second and more important, a five

- year retirement

date would fall in late 1998, nearly three years after the phaseout

of production of CFCs. By this time, EPA expects that the expense

of CFCs will constitute a powerful private incentive to replace

grandfathered equipment that is not as efficient as new equipment.

However, EPA intends to monitor use of grandfathered equipment

to ensure that it does not result in excessive emissions, and

EPA will consider mandating retirement of less efficient equipment

if such emissions become a problem despite the rising costs

of CFCs.

H. Certification of Technicians

1. Description of Proposed Voluntary Technician Training and

Certification

EPA did not propose a mandatory training or certification

requirement as its lead option. The proposal agreed that private

incentives were sufficient to ensure that technicians were properly

trained in refrigerant recycling and recovery. In addition,

such a program could create an administrative burden for EPA.

However, the Agency did request comments on the mandatory certification

option. In the absence of a mandatory program, the Agency stated

that it could play an important role through a voluntary program

by recognizing those who provide and participate in training

programs which meet certain minimum standards. EPA proposed

establishing a voluntary certification program whereby private

sector certification programs could request EPA review and approval

based on a set of defined qualifications. Core elements of such

a program were reviewed in the proposal. In addition to requesting

comment on the need and feasibility of a voluntary program,

the Agency requested comment on whether a mandatory certification

program is necessary or desirable. The proposal stated that

a mandatory certification program could be very similar in form

to the voluntary program.

2. Decision to Establish a Mandatory Program

With this Notice, the Agency today is promulgating a mandatory

technician certification program. Although the Agency had not

proposed a mandatory program as its lead option, EPA now believes

that such previously stated obstacles as administrative burden

to both the Agency and to technicians can be overcome, and that

the benefits of a mandatory program warrant its adoption. In

addition, the Agency received over 18,000 comments in support

of a mandatory program. Although 142 commenters opposed such

a program, the overwhelming support indicates that technicians

themselves believe that such a program is necessary. 

### Page 63 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmla. Overwhelming Technician Response. The Agency received

comments from over 18,000 technicians voicing their support

for a mandatory technician certification program. Although there

were dissenting opinions, these technicians as well as the major

trade organizations representing these sectors endorse such

a program. In addition, the manufacturers of recovery and recycling

equipment supported mandatory certification, as did environmental

organizations, arguing that it would increase compliance. Commenters

had many reasons for their support for a mandatory technicians

certification program. These reasons included the following:

Guaranteeing that technicians who handle refrigerants understand

and practice proper safe refrigerant recovery and recycling

techniques;

Promoting awareness of problems related to the venting

,

recovery, and recycling of refrigerants;

Ensuring environmentally safe service practices ;

Receiving more liability protection ;

Gaining consumer trust ;

Improving leak detection ;

Ensuring that equipment is properly maintained and used ;

Improving productivity and cost savings through proper

maintenance and usage practices;

Educating technicians on how to contain and conserve refrigerant

effectively, curtailing illegal venting into the atmosphere;

and

Creating uniform and enforceable laws

.

In response to questions regarding the likely effectiveness

of the proposed voluntary program, commenters stated that mandatory

certification would foster fairer competition in the regulated

community. Specifically, commenters were concerned that untrained

technicians could undercut costs of trained technicians by not

following procedures necessary for effective recovery of refrigerant.

These untrained technicians might not invest in proper recovery

or recycling equipment, and might continue to vent refrigerant.

One hundred and forty

- two commenters expressed disapproval

for mandatory technician certification. Some commenters stated

that it would place an undeserved burden upon the stationary

refrigeration and air conditioning industry because of the amount

of time technicians and employers would have to expend to become

certified. In response to these comments, the Agency has reviewed

the results of requiring MVAC technicians to receive both mandatory

training and mandatory certification under section 609. Typically,

training and certification for MVAC technicians require less

than two or three hours, with fees ranging between twelve and

twenty dollars. The diverse equipment covered by section 608

may require longer training sessions. The Agency has reviewed

the cost and length of various training programs providing voluntary

certification for technicians. The Agency believes adequate

training and certification will require four to eight hours

with fees ranging between thirty and seventy

- five dollars. EPA

does not view these fees or time needs as burdensome requirements.

The Agency realizes that if certification promulgated under

today's rule was designed with organizations developing training

and certification materials, followed by extensive Agency review

of all training materials, certification exams and administrative

procedures, the wider variety of equipment covered by today's

rule could lead to long training sessions and costly programs.

Therefore, today's rulemaking employs a more streamlined, less

time

- consuming approach. EPA has created three separate certification

categories, based on industry divisions, allowing technicians

to focus only on the kinds of equipment they service. Additionally,

the Agency will provide a validated bank of questions, simplifying

test development by certifying programs, and decreasing costs.

This streamlined approach will also shorten the Agency's review 

### Page 64 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlprocess.

Some commenters suggested that technicians have sufficient

incentives to obtain proper training, thereby eliminating the

need for mandatory certification. Private incentives include

the value of recovered refrigerants, avoidance of injury, avoidance

of equipment damage, negative publicity, and the technician's

desire to avoid fines. In a "perfect market" such private incentives

would encourage recovery and recycling; however, even within

a "perfect market" incentives do not always reflect environmental

costs. The escalating cost of refrigerant can be outweighed

by labor costs to recover refrigerants, thus minimizing recycling

procedures. Furthermore, training encourages proper techniques,

without which contaminated refrigerant could be introduced into

equipment. If equipment were to fail immediately due to contaminated

refrigerant, then the technician could be held accountable.

However, such failures can occur long after the technician introduced

contaminated refrigerant, thus making it unlikely that the technician

who introduced the contaminated refrigerant could be held responsible.

The RIA describes four benefits from requiring mandatory

technician certification. First, certification decreases the

costs for obtaining information for the technicians. Second,

a technician certification program increases the probability

that technicians receive adequate training concerning the requirements

of today's rule and the proper operation of recycling equipment,

leading to reduced emissions through increased compliance. Third,

mandatory certification enhances EPA's ability to enforce today's

rule, by providing another tool for use against intentional

noncompliance: The ability to revoke the technician's certification.

Finally, mandatory certification increases fairness by ensuring

that all technicians are complying with today's rule.

The Agency believes that without a mandatory certification

requirement, participation in voluntary programs will be limited,

especially in the short

- run. In anticipation of a mandatory

certification requirement, several organizations designed and

implemented voluntary certification programs. After the Agency

proposed a voluntary approach, the Refrigeration Service Engineers

Society reported a significant decrease in enrollment for its

program. The Agency believes a mandatory program will significantly

increase technician participation.

b. Lessened Burden to EPA and Technicians. The Agency believes

it has developed a technician certification program that will

not be burdensome to either the Agency or technicians. The Agency

will authorize qualifying organizations to give an examination

that tests knowledge of recovery and recycling procedures, as

well as the environmental effects of refrigerant release. The

Agency believes this will allow the largest number of technicians

to become certified in a reasonable amount of time. The Agency

will develop and validate a test bank of questions from which

testing organizations will draw their questions. This will simplify

test development by organizations and ensure a national uniform

standard for the test.

EPA will not approve individual training and test review

programs. Although training programs may be beneficial, technicians

need only pass the test to become certified. The Agency believes

that the market will determine which programs are needed to

educate technicians sufficiently.

c. Better Environmental Protection. EPA reviewed the literature

concerning effective training programs. The Agency anticipates

that many technicians will participate in training programs

before taking the certification test. The Agency believes an

effective educational program aimed at preparing technicians

for the certification test, will increase compliance with today's

rulemaking, leading to better environmental protection. In particular,

the Agency reviewed the University of Michigan's interim report

"Evaluation of the Ford Motor Company/United Automobile Workers 

### Page 65 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlHazard Communications Program," which focused on how effective

training can alter the participants' knowledge and attitudes,

work practices and working conditions. The study found that

this type of training has a number of positive impacts, including

the ability to communicate useful information, foster safer

work practices and improve health and safety control measures.

The study concluded that 42 percent of the workers surveyed

changed their work practices as a result of the training program.

The Agency believes that as technicians become more knowledgeable

about recovery and recycling techniques, they will become aware

of the environmental implications of their actions. EPA believes

that information gained through certification will increase

the technician's sense of social responsibility towards refrigerant

recovery, and will therefore increase compliance with today's

rule. Anecdotal evidence gathered from recent journal articles

demonstrates that as individuals recognize their environmental

responsibilities, they are more likely to comply with environmental

regulations.

EPA's research and information supplied by trade associations

indicates that the majority of technicians serving air

- conditioning

and refrigeration equipment today have little if any experience

working with recovery and recycling equipment. Although recycling

is common for equipment with large charge sizes, such as chillers

and industrial process refrigeration, most technicians in the

household refrigeration and household air conditioning sectors

have not recycled CFCs or HCFCs in the past or have done so

in a manner not aimed at minimizing emissions. In addition,

although recycling may occur for commercial refrigeration, fear

of incurring costs from the potential spoilage of food during

repair of the system has limited recycling. Technicians who

service equipment in these three sectors perform the largest

number of service jobs per year. Thus, for a significant number

of service technicians, it is extremely important to ensure

that they understand the recycling requirements of section 608.

Industry representatives also believe that technician certification

will significantly increase compliance with EPA's regulations.

In one analysis submitted to EPA, representatives from the Trane

Company reviewed probable compliance rates across service companies

of different sizes. Trane Company estimated that a certification

requirement will increase compliance by approximately 20 percent,

reducing potential CFC emissions significantly and reducing

the costs of the CFC phaseout by reducing the need for expensive

retrofits.

d. Improved Productivity. The Agency believes that technician

certification and education will improve the productivity of

technicians. The Program Director for the CFC recovery and recycling

education program for Ferris State University, a leading national

vocational technical university, estimates that a recycling

program similar to the one described here would dramatically

improve worker proficiency. Specifically, the Ferris State University

program director estimated that this training will:

Save 30%

- 50% of the time needed for each job over initial

jobs by familiarizing technicians with appropriate procedures

for use and maintenance of equipment in one structured course;

Improve productivity by one hour per service job over the

long term;

Improve leak detection work

, by choosing the appropriate

method (halogen, halide, etc.), eliminating waste and saving

two to three hours per job;

Avoid improper piping / soldering techniques ( certified technicians

would be less likely to create hazardous conditions resulting

in a loss of refrigerant and saving the time required to remedy

the problem);

Preserve HVAC / R and recovery / recycling operating capacity 

### Page 66 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlby training technicians in the proper procedures for avoiding

mixing refrigerants (in a typical system containing three pounds

of refrigerant, mixing would result in one hour of lost labor,

refrigerant loss, and costs of distillation and/or destruction

of a trial mixture @$3.00/lb (current estimated price, leading

to costs of at least $70

- $80 each time refrigerants were erroneously

mixed); and

Preserve equipment by training in proper oil application

(using inappropriate oils would require that technicians flush

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

$460 to $560).

These estimates are based on the observation that technicians

working on equipment in the most populous sectors (residential

and household refrigeration) today are often not familiar with

the procedures and practices required for effective recovery

and recycling even within their own sector of the industry.

Proper technician education in recycling and recovery has

a number of private benefits for technicians, contractors and

equipment owners. It encourages the conservation of refrigerant,

a valuable and increasingly scarce material, and it also helps

to protect the air conditioning and refrigeration equipment

by reducing improper servicing techniques and refrigerant contamination.

Contaminated refrigerant can cause equipment failure or greatly

reduce the equipment lifetime, incurring costs for needless

repairs. Training in the safe handling of refrigerant may reduce

on

- the

- job injuries.

3. Program Elements

Vol. 58 No. 92 Friday, May 14, 1993 p 28660 (Rule)

a. A Mandatory Program. In consideration of the need for

effective refrigerant recycling programs, EPA is today establishing

a mandatory certification program. All technicians must pass

an exam administered by an approved EPA testing organization.

Although training programs are beneficial, participation in

a training program is not required by today's rule. All technicians

must be certified within 18 months of the publication of this

rule. EPA believes that this is an important component of the

recycling and recovery program buttressed by receipt of over

18,000 letters expressing support for mandatory technician certification.

Many commenters supported a certification program required

by EPA, but administered by the private sector. Commenters stated

that this type of program would ensure compliance with the Clean

Air Act's goals of minimizing stratospheric ozone depletion

in a cost

- effective, market

- based fashion. The mandatory technician

certification program could be managed by industry along the

lines of the voluntary program proposed. The Agency agrees and

is therefore today establishing a testing program approved by

EPA and administered by the private sector. All training programs

will be operated by the private sector responding to the needs

of the technicians. The Agency believes that this will create

price

- competitive training programs. EPA is concerned that costs

to technicians be minimized and believes that price competition

will lower costs in an economically efficient manner. It is

the Agency's intention to publish the certification costs for

training programs and certifying organizations and to make this

information available from the Agency's Stratospheric Ozone

Protection Hotline.

b. A National Program. Some commenters proposed approving

as certifying programs only those organizations that meet national

certification standards and have the proper infrastructure in

place to administer testing. EPA believes that national organizations

have an advantage in reaching a greater number of technicians

in a reasonable amount of time. However, the Agency is concerned

about limiting the competitive ability of many smaller creditable 

### Page 67 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlorganizations that possess the ability to provide testing. Again,

it is the intention of the Agency only to approve the testing

program, not the training program.

Many commenters who favored mandatory technician certification

provided examples of existing state and local regulations. The

South Coast Air Quality Management District and the State of

Wisconsin's mandatory certification programs were offered as

examples. A few commenters believed that these types of localized

programs are sufficient. Others theorized that without a federal

program, differences between the requirements of various municipalities

will lead to a great deal of confusion in the industry. A few

commenters stated that creating one standardized certification

test with national acceptance would eliminate issues concerning

reciprocity between state licensing programs and portability

of certification. EPA applauds the efforts of state and local

governments. The Agency believes creating a national program

will decrease the need for a myriad of differing regulations.

However, this regulation does not preempt state and local authority

in any way.

Technician training and certification can be integrated into

an extensive industry training infrastructure. The Air

- Conditioning

& Refrigeration Institute (ARI) estimates that there are approximately

1,200 training programs for air conditioning and refrigeration

technicians in the U.S. A large number of these programs have

begun to train their students in proper methods for refrigeration

conservation, including recovery and recycling, and ARI itself

has incorporated a unit on environmental safety principles into

its curriculum guide for HVAC/R instructors.

Many national educational and trade organizations such as

Refrigeration Service Engineers Society, and Air Conditioning

Contractors of America have developed training and testing programs

specifically intended to help technicians comply with the July

1, 1992 prohibition on venting. Many of these programs, which

have already begun, can easily be modified to meet the needs

of a mandatory program.

c. Personnel To Be Certified. Many commenters supported certification

for all individuals who perform installation, service, maintenance,

or repair functions that might reasonably be expected to release

CFCs or HCFCs to the atmosphere. EPA believes that to reduce

emissions to the "lowest achievable level" technician certification

for individuals performing the functions noted above, is essential.

Some commenters suggested that all persons coming into contact

with or handling CFC refrigerants should be certified. Such

a requirement would encompass not only those who service equipment

but those who charge equipment during manufacture, transfer

refrigerant from large to small containers for sale (e.g. wholesaler

employees), and transfer refrigerant from small to large containers

for shipment to reclaimers. However, five commenters expressed

their strong opposition to the mandatory certification of factory,

delivery, wholesale, or reclaimer personnel because sufficient

incentives already exist to minimize venting in these sectors.

EPA is not requiring certification of these individuals because

these transfer processes tend to be simpler than recovery from

air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, and for the last

two groups in particular, EPA agrees that there is a clear financial

incentive to avoid venting. Nonetheless, EPA strongly encourages

appropriate training of all individuals whose job responsibilities

have any impact on the release of refrigerant to the atmosphere

and who work in situations where technicians may reduce labor

costs by venting rather than recovering.

EPA is requiring certification of all individuals who service

air conditioning and refrigeration equipment besides MVACs.

This group includes installers, contractor employees, in

- house

service personnel, and anyone else who performs installation, 

### Page 68 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlmaintenance, or repair that might reasonably have the opportunity

to release CFCs or HCFCs into the atmosphere. In addition, individuals

disposing of equipment other than small appliances and MVACs

must be certified. EPA believes technicians working in these

sectors have the greatest opportunity to release CFCs and HCFCs

to the atmosphere.

Technicians servicing MVAC

- like appliances, as defined in

82.152 ( l ) of the regulations

, including agriculture and construction

vehicles, are already required to become certified by an EPA

approved certification program. EPA recognizes that there are

similarities between MVACs and MVAC

- like appliances, including

the use of an open

- drive compressor and the amount of refrigerant

the systems require. EPA believes that the training and certification

provided by section 609 technician certification programs will

more readily address issues concerning service practices used

for servicing MVAC

- like appliances. Therefore, technicians servicing

MVAC

- like appliances may choose to become certified by an EPA

approved section 609 technician certification program instead

of by a section 608 technician certification program, and will

then be considered certified according to the requirements of

today's final rule. The Agency wishes to clarify that while

technicians servicing MVAC

- like appliances may choose a section

609 technician certification program, the effective date for

certification and all other requirements for these technicians

are those promulgated today under section 608.

Technicians must be certified by November 14, 1994. Unless

the law, EPA regulations, or recycling technology changes significantly,

there is no need to recertify. EPA will formally notify all

testing organizations and trade groups of the need to recertify

through letters or Federal Register announcements.

Nine commenters urged EPA to include a phase

- in period to

allow time for adequate training and certification. The length

of time varied from 12 months to 5 years. Commenters agreed

that the deadline for technician certification should be long

enough for EPA to approve multiple certifying programs and for

technicians to have ample time to become properly trained and

certified. Based on the time required for section 609 technician

training and certification programs to apply and receive approval

by the Agency, and to establish training classes, the Agency

has concluded that an effective date of 18 months from the date

of publication is reasonable. This will enable many private

organizations adequate time to develop administrative testing

procedures and to receive EPA approval in accordance with today's

rule.

d. Types of certification. EPA proposed creating four separate

technician certification categories. The equipment covered by

section 608 varies widely in form, size, and purpose, ranging

from industrial process refrigeration systems containing thousands

of pounds of CFC

- 11 to home refrigerators containing 6 ounces

of CFC

- 12. Recycling and servicing techniques that are appropriate

to one may not be applicable to another. Creating four divisions

would allow technicians to be tested on information concerning

the types of and service practices for the equipment the technicians

primarily service and maintain. Categories were intended for

technicians servicing and maintaining the following types of

equipment:

(1) Small appliances,

(2) High

- pressure equipment with a charge of less than 50

pounds,

(3) High

- pressure equipment with a charge of more than 50

pounds, and

(4) Low

- pressure equipment.

Many commenters supported having certification divided into

several categories. Various suggestions of additional categories 

### Page 69 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html(such as one for small low

- pressure equipment) were suggested

by the commenters. Many commenters asserted that fewer categories

were needed. To simplify the program, EPA decided to combine

all of the high

- pressure equipment into one category. EPA believes

that issues affecting all high

- pressure equipment are similar.

Furthermore, combining the high

- pressure equipment will minimize

duplication and will ease the administrative burden associated

with the development of the test bank.

Some commenters requested the inclusion of a category which

encompasses those workers whose jobs entail work associated

with each of the proposed categories. Technicians applying for

this type of certification would need to pass a test with sections

covering each of the sector

- specific categories established

by the Agency. EPA believes creating a comprehensive category

for technicians passing exams in the three sector

- specific areas

is beneficial. This would ease administrative burdens for the

certifying programs. EPA is therefore establishing a comprehensive

category known as Universal Certification.

Based on the proposed voluntary certification scheme, and

the comments received by the Agency, EPA is today establishing

three different types of technician certification, and one comprehensive

category. EPA has determined that three types of technician

certification will accommodate the important differences between

the various types of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

Type I certification is intended primarily for technicians

servicing household appliances, and will test for knowledge

of the recovery devices unique to this sector, including system

dependent recovery technologies.

Type II certification is intended for technicians servicing

high

- pressure equipment, such as unitary house air conditioners,

and will include questions on the vacuum that must be drawn

on this equipment and on technical points such as the proper

valving for liquid and vapor recovery. In addition, Type II

certification will encompass issues that are important for larger

high

- pressure equipment. These issues will include recovery

using system receivers and safety concerns such as the proper

use of refrigerant sensors in equipment rooms.

MVAC

- like appliances are high

- pressure equipment; therefore,

technicians servicing MVAC

- like appliances are considered Type

II technicians. As noted earlier, technicians servicing MVAC

like appliances may choose to become certified by an EPA

- approved

program under section 609, and will be considered certified

according to the requirements of today's final rule.

Type III certification will cover issues unique to low

- pressure

equipment, such as evaporator heating for leak detection and

the proper procedures for deep evacuation.

Because intermediate and very high

- pressure equipment make

up a very small percentage of air conditioning and refrigeration

equipment, EPA is not planning to establish special certification

requirements for technicians who work on these types of equipment.

Instead, EPA is integrating general information on these equipment

types into Type II and Type III certification, as appropriate.

e. Test content. Like technician certification under the

section 609 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning program, EPA proposed

that technician certification under section 608 should test

technicians on their understanding of the legal and environmental

reasons for recycling and on the techniques for minimizing refrigerant

emissions during the recycling process. Commenters suggested

that a national standardized test include at least the following

subjects: The importance of stratospheric ozone, the theory

of ozone loss, basic air

- conditioning and refrigeration operation,

and good service practices such as leak detection, regulatory

requirements and safety. EPA is requiring that these subjects

be covered by the certification test. The Agency believes that

this will ensure knowledge about the environmental impact of 

### Page 70 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlCFC emissions, new regulations, and new equipment procedures,

and will facilitate compliance with the law. These issues are

incorporated in the set of test categories described in appendix

D.

Eight commenters recommended that the certification tests

include both a hands

- on section and a written multiple choice

section. Although a hands

- on test might better ensure competency,

EPA believes requiring a hands

- on section would place an undue

burden on both the certifying programs and the technicians.

A program including hands

- on testing would be more time

- consuming

and would create an additional cost for the technicians.

For all three types of sector

- specific certification and

comprehensive certification, today's rule requires a core of

knowledge about environmental impacts of CFCs and HCFCs and

about legal requirements regarding their use and disposal, including

these regulations. In addition, each type of certification will

require demonstrated knowledge of the recycling and recovery

techniques appropriate to the equipment encompassed by that

type of certification. General safety guidelines regarding the

handling of refrigerants and pressurized cylinders will also

be tested.

EPA also is requiring technician certification tests to cover

safety issues and other federal regulations of which individuals

performing refrigerant recycling and recovery should be aware.

Safety issues include proper methods for filling and handling

pressurized cylinders (which can explode if overfilled) and,

for large equipment in closed spaces, appropriate measures for

avoiding excessive exposure to refrigerant (which, in extreme

cases, can lead to oxygen deprivation). The Department of Transportation

has promulgated regulations in 49 CFR part 173 (primarily based

on safety concerns) covering the transport of pressurized cylinders.

f. Test bank. EPA will provide a bank of test questions to

cover these areas. Industry groups, including the Refrigeration

Service Engineers Society, Mechanical Service Contractors of

America, United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, and

Air Conditioning Contractors of America have been working together

and with EPA to develop a set of questions that they have stated

could serve as the core for a central test bank. Other groups

that have expressed an interest in becoming approved certifying

programs have indicated that they would be willing to help develop

and administer such questions. EPA will develop its questions

from this bank. The Agency will meet with members of trade groups

to develop additional questions. Additional organizations may

meet with EPA at that time to submit questions. This group will

meet every six months.

To ensure accuracy and fairness, test questions will be validated

by EPA before any programs are approved to administer the certification

test. Questions will be updated on a semi

- annual basis, with

those judged invalid or obsolete removed from the test bank.

EPA will make the questions available to organizations that

have been certified by the Agency.

The primary advantage of a single bank of test questions

is that such a bank reduces the costs of developing a program,

minimizes the review process, and will ensure consistency across

certification programs. In addition, organizations interested

in becoming certifying programs will be able to pool their efforts

and will not have to develop (frequently identical) questions

independently. A bank of test questions will ensure a uniform

certification standard for all technicians.

EPA will conduct periodic reviews of test subject material

and update the bank of test questions based upon analyses of

their validity and the latest technological and legal developments

in appliance maintenance, service, repair and disposal. EPA

will then provide updated questions for use by approved technician 

### Page 71 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlcertifying programs.

The passing score for Type I certification tests using the

mail

- in format, is 84 percent. The Agency based this requirement

on the scores used for the mail

- in tests provided by section

609 certifying programs. This score is identical to the score

used by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society. The passing score

for the closed

- book certification test is 70 percent. Again,

EPA based this requirement on the MVACs certification tests

that use a similar format.

g. Test conditions. Commenters argued both for and against

closed

- book testing. One commenter suggested that an open

- book

test could facilitate learning of information that can be applied

in the workplace. Two commenters stated that a more stringent,

closed

- book approach was justified due to the variety of equipment

covered by section 608. While EPA agrees that open

- book testing

facilitates learning, the Agency recognizes that reviewing information

for a closed

- book test also facilitates the learning process.

Furthermore, closed

- book testing can better ensure the retention

of information by the technicians. Accurate information retention

ensures that the technicians have a basic understanding about

the essential components of the recovery and recycling program.

Moreover, the Agency does not believe that the questions on

the certification tests should be so complicated or difficult

that technicians are forced to refer constantly to their training

materials. Technicians will be able to access more detailed

information from equipment manuals during service procedures.

EPA is therefore requiring closed

- book testing for Type II,

Type III and Universal technicians. EPA believes that this also

will decrease the burden for the certifying programs. If EPA

were to allow open

- book testing, the proctors would be required

to check all materials used by the technicians in order to ensure

that technicians were not using answer keys, or sample questions

directly mimicking the certification test. This would require

the proctors to be familiar with a variety of acceptable and

unacceptable materials provided by various training organizations,

increasing the training requirements for the proctoring. Alternatively,

the certifying program would need to supply technicians with

EPA

- approved materials, which would increase the technicians'

costs and prolong the approval process for certifying programs,

leading to technician certification delays.

Commenters supported both proctored and unproctored certification

tests. Three commenters stated proctoring was unnecessary. Seven

commenters favored a proctored exam. The Air Conditioning Contractors

of America strongly advocated proctors to ensure the integrity

of the test. EPA agrees that proctoring will protect the test's

integrity and decrease opportunities for cheating. Therefore,

the Agency is requiring proctored tests for Type II, Type III

and Universal technicians.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the Air

Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute, and several other comments

supported an open

- book, unproctored exam for technicians primarily

servicing and maintaining small appliances. One commenter remarked

that since these technicians are handling very small charge

sizes, this less stringent approach is justified. Other comments

stated that since technicians servicing and maintaining small

appliances are often employed by small, decentralized businesses,

bringing these technicians together, in order to participate

in a proctored test, would not be cost

- effective. Typically

these appliances use sealed refrigerant systems. The Agency

realizes that technicians servicing small appliances are less

frequently required to make repairs that involve entering the

sealed system, which could potentially lead to the release of

refrigerant. Additionally, the Agency is aware that often small

appliances contain only a few ounces of refrigerant, unlike

industrial process refrigeration systems, which may contain 

### Page 72 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlthousands of pounds of refrigerant. While the Agency believes

a closed

- book, proctored exam would provide a better means for

testing the technicians's knowledge, EPA did not want to place

an unwarranted burden on these technicians. Therefore, the Agency

is not requiring closed

- book, proctored testing for Type I technicians.

EPA believes a mail

- in program, similar to those used for MVAC

technician certification will provide a sufficient educational

vehicle for technicians who seldom come in contact with refrigerant.

h. Proof of certification. Certifying programs must issue

a standard wallet

- sized identification card no later than 30

days from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using

mail

- in formats must issue cards to certified technicians no

later than 30 days from the date the certifying program receives

the completed test and any required documentation. Certifying

programs may mail or hand deliver the cards.

Each wallet

- sized identification card must include, at a

minimum, the name of the certifying programs including the date

the certifying programs received EPA approval, the name of the

person certified, the type of certification, a unique number

for the certified person and the following text:

[name of person] has been certified as [Type I, Type II, Type

III and/or Universal

- as appropriate] technician as required

by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.

EPA believes the use of standardized language will decrease

administrative costs and will aid in enforcement. Standardized

language will also ease the burden on refrigerant wholesalers,

who will verify the certification of technicians purchasing

any class I or class II substance, by inspecting identification

cards.

i. Additional requirements. EPA will periodically inspect

testing sites to ensure compliance with EPA regulations. If

testing center discrepancies are found, they must be corrected

within a specified time period. If discrepancies are not corrected,

EPA may revoke the certifying program's approval. The inspections

may include, but would not be limited to, reviewing provisions

for test security, the availability of space and facilities

to conduct the administrative requirements and ensure the security

of the tests, the availability of adequate testing facilities

and spacing of the applicants during testing, and the proper

procedures regarding accountability, and ensuring that there

is no evidence of misconduct on the part of the certifying programs,

their representatives and proctors, or the applicants for certification.

EPA may also require technicians to demonstrate their ability

to perform proper procedures for recovering and/or recycling

refrigerant. Failure to demonstrate or failure to properly use

the equipment may result in revocation of the technician's certificate.

If a technician refuses to demonstrate his ability to properly

use approved equipment or if a technician fails to properly

use approved equipment, the Agency's likely response is the

issuance of an administrative order pursuant to section 113(a),

ordering the technician to demonstrate compliance with the statute

and the regulations. Failing such demonstration, EPA would order

revocation of the technician's certificate. The Agency may also

order the technician who fails to properly use approved equipment

to obtain additional training. Before a section 113(a) order

may take effect, the technician to whom it is issued must be

given an opportunity to confer with the Administrator or his

or her representative concerning the alleged violation.

Certifying programs are encouraged to make provisions for

non

- English speaking technicians by providing tests in other

languages or allowing the use of a translator when taking the

test. 

### Page 73 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlj. Approval process. Based on commenters' statements, EPA

anticipates receiving a large number of applications from organizations

seeking to become certifying programs. Therefore the Agency

believes it is appropriate to establish priorities for the review

of these programs. In order to certify as many technicians as

possible in a reasonable amount of time, EPA will give priority

to programs with national or broad geographic scope. Below are

the guidelines EPA will use:

First: Certifying programs providing at least 25 testing

centers with a minimum of one site in at least 8 different states

will be considered.

Second: Certifying programs forming regional networks with

a minimum of 10 testing centers will be considered.

Third: Certifying programs providing testing centers in geographically

isolated areas not sufficiently covered by the national or regional

programs will be considered.

Fourth: All other programs applying for EPA approval will

be considered.

Sample application forms may be obtained by contacting the

Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at 1

- 800

- 296

- 1996.

k. Grandfathering. Some organizations have already begun

to train, test, and unofficially "certify" technicians in preparation

for compliance with these regulations and with the prohibition

on venting of CFCs and HCFCs. Some of these organizations have

approached EPA to see whether their programs can be approved

and their trainees grandfathered. EPA received comments from

participants in these programs, some of which included copies

of proof of "certification" or "certification" numbers.

EPA will grandfather technicians whose programs seek and

receive EPA approval as a certifying program. As part of this

process, these certifying programs may be required to send supplemental

information or provide additional testing to ensure the level

of the technicians' knowledge. The certifying programs will

also have to issue new identification cards meeting the requirements

specified above.

Persons who are currently technicians must be certified by

(eighteen months from the date of publication). Technicians

that participated in certification programs which do not become

EPA certifying programs must either receive EPA

- approved supplemental

information from the original testing organization or be certified

by taking a test given by an EPA

- approved certification organization

by (eighteen months from the date of publication).

I. Restriction on Sales of Refrigerants to Certified Technicians

1. Description of Proposal And Final Requirement

EPA did not propose a sales restriction on refrigerant as

its lead option because the Agency had not proposed mandatory

technician certification as its lead option. As part of the

discussion on mandatory certification of technicians, however,

the Agency suggested that it could restrict the sale of refrigerant

to certified technicians in order to encourage full participation

in training and certification programs and to ensure that only

qualified individuals handle refrigerant. Based on comments

supporting a sales restriction, the Agency believes restricting

sales of refrigerant to only certified technicians is necessary

to ensure that all technicians are properly trained and in compliance

with this regulation.

In order to ensure that only qualified individuals handle

refrigerant, the Agency is establishing a sales restriction

on refrigerant until similar to that required under section

609. The Act made it unlawful, effective November 15, 1992,

for any person to sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, 

### Page 74 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlany class I or class II substance suitable for use as refrigerant

in a motor vehicle air conditioning system and that is in a

container with less than 20 pounds of refrigerant except to

certified technicians. EPA has reviewed the success of this

sales restriction and believes that the dangers associated with

the release of CFCs and HCFCs into the atmosphere warrants extending

the sales restriction to include all containers (regardless

of size) of any class I or II refrigerant. Restricting the sale

of refrigerants will ensure compliance with the regulations

and aid in enforcement.

Some transactions involving refrigerant will be exempt from

this restriction, because there is very little risk of refrigerant

venting associated with these transactions. These transactions

include refrigerant sold only for eventual resale to certified

technicians (e.g., sales from a manufacturer to a wholesaler)

and refrigerant contained in pre

- charged air conditioning or

refrigeration equipment.

The American Supply Association (ASA) stated at the December

23, 1992 Public Hearing at EPA's Headquarters in Washington,

DC, that wholesalers are willing to comply with a reasonable

restriction on sales. ASA further asserted that requirements

akin to state sales tax exemptions could provide a reasonable

means for enforcing the restriction of refrigerant sales. EPA

reviewed ASA's comments carefully and incorporated some of their

recordkeeping suggestions into this rule.

Under the regulations promulgated today, only technicians

certified by an approved section 608 or section 609 certification

program and in possession of a valid certification identification

card will be able to purchase refrigerant for use as of November

14, 1994. The Agency realizes that clerks and runners, rather

than trained technicians, frequently make refrigerant purchases.

Since the nature of this business means that the certified technician

will not always be the person to whom the wholesaler physically

transfers the refrigerant, EPA will allow the technician to

provide evidence of certification to the wholesaler prior to

the first sale. The wholesaler may then keep a copy of the technician's

certification identification card on file, much the same way

as the wholesaler keeps evidence that a customer is exempt from

state sales tax. A photocopy of the identification card may

remain on the wholesalers' premises. Large purchasers and contractors

may provide evidence to the wholesaler of individual certifications

for their group of employees. Copies of these employees' identification

cards may remain on the wholesalers' premises. It is the responsibility

of the larger purchaser or contractor to notify the wholesaler

regarding changes in the status of certified employees.

Individual purchasers, large purchasers, or contractors may

authorize other employees to purchase or accept delivery of

refrigerant. Under the regulations, a list of authorized personnel

must be filed with the wholesaler and the certified technician

or contractor is responsible for updating the list as necessary.

The wholesaler is restricted to selling refrigerants only to

the accounts with evidence of certification on file with the

wholesaler prior to the sale or to technicians with valid section

608 or section 609 certification identification cards.

2. Response to Major Comments

Over twelve thousand commenters requested that the sale of

refrigerant be limited to certified technicians or organizations

employing certified technicians. Forty

- three commenters additionally

stated that limiting the sale of refrigerants to certified technicians

provides a practical method for keeping refrigerant out of the

hands of irresponsible operators. Thirty

- three commenters added

that a sales limitation will secure compliance with the regulations 

### Page 75 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmland aid in enforcement. Two hundred and eighty

- five commenters

declared that a sales restriction would reduce easy access to

refrigerant by untrained or undertrained individuals.

Thirteen commenters opposed restricting refrigerant sales

to certified technicians. One commenter remarked that a sales

restriction does not ensure compliance. Another commenter stated

that sufficient safeguards existed in the proposal to prevent

the sale of refrigerants to unauthorized persons.

The lead option in the proposed rule was based on voluntary

certification, and EPA did not believe it was appropriate to

propose limiting sales to persons who participated in a voluntary

program. EPA is today requiring the certification of all technicians,

therefore it is possible and practical for the Agency to require

a more stringent approach. A sales restriction will limit the

refrigerant sales only to qualified technicians. The Agency

believes that unrestricted sales will enable untrained or undertrained

technicians to obtain access to refrigerants that are likely

to be used improperly in connection with servicing activities

that will result in the venting of refrigerants.

Two commenters suggested that a sales restriction will lead

to higher service prices and the creation of a black market

for CFC refrigerants. EPA believes a sales restriction will

not lead to an increase in service prices or the development

of a black market because the cost of certification will not

be burdensome. EPA anticipates the cost of certification to

be slightly higher than the cost for certification under section

609, and will require slightly longer training sessions. Fees

for section 609 technician training and certification vary,

but are in the range of twelve to twenty dollars, and usually

require approximately three hours. The Agency believes adequate

training and section 608 certification will require four to

eight hours with fees ranging between thirty and seventy

- five

dollars. The Agency believes it will be far more financially

prudent for technicians to become certified in accordance with

the requirements promulgated under section 608, than to participate

in any black market for refrigerants.

Several commenters stated that wholesalers should be required

to register refrigerant sales by certification number to enable

authorities to track refrigerant use. By recording refrigerant

sales, groups who purchase large quantities of refrigerant could

be easily identified and monitored. However, while this could

aid enforcement authorities, EPA considers this recordkeeping

and monitoring a sizable burden on the wholesalers. In addition,

the Agency does not believe it is necessary or desirable to

track the amount of refrigerant purchased by individual entities

because today's rule does not establish quantity restrictions

on refrigerant purchases. Moreover, this burden could lead to

an increase in overhead costs which would be passed on to the

technician.

Several commenters argued for the transfer of refrigerant

to uncertified delivery personnel. Three commenters stated that

drivers or delivery personnel should not have to provide proof

of certification if they are merely transporting the refrigerant

for a certified technician who will actually perform the service.

Two commenters wrote that often the purchasing activities are

separate from the servicing activities. One commenter declared

that requiring the certified technician to be present at the

time of purchase would be a logistical nightmare. The Agency

understands that often the certified technician will not actually

be present at the time the refrigerant is physically transferred.

The Agency will allow the transfer of refrigerant to delivery

personnel according to the guidelines detailed above.

Nine commenters requested that refrigerant purchasers be

required to present proof of equipment certification before

the sale. EPA views this requirement as unnecessary due to the 

### Page 76 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlrequirements concerning the proof of technician certification.

Wholesalers can easily conduct visual checks of technicians'

certification cards, and the use of standardized language will

make these cards easily identifiable.

J. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment

1. Description of Proposal and Final Rule

EPA proposed and is today requiring owners of recycling or

recovery equipment, including contractors and other business

entities responsible for air

- conditioning and refrigeration

equipment servicing (such as building owners with in

- house service

personnel), to submit a signed statement to the appropriate

EPA Regional office by [Insert date 90 days after publication

of the final rule], stating that they possess sufficient certified

recovery and recycling equipment, or equipment grandfathered

under today's rule, to perform on

- site recycling or recovery.

EPA believes this requirement is an important element of an

effective recovery and recycling program. Equipment certification

demonstrates the availability of appropriate equipment for use

by certified technicians.

In addition to the name and address of the contractor, the

statement must include the name of the manufacturer, date the

equipment was manufactured, date of purchase, and if applicable,

the model number and the serial number of the equipment. If

the contractor repairs appliances besides small appliances,

the form must indicate that at least one of the pieces of equipment

listed in the statement is self

- contained equipment. The statement

must also include the number of service trucks (or other vehicles)

used to transport technicians and equipment between the establishment

and job sites in the field. (EPA received comments supporting

the inclusion of both of these information requirements in the

certification statement.) Sample forms may be obtained by contacting

the Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at 1

- 800

- 296

- 1996.

In addition to the self

- certification outlined above, EPA

proposed several options for administering equipment owner certification.

One option was direct certification by EPA, which required the

equipment owner to submit substantiating documentation of equipment

certification. EPA would then mail a certificate to the equipment

owner. While this option could result in somewhat greater assurance

of compliance with the regulations, the Agency is not requiring

this option because it would be impractical given the large

number of equipment owners and other business entities that

would need to be reviewed and sent certificates. (Estimates

of the number of contractors in the U.S. range from 22,000 to

45,000.) Another similar option was to require the equipment

owner to submit such documentation to approved third

- party certifying

programs; however, EPA is not aware of any potentially interested

organizations. EPA recognizes that third

- party certification

may be a more reliable method for ensuring equipment owner compliance

with these regulations, and the Agency may consider replacing

the self

- certification program with third

- party certification

at a later date.

2. Response to Major Comments

Twenty

- eight commenters supported owner self

- certification

as a way to maximize compliance without imposing undue cost

and paperwork burdens on the owners.

Two commenters opposing self

- certification remarked how the

lack of a requirement in the proposal for technician certification

would negate the need for owner certification. Without technician 

### Page 77 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlcertification, there is less assurance that a recovery/recycling

machine will be used properly, regardless of whether or not

the equipment was certified by the owner. However, through this

rulemaking, EPA is today requiring the certification of all

technicians.

One commenter suggested that equipment certification should

be required within 180 days instead of 90 days, because provisions

permitting the grandfathering of equipment will no longer be

in effect. However, the grandfathering provision does not affect

the self

- certification of equipment by owners. Owners must certify

all equipment, including grandfathered equipment. Therefore,

the Agency does not believe extending the deadline would benefit

equipment owners.

One commenter asked EPA to include the phrase "if applicable"

when requesting the model and serial numbers of equipment. Additionally,

the commenter asked that the phrase "or the last substantial

revision" follow the request for the date of manufacture. EPA

recognizes that some equipment may not have a model or serial

number; therefore the phrase "if applicable" has been added.

However, the Agency does not believe it is necessary to add

"the last substantial revision" to this requirement. The Agency

is interested in the date of manufacture to ensure that equipment

either meets the required standards or is eligible to be grandfathered,

which is based on the date of manufacture.

K. Certification of Reclaimers

1. Description of Proposed and Final Requirement

In order to ensure the quality of reclaimed refrigerant on

the market, EPA proposed and is today requiring the certification

of reclaimers. Consistent with the proposed rule, reclaimer

certification will involve sending a signed statement from the

reclaimer stating that it: (1) Returns refrigerant to at least

the ARI Standard 700, (2) verifies this purity using the methods

set forth in ARI Standard 700, and (3) disposes of wastes from

the reclamation process in accordance with applicable laws and

regulations. The requirement to dispose of wastes properly is

important since the reclamation process can generate hazardous

wastes. ARI Standard 700 is a purity standard set by the Air

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute to ensure that refrigerant

is free of contaminants that can damage air conditioning and

refrigeration equipment.

As proposed, the regulation provides that reclaimers cannot

release more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during the

reclamation process. Reclaimers on the STOPAC Subcommittee for

recycling estimated that releases during a well

- controlled reclamation

process range between one and two percent of the quantity. One

reclaimer on the STOPAC committee measured these losses and

found them to be 1.2 percent of the original quantity. The Agency

recognizes that fugitive emissions occur during the production

of ozone

- depleting chemicals and that the reclaimers should

not be held to a more stringent requirement. According to reclaimers

on the STOPAC committee, most releases take place during transfers

of refrigerant between shipping containers and reclamation devices.

Typically, reclamation itself takes place in a closed loop;

refrigerant is not exposed to the atmosphere. Emissions that

occur during this process result from sampling of refrigerant

for purposes of analysis and from purging of noncondensables

(air and other gases with a boiling point lower than that of

refrigerant). Both types of releases are likely to be small;

typically, samples consist of 50 grams of refrigerant, and purging

of noncondensables takes place through a cold trap that recondenses

and traps most of the refrigerant mixed with the air. Although 

### Page 78 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlemissions from reclamation devices have not been quantified

precisely, two reclaimers on the STOPAC subcommittee stated

that emissions fall well under two percent of the quantity of

refrigerant that enters the reclamation process. Based on this

information EPA proposed and is today requiring to limit emissions

from reclaiming facilities to 1.5 percent of the refrigerant

received by them. The Agency estimates that approximately one

percent of the refrigerant will be released during transfers

of refrigerant to and from reclamation devices, and approximately

one half of one percent will be released during the reclamation

process itself.

In addition to the signed statement, the reclaimer must submit

the name and address of all reclamation facilities and a list

of all equipment it employs to analyze the refrigerant. EPA

will periodically publish a list of certified reclaimers, including

the name and address of all reclamation facilities. This list

will be available through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Hotline. Reclaimers must also maintain records of the names

and addresses of persons sending material for reclamation and

the quantity of the material (combined mass of refrigerant and

contaminants) sent to them. On an annual basis, reclaimers are

required to keep records of the mass of material sent to them,

the mass of refrigerant reclaimed, and the mass of waste products.

These records are required to ensure that refrigerant releases

are minimized during the reclamation process and to satisfy

reporting requirements under the Montreal Protocol. A copy of

these records must be kept at the reclamation facilities. Based

on discussions with reclaimers, EPA believes that most reclaimers

already keep such records. Reclaimers must report to EPA within

45 days after the end of the calendar year the volume of refrigerant

received and reclaimed, as well as names of companies or technicians

that supplied the refrigerant.

EPA will periodically inspect reclaimer facilities to ensure

compliance with EPA regulations. If discrepancies are found,

they must be corrected within a specified time period. If discrepancies

are not corrected, EPA may suspend or revoke the reclaimer's

certification. The inspections may include, but are not limited

to, an examination of the reclaimer's records, a review of equipment

employed by the reclaimer measuring the levels of refrigerant

released to the atmosphere and a certification that refrigerant

is purified to the standard set in the regulation.

EPA considered a second option for reclamation in the proposed

rule. The Agency suggested that EPA

- approved parties could administer

reclaimer certification site inspections and/or sampling of

refrigerant. Third

- party certification would be more reliable

than self

- certification. Inspections and sampling would provide

independent evidence that the ARI

- 700 standards were being achieved

at the reclamation facility. However, at the time the proposal

was being developed, no potential third

- party certifying programs

had established a reclaimer certification program. ARI was developing

a program, but this program was not yet operational. Today ARI's

Certification Program For Reclaimed Refrigerant is operating.

A directory of all ARI

- certified reclaimers, including the phone

number and address of all reclaimer facilities, and a list of

refrigerants reclaimed at these facilities is published twice

a year. EPA encourages these efforts, and believes that such

efforts provide more certainty to the purity of the refrigerant,

and a wider acceptance for the reclaimed refrigerant in the

industry. In the future the Agency may replace its reclaimer

self

- certification program with a requirement that reclaimers

be certified by an approved third party.

2. Response to Major Commenters 

### Page 79 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlOne commenter stated that it is unnecessary for EPA to require

certification of certain information, including the percent

release limitation and compliance with waste disposal laws.

The commenter believed that it is inappropriate to require individuals

to certify that they will obey legal requirements. EPA, however,

views self

- certification as necessary to ensure that reclaimers

acknowledge the requirements of these regulations. Without this

acknowledgement, reclaimers may be ignorant of the method of

reclaiming and may not take the proper precautions and steps

to ensure purity. The Agency believes that requiring the reclaimer

to certify compliance with the above requirements ensures that

the reclaimer is fully aware of the regulations regarding reclaimed

refrigerant, and provides greater assurance that the reclaimer

will abide by those regulations.

Eighteen commenters supported a requirement for third

- party

certification of reclaimers. Several commenters stated that

the need to assure the quality of reclaimed refrigerant on the

market is a strong reason for having third

- party certification

and sampling. One commenter declared that third

- party certification

is necessary to reduce the risk of contaminated refrigerant

from entering the marketplace and causing potentially costly

damage to air conditioning equipment. As stated above, when

the Agency was developing the proposal, there were no operational

third

- party certification programs. EPA believes that the self

certification program promulgated today provides adequate assurances

of quality but, as indicated above, the Agency may evaluate

the potential use of third

- party certification in the future.

Moreover, the Agency believes that third

- party certification

that is accepted by the industry will lend additional credibility

to the purity of the refrigerant and provides a "good housekeeping

seal of approval."

One commenter supported third

- party certification to ensure

reclaimers' products meet ARI

- 700 standards. The commenter believes

there are financial incentives to "cheat" with mixed refrigerants

that exceed the ARI

- 700 allowable limits. The Agency does not

believe incentives to "cheat" exist. The risk of damaging expensive

air conditioning and refrigeration equipment from refrigerant

contamination, creates a significant incentive to ensure reclaimers

meet ARI

- 700 standards. EPA reclaimer certification requires

reclaimers to submit a list of all equipment employed by the

reclaimer to analyze the refrigerant, and to certify that the

equipment is properly used. This requirement assures EPA that

reclaimers own and use appropriate equipment for achieving ARI

700.

Five commenters supported the proposed recordkeeping requirements

for reclaimers. One commenter remarked that records should be

maintained at the facility available for EPA review. The Agency

does require through this rulemaking that records must be readily

available for review and that a copy of the records be maintained

at the reclamation centers.

One commenter supported a more stringent maximum limit of

1 percent emissions by reclaimer facilities. Reclaimers on the

STOPAC Subcommittee for recycling estimated that releases during

a well

- controlled reclamation process range between one and

two percent of the quantity. Based on this information, as well

as additional information provided by actual measurements at

one reclaimer's facilities, the Agency is maintaining its proposed

requirement that reclaimers not emit more than 1.5 percent of

the refrigerant during the reclamation process. EPA is concerned

that requirements which are too stringent may impose unnecessary

financial burdens on the reclaimer.

One commenter stated that reclaimed refrigerant should be

labeled and sold as "reclaimed" rather than as "new" refrigerant.

EPA believes that if the refrigerant is reclaimed to ARI

- 700

standards, it is not necessary to label the refrigerant as reclaimed. 

### Page 80 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlOften new refrigerant is mixed with reclaimed refrigerant meeting

the ARI

- 700 standards. After the phaseout becomes effective,

many of these refrigerants will only be available as reclaimed

products.

One commenter stated that general education efforts on reclamation

are needed, especially related to issues such as awareness,

operational and maintenance options, equipment safety, and transportation

packaging requirements. EPA agrees that education about reclamation

is necessary. The Agency encourages organizations involved with

reclamation to create and distribute informational brochures.

The Agency regularly releases various fact sheets and informational

brochures about topics related to refrigerant use. Information

on reclamation is included. The Agency may consider creating

or participating in a more extensive informational campaign

at a later date. In addition, the Agency believes that third

party certification will serve the role of educating reclaimers

on the necessary requirements.

Two commenters stated that the final rule should provide

for reclaimer decertification in the case of enforcement actions

for violations of the reclaimer requirements. Decertified reclaimers

should be removed from the list of certified reclaimers, with

reinstatement possible after actions are undertaken that would

render their products acceptable for sale. The proposal and

today's rule includes a provision for decertification. If discrepancies

are found, reclaimers may be asked to correct the discrepancies

within a specified time period. Failure to rectify the situation

may result in revocation or suspension of the certification

of the reclaimer.

L. Recordkeeping Requirements

EPA has established the following recordkeeping requirements:

1. Equipment Certification Programs.

EPA is requiring equipment certification programs to maintain

records of equipment testing and performance in addition to

a list of equipment that meets EPA requirements.

2. Wholesalers.

Wholesalers are required to maintain the usual business records

of their refrigerant transactions, including the name of the

buyer and the quantity sold.

3. Reclaimers.

As discussed in section III.K, reclaimers are required to

maintain records of the names and addresses of persons sending

them material for reclamation and the quantity of the material

(the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants) sent to

them. On an annual basis, reclaimers are required to keep records

of the mass of material sent to them, the mass of refrigerant

reclaimed, and the mass of waste products. These records are

required to ensure that refrigerant releases are minimized during

the reclamation process. Based on discussions with reclaimers,

EPA believes that most reclaimers already keep such records.

4. Recovery and Recycling Equipment Owners.

Section 82.162 requires that persons maintaining, servicing,

or repairing appliances (except for MVACs), and persons disposing

of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs and MVAC

- like

equipment) must certify that such person has acquired and is

properly using certified recovery or recycling equipment. By

providing the Agency with information on equipment obtained

and properly used, this certification will facilitate adequate

enforcement of this regulation.

5. Disposers.

Persons disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like

appliances must maintain copies of signed statements obtained

in accordance with 82.156 ( f )( ii ). Such statements verify that 

### Page 81 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlthe refrigerant has been evacuated from the appliance or shipment

of appliances previously. Persons who knowingly provide false

statements will be subject to criminal penalties. By maintaining

these signed statements, the disposer is able to show that proper

evacuation occurred at a point in the disposal stream before

reaching the disposer, thus shielding the latter from liability.

6. Technician Certification Programs.

Appendix D of this rulemaking outlines recordkeeping requirements

for those programs certifying technicians, which include but

are not limited to the names and addresses of all individuals

taking the tests, the scores of all certification tests administered,

and the dates and locations of all tests administered.

Certifying programs must send EPA an activity report every

six months. This report will include the pass/fail rate and

testing schedules. This will allow the agency to determine the

relative progress and success of these programs. If the certifying

program believes a test bank question needs to be modified,

information about that question should also be included.

Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval

from EPA. The Agency is requiring that each testing center display

a copy of that letter.

7. Owners/Operators of Air

- conditioning and Refrigeration

Equipment.

The Agency is requiring owners/operators to maintain records

of servicing. The Agency believes that records of the service

calls and amounts of refrigerant added to machines will assist

technicians in their determination of leak rate and would also

assist owners of equipment in the determination of the need

for leak repair. The Agency believes these records, primarily

in the form of service invoices, are already kept by equipment

owners and therefore this requirement is not an additional burden

on them. These records must also include refrigerant purchased

and added to equipment each month in cases where owners add

their own refrigerant.

M. The Safe Disposal Program

In the December 10, 1992 proposal, EPA proposed requirements

for the safe disposal of class I and class II substances as

required in section 608 (b)(1) and (b)(3). EPA proposed a flexible

regulatory approach to capture the refrigerant contained in

equipment that enters the waste stream with the charge intact

(household refrigerators and freezers, MVACs, room air conditioners,

dehumidifiers, water coolers) to reflect the diversity of the

disposal sector across the country. The Agency proposed that

the final link in the disposal chain be responsible for assuring

that refrigerant has been removed from equipment, although the

final processor could require that refrigerant be removed before

they accept equipment. One

- time reporting to the Agency by establishments

performing refrigerant removal was proposed. EPA did not propose

mandatory certification of technicians removing refrigerant

from equipment destined for disposal, although the development

of guidance documents to assist technicians was discussed. The

proposal also required that equipment used to recover refrigerant

at disposal must meet a performance standard.

Many of the public comments received supported the flexible

regulatory approach taken by the Agency in this section. Specific

comments were received on the recovery of CFC

- 11 from foam insulation,

the registration of entities performing refrigerant removal

and technician training. Commenters also discussed the performance

standard for recovery equipment, recordkeeping and labeling

of equipment that has been properly evacuated.

This section will address the major issues raised by commenters

regarding safe disposal of equipment containing class I and

class II substances. Comments not addressed here are answered 

### Page 82 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlin a comment response document available in the public docket

for this rule.

1. Scope

In the proposal, the Agency stated that the specific requirements

in the safe disposal section of the rule focused on equipment

that enters the waste stream with the refrigerant charge intact,

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

"in bulk." The Agency stated that the equipment that enters

the waste stream with the charge of class I or class II refrigerant

intact includes household refrigerators and freezers, MVACs,

room air conditioners, dehumidifiers, water coolers, and some

other relatively portable equipment. For all other refrigeration

and air

- conditioning equipment, the refrigerant must be removed

before dismantling of the equipment in accordance with the requirements

concerning servicing discussed earlier. Dismantling on

- site

of equipment of this type is an accepted industry practice.

Two commenters supported this distinction made in the proposal

while one commenter, the Institute of Scrap Metal Recycling

(ISRI), maintained that this distinction was artificial and

not contemplated by Congress.

EPA made the distinction between equipment that is dismantled

on

- site and equipment that enters the waste stream with the

charge intact because of the differences between the two types

of equipment once they reach the end of their useful lives.

Large equipment dismantled on

- site must have refrigerant removed

as part of the dismantling process because there is no other

option that will result in successful recovery of refrigerant.

The equipment is not moved off the site in one piece and dismantling

results in release of the refrigerant. This equipment cannot

enter the waste stream with the charge intact, while appliances

and MVACs can and frequently do enter the waste stream with

the charge intact. By making the distinction, EPA did not intend

to prohibit the removal of refrigerant from equipment such as

household appliances and MVACS in the home or the place of operation.

The intent was that this equipment could be evacuated at any

one of several stages, either before it entered the waste stream

or once in the waste stream. In general, the safest and most

cost

- effective stage for refrigerant removal is an intermediate

processor within the waste stream; EPA's flexible regulations

are designed to allow that to happen. The distinction discussed

above is maintained in today's final rule.

The proposal did not include requirements to recover CFC

11 from foam insulation used in buildings or appliances. With

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

determined that such regulations are not required by section

608 of the Act at this time. The Safe Disposal requirements

that appear in section 608(b) of the Act are simply part of

the section 608(a) regulations (the servicing requirements discussed

previously in this final rule) and therefore are subject to

the deadlines contained in section 608(a). As section 608(a)

requires only that regulations concerning appliances and industrial

process refrigeration be promulgated at this time, it does not

require regulations concerning the disposal of foam insulation

that is an inherent element of buildings (which are neither

appliances nor industrial process refrigeration). Furthermore,

removing building insulation during the process of demolition

is difficult and exceptionally resource intensive. The long

average lifetime of buildings and the slow release of the CFCs

throughout the lifetime of the insulation results in possible

retrieval of only residual amounts of CFC. The Agency is not

aware of any existing or developmental technology to remove

CFCs from building insulation even if the insulation could effectively 

### Page 83 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlbe removed. Only three commenters specifically addressed recovery

of CFC

- 11 from building insulation and all three agreed with

EPA's determination.

With respect to foam insulation used in appliances, which

is covered by section 608(a), the Agency received several comments

that concurred with the statement in the proposal that it was

premature to require recovery of CFC

- 11 at this time. NRDC and

FOE, however, commented that EPA had neglected to make a finding

as to whether recovering the CFCs trapped within such foam would

produce "insignificant environmental benefits". Section 608(b)(3)

states "that any product in which a class I or class II substance

is incorporated so as to constitute an inherent element of such

product shall be disposed of in a manner that reduces, to the

maximum extent practicable, the release of such substances to

the environment. If the Administrator determines that the application

of this paragraph to any product would result in producing only

insignificant environmental benefits, the Administrator shall

include in such regulations an exception for such product."

NRDC and FOE maintain that the emission of CFC

- 11 from foam

insulation in appliances cannot be dismissed as insignificant.

The Agency believes that there are significant technical

and practicable uncertainties and problems in attempting to

retrieve CFC

- 11 from foam. First, uncertainties exist regarding

the amount of CFC

- 11 remaining in foam insulation once the appliance

reaches the end of its useful life. The rate of dissipation

out of the foam varies based on construction and the CFC

- 11

also can migrate from the enclosed cells into the foam matrix.

Concern over this uncertainty was raised in the November, 1992

meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Copenhagen.

Second, although the Agency is aware of the development and

limited use of CFC

- 11 foam retrieval technology for appliances

in Germany, a great deal of uncertainty remains concerning the

practicality of this technology for widespread use in this country

at this time. Initial equipment cost is approximately $1

- 1.5

million per retrieval machine and operating expenses are expected

to be at least equal to that figure on an annual basis because

the activity, including removal of foam panels by hand, is labor

intensive and the processing is energy intensive. Uncertainty

also exists concerning the capacity of the equipment and the

number of facilities that would need to be established around

the country to process the 10 million appliances discarded annually.

One commenter, Appliance Recycling Centers of America (ARCA),

stated that they recently began a demonstration project with

a utility to use the German technology in the United States.

ARCA commented that it believes the decision to require this

type of fully integrated appliance recycling system nationwide

is premature at this time and the Agency is convinced by their

statements because of their experience with the technology.

They commented that the decision to establish a fully integrated

appliance recycling program (including refrigerant removal,

retrieval of CFC

- 11 from foam, capacitor removal and other activities

such as mercury switch removal) should be left to State and

local governments at this time because of the uncertainties

regarding cost, capacity, recovery rate of CFC

- 11 and the difficulty

in designing nationwide requirements that are viable within

the variety of state and local waste disposal programs.

An additional element of uncertainty regarding the establishment

of a nationwide requirement to recover CFC

- 11 from foam is the

progress towards a practical technology for direct destruction

of foam insulation and the CFC

- 11 it contains. The Agency is

aware of potential demonstration projects involving foam insulation

destruction in the United States which may prove to offer cost

efficiencies and increased environmental benefit as compared

to recovery of CFC

- 11 from insulation. These demonstration projects

are still in the planning stages. The Agency is interested in 

### Page 84 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlany information concerning the practicality of foam destruction

technology in this country and will consider regulation once

more information is collected.

Considering the uncertainty about the amounts retrievable,

the viability of widespread use of CFC

- 11 removal technology

in this country and the potential role for destruction technology

in the future, the Agency believes requirements to remove CFC

11 from foam are not practicable at this time and as a consequence,

the Agency has not included such requirements in the final rule

published today.

2. Regulatory Approach

As discussed in the proposed rule, state and municipal authorities

have traditionally designed and implemented waste management

programs, including disposal and recycling systems for used

appliances and motor vehicles. EPA's proposed regulatory approach

was designed to ensure that the maximum amount of ozone

- depleting

substances are recovered before recycling or disposal of the

used equipment by building on the waste disposal networks that

currently exist. Regulatory flexibility in this area is essential

for the success of the Safe Disposal Program. The proposal,

therefore, established a general requirement that refrigerant

be recovered before the final step in the disposal of equipment,

but did not place a requirement solely on one specific entity

in the disposal chain. The proposed rule did highlight, however,

that ultimately it was the responsibility of the final link

in the disposal chain to assure that the refrigerant has been

removed.

Although most of the comments that the Agency received supported

the concept of a flexible regulatory approach for the safe disposal

program, commenters were approximately evenly divided concerning

the issue of what party should be ultimately responsible for

removal of refrigerant. Several commenters believe that the

responsibility to remove refrigerant should lie with the generator

of the equipment. Commenters did not specify who the generator

was other than to indicate it could be anyone who owned the

equipment or delivered equipment to the landfill or scrap recycler.

ISRI and other commenters contend that section 608(b)(1) requires

that EPA's regulations mandate the recovery of ozone

- depleting

refrigerants from appliances prior to their delivery for recycling.

This contention is based on the language of section 608(b)(1),

which states that class I and class II substances contained

in bulk "shall be removed from each such appliance, machine

or other good prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery

for recycling." According to ISRI, this language also distinguishes

recycling of appliances from their disposal, and means that

goods containing ozone

- depleting substances must be evacuated

prior to their delivery to the recycler. EPA believes, however,

that recycling can be considered as one form of disposal and

proposed that as part of the definition of recycling found in

82.152

. EPA notes that if recycling were totally distinct

from disposal, recyclers would not be covered by the venting

prohibition in section 608(c), which applies to the release

of ozone

- depleting refrigerants in "the course of maintaining,

servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance." Based on

this interpretation, the venting prohibition would refer only

to disposal, but not recycling. ISRI itself, however, states

that recyclers are covered by the venting prohibition, implicitly

indicating that recycling is a form of disposal. EPA also notes

that the Act provides that the regulations under section 608(a),

of which 608(b) regulations are but one part, are to concern

the use and disposal of class I and class II substances "during

the service, repair or disposal" of air

- conditioning and refrigeration 

### Page 85 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlequipment. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, section 608(b)(2) provides

that the section 608(a) regulations are to require that appliances

or other equipment containing class I or II substances in bulk

be "equipped with a servicing aperture or equally effective

design feature which will facilitate the recapture of such substance

during the service and repair or disposal of" the equipment.

(Emphasis added.) This statutory language clearly indicates

that Congress contemplated that EPA's regulations would deal

with the removal of refrigerant during the disposal process

and that EPA's approach

- requiring that the refrigerant be removed

prior to the last step in the disposal process

- is consistent

with the statutory language. As a consequence, EPA believes

that although the language in section 608(b) clearly authorizes

EPA to mandate the removal of CFCs and other ozone

- depleting

substances from appliances prior to their delivery for recycling,

it does not require EPA to do so.

The Agency wishes to clarify that the prohibition on venting

refrigerant includes individuals who are preparing to dispose

of a used appliance. This does not mean that EPA encourages

individual owners of single appliances to remove refrigerant;

in fact, the Agency discourages this activity. Nevertheless,

however, individuals may not knowingly release refrigerant from

their used appliance. If the individual chooses to recover the

refrigerant, he or she must conform to the equipment requirements

in 82.158 and the required practices in 82.156

. The Agency

has also further clarified 82.156 ( f ) to highlight that it

is the ultimate disposer, the last entity in the disposal chain,

that must either remove the refrigerant or obtain verification

that refrigerant has been removed previously. As a result of

these clarifying changes, the Agency is deleting from the proposal

section 82.154(l), which required refrigerant removal before

disposal, because it is now redundant.

ISRI and Universal Appliance Recycling suggest that the Agency

consider the regulations developed in the state of Wisconsin

as a model program. The Wisconsin program specifies that any

person who delivers equipment to a scrap metal recycler must

first remove the refrigerant or accept a written statement from

the recycler that the recycler will remove the refrigerant.

The program also requires approved equipment and certification

requirements for individuals who use the equipment.

The Agency is aware of the Wisconsin program and applauds

its development as an effective method to recover refrigerant

from salvaged items. The proposed EPA regulations do not in

any way prohibit the type of program developed in Wisconsin

and the Agency encourages states and localities to consider

the Wisconsin model as a complement to their existing waste

disposal programs. As for adopting this state program across

the country, however, EPA believes this would be counter to

its stated goals of flexibility and interest in allowing local

and state governments to establish programs compatible with

their solid waste recycling laws, ordinances and available technologies.

One commenter, the Appliance Recycling Centers of America, suggested

that "over the next several years, the Agency should work with

the states to determine which types of approaches work best

for specific municipal solid waste management systems" and that

is exactly the Agency's intention.

An example of the benefits of the Agency maintaining a flexible

approach regarding specific components to the safe disposal

program is found in the comments that suggest a mandatory label

be affixed to equipment that has had refrigerant properly evacuated.

The Agency received several comments requesting a mandatory

brightly colored label be attached to equipment. Some types

of labeling are already being implemented in parts of the country.

Other commenters suggest that mandatory labels would be difficult

to locate on equipment that has been crushed. They maintain 

### Page 86 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlthat verifying labels would add costs to the already fragile

economics of the scrap recycling industry and therefore result

in a cessation of recycling of appliances and automobiles. The

Wisconsin program does not require labels, although it does

require documentation that refrigerant removal has occurred.

EPA believes the correct approach for the Federal program continues

to be flexibility that allows localities to use labels or certification

where appropriate; but, nationwide labeling or certification

is not required under this regulation.

EPA maintains that the flexible regulatory approach is consistent

with Congressional intent in sections 608 (b) and (c). EPA would

like to clarify that it does not specifically require the last

link in the disposal chain to remove refrigerant and, in fact,

the Agency believes that the most cost

- effective stage to remove

refrigerant is typically not the scrap metal processor or the

landfill operator, but an intermediate processor. The goal of

the program is to provide the flexibility needed to permit the

removal of refrigerant by the entity in the disposal chain that

can accomplish the removal most efficiently. This goal must

be combined with the venting prohibition, which does not allow

the knowing release of class I or class II substances to the

environment. In its comments, ISRI details realistic and specific

steps a facility operator could take to ensure the proper recovery

of CFCs and to avoid venting CFCs from inbound scrap materials.

The procedures outlined include sending a letter to suppliers

stating that refrigerant must be removed before equipment is

accepted, posting signs at intake locations stating the facility's

requirements regarding proper CFC removal, and requiring certification

that CFCs have been removed. These steps constitute good faith

efforts to fulfill the requirements of the venting prohibition

and are exactly the type of procedures the Agency envisioned

would be taken by processors not interested in removing refrigerant

themselves. The Agency has incorporated more specificity in

the Required Practice rule language ( 82.156 ( f )) regarding

the steps a person must take if not recovering the refrigerant

themselves.

In the proposal, the Agency suggested, but did not require,

that periodic inspections be used as a method for the processor

to determine that the claims being made by certifiers are true.

Commercial Metal Company's comments included a scenario where

the scrap processor would be held liable if a certifier stated

that they removed 90 percent of the refrigerant while only actually

removing 85 percent. The Agency wishes to clarify that if the

processor did not know and had no reason to know that the certification

was false, then he or she would not be liable for violating

the regulations.

ISRI asked that the Agency specify that a presumption exists

that refrigerant is no longer present in equipment that arrives

at the scrap facility already crushed. The Agency understands

that crushed automobiles commonly arrive at scrap facilities

and that such automobiles no longer contain refrigerant. Consequently,

it may be safely presumed that refrigerant is no longer present

in equipment that is received in such condition. This clarification

does not alter the responsibility to obtain certification when

receiving equipment from suppliers.

The procedures mentioned by a few commenters that scrap recyclers

or landfill operators tell suppliers to simply "cut the refrigerant

lines" before delivering equipment to them are clearly unacceptable

because they direct the supplier to violate the statute and

the regulations. The knowing release of refrigerant to the atmosphere

is a violation of the venting prohibition and accepting certification

that equipment has been properly evacuated knowing that the

certification is false is a violation of the regulation. 

### Page 87 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html3. Registration of Entities

EPA proposed a one

- time certification or registration requirement

for those entities that recover refrigerant before disposal

or recycling of equipment. This proposal was similar to the

reporting requirement for the servicing sector, requiring name

and address of the establishment, manufacturer name, model number,

date of manufacture, the serial number of the equipment, and

a statement that the equipment would be used properly. The registration

was to be sent to the appropriate Regional office.

Five commenters supported one

- time registration and one commenter

did not support the requirement. ARCA stated that it believed

more frequent reporting would be helpful, although they suggested

that the information would be the most useful at the state level.

The Agency agrees that the reporting of basic information regarding

disposal is important for enforcement purposes and maintains

the registration requirement in today's final rule. Although

use of a specific form is not required, the Agency has modified

the example form provided in the proposal to include a check

box for those individuals performing disposal only. The Agency

understands that the requested data concerning serial numbers

is not necessary for self

- built equipment.

4. Certification to Final Processors

The proposal discussed the situation where the establishment

that performs the disposal or recycling of the appliance or

MVAC equipment chooses not to remove refrigerant or is unable

to remove it (for example, the scrap recyclers who receive crushed

cars). The Agency proposed the option of a certification procedure

between the final processor and the suppliers of the goods or

machines stating that the ozone

- depleting chemicals have been

properly removed. The proposed elements of the certification

could vary based on the individual establishments involved;

however, the Agency proposed that the final processors require

suppliers to give the name and address of the person who recovered

the refrigerant and the date refrigerant was recovered.

EPA discussed the option of combining the certification with

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

the refrigerant removed by the supplier. The Agency stated that

this certification allows the final processors to continue to

accept goods and machines for scrap recycling while being assured

that their suppliers have removed refrigerant. The certification

would not be sent to the Agency.

Commenters in general were in favor of some type of certification

between the final processor and the recoverer of the refrigerant

in the cases where the final processor does not remove the refrigerant

itself. They agreed that there was no need to send the certification

to the Agency, although many commenters suggested more flexibility

in the elements of the certification. Several commenters suggested

that certification be allowed for shipments of equipment instead

of for each individual piece, especially in cases where the

equipment is received already crushed. The Automotive Dismantlers'

and Recyclers Association (ADRA) requested that vehicle recyclers

be exempted from any recordkeeping or reporting to final processors

because of the burden the requirements place on these small,

family

- run businesses. Finally, AHAM suggested that the Agency

specifically limit the elements to name, address and date of

refrigerant removal in order to restrict localities or individual

final processors from requiring more information.

The intent of the Agency in specifying the elements of the

certification between parties was to give guidance on the types

of elements that the Agency believed necessary for an individual

to be assured that refrigerant had been properly evacuated from

equipment. As stated above, the Agency believes flexibility 

### Page 88 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlis important in this program to allow for the variability of

local circumstances. As a result, the Agency has modified the

requirements of a certification between two parties to allow

for a single certification for a shipment of equipment or other

similar provisions, such as a contract between two parties stating

that one party has the responsibility to remove refrigerant

from equipment before delivery. The Agency believes that the

contract option is appropriate for businesses such as the automotive

dismantlers to streamline transactions in cases where they maintain

long

- standing business relationships with the scrap dealers.

The change also reflects the fact that the stated requirements

are a minimum and individuals, localities or states may ask

for additional information if they wish.

The Agency received several comments on the proposed suggestion

that labels or marks be placed on equipment once it had been

evacuated. As stated in section 2 above, commenters were divided

on the need and utility of marking individual pieces of equipment.

Although the Agency understands that marking appliances can

be a useful method to identify evacuated equipment and that

some localities have already incorporated this idea, it may

not be useful in all cases. As a result, the Agency will continue

to offer marking or labeling appliances as a program suggestion,

but will not require it.

Two commenters felt that the last sentence of 82.156 ( f )( 2 )

,

which states that the signed statement between the entities

"does not relieve the disposer of responsibility for recovering

any refrigerant that remains in the appliance", is unfair and

exceeds the requirements of the venting prohibition. They maintain

that the scrap facility expects the requirements of the written

agreement would be performed and should not be held liable for

knowingly releasing ozone

- depleting substances. The Agency believes

that certification should reflect that refrigerant was properly

removed (i.e. according to the standards set out in this regulation).

If the certification is accepted in good faith, then the Agency

agrees with the commenters that the entity receiving the certification

is relieved of their liability. If the entity accepting the

certification knows or should know that refrigerant remains

in the appliance, they would still be held liable, however.

As stated in the proposal, the Agency wishes to clarify that,

as in the case of the final processor that chooses not to remove

refrigerant, the supplier to the final processor does not have

to remove the refrigerant but then must assure, through an accompanying

certification, that refrigerant has been removed earlier in

the disposal chain. Any copies of the certificate of removal

provided to the supplier could be passed on to the final processor.

5. Technician Training

In the proposal, the Agency discussed the information needed

by technicians to perform refrigerant removal from appliances

including MVACs and concluded that the level of expertise required

for recycling and recovery in the disposal sector may not be

as high as that required in the servicing sector. The salvaging

sector differs from servicing in that the technicians do not

reintroduce refrigerant to equipment, they simply remove it.

Other factors considered were the lack of trade associations

or groups that may represent the wide variety of technicians

that may perform the refrigerant removal activity and that the

technicians involved in the removal of refrigerant may only

perform this activity occasionally. As a result, the Agency

did not propose technician certification requirements and instead

stated it would develop guidance documents regarding refrigerant

removal with the assistance of industry.

Seven commenters stated that they believed mandatory technician 

### Page 89 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlcertification should be required in the disposal sector, as

well as the servicing sector. Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling

Service Company, Inc. described several technical situations

to illustrate the need for technician training for the proper

removal of refrigerant. One commenter noted that technician

certification should be required precisely because the individuals

who will perform the removal only do so occasionally and therefore

do not have as much knowledge as the servicing technicians.

Consistency with the servicing requirements of both section

608 and section 609, the amount of refrigerant available in

the disposal sector, and the difficulty in distributing guidance

material were also given as reasons for mandatory technician

certification requirements.

The Agency believes that refrigerant recovery from any sector

requires knowledge of both the equipment used to recover refrigerant

and the appliance that is to be evacuated. Refrigerants are

pressurized gases that could pose safety risks if not handled

properly, the substances must be kept separate to be of value,

and evacuation equipment must be used correctly to be effective.

By not requiring technician certification, the Agency did not

intend to imply that anyone could perform these activities without

training. Instead, the proposal reflected the fact that recovery

of refrigerant is a simpler task than the combination of recovering

refrigerant and returning refrigerant (at the appropriate purity

level) to equipment. The disposal sector is distinct from the

servicing sectors of both section 608 and 609 in that refrigerant

is not returned to equipment. A large amount of emphasis is

placed on avoiding equipment contamination in the technician

certification programs and this is not an issue at disposal.

Purchasing refrigerant is also not necessary in the disposal

sector, but technician certification is linked to the ability

to continue to purchase new refrigerant needed for servicing

equipment.

The Agency has developed a guidance document alerting state

and local government officials of the environmental consequences

of releasing refrigerant, refrigerant salvage techniques, the

importance of not mixing different refrigerants, and the importance

of selling the recovered substance to reclamation facilities

for purification before reuse. The document discusses successful

refrigerant removal programs that already exist and the Agency

believes it is a useful first step in developing simple, readily

available training material. EPA intends to develop additional

documents to assist the disposal sector in implementing the

requirements of the final rule.

Appliance Recycling Centers of America commented that "the

Agency would be most effective in a coordinating role and in

assisting states as they develop local training programs". The

Agency agrees with the commenter and welcomes any additional

comments or suggestions regarding appropriate projects, guidance,

or assistance needed.

6. Performance Standards for Recovery Equipment

In the proposal, the Agency required that the equipment used

to recover refrigerant from appliances and motor vehicles meet

the same performance standards as equipment required for servicing,

except that passive systems would not be permitted for use with

appliances at disposal. EPA did not propose to require certification

of that equipment but instead proposed allowing individuals

to develop their own equipment while setting performance requirements

for the efficiency the Agency expects the equipment to meet.

The efficiency standards proposed were 102 mm of mercury vacuum

for MVACs and 90 percent evacuation of refrigerant for other

small appliances. Any equipment intended for sale for use in

salvaging operations must meet the efficiency standards and 

### Page 90 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlthe Agency recommended independent laboratory tests to assure

that the equipment complies with industry safety standards.

These tests would be the same as those for equipment intended

for servicing.

Several commenters agreed that performance standards were

an appropriate method for regulating the efficiency of the equipment

used in the disposal sector. ARI, however, stated that all equipment

should be certified in order to assure that equipment can reach

efficiency levels before it is used. Although EPA agrees that

the efficiency levels are important, the Agency remains unconvinced

as to the benefit of extending the recovery equipment certification

program for the servicing sector to the disposal sector. The

Agency encourages the salvaging sector to use certified equipment

when possible; however, the Agency is aware that some operations

in the disposal sector frequently involve the evacuation of

several pieces of equipment simultaneously. Some entities that

are already evacuating equipment at disposal have built their

own equipment suitable for their specific circumstances and

are able to perform their salvage operations quickly and efficiently.

The Agency would like to continue to encourage these activities

and keep the burden of compliance low for the disposal sector.

The Agency believes that there is a powerful incentive to recover

as much refrigerant as possible once recovery is attempted because

the refrigerant is a valuable product. Therefore, the Agency

maintains the proposed performance standard concept in today's

rule.

Several comments were received regarding the proposal to

allow only active equipment to be used in the disposal sector.

The small appliance disposal sector was distinguished from the

small appliance servicing sector, where both active and passive

systems were proposed as acceptable, because EPA was concerned

that passive recovery would generally be less efficient and

would require increased time for operation. On the other hand,

the Agency also stated that a requirement to use only active

equipment for small appliance disposal may make compliance more

difficult and therefore less likely in some instances. Five

commenters, including NRDC/FOE, suggested that the requirement

remain as proposed, two commenters requested a deeper vacuum

be required at disposal, and seven commenters, including AHAM,

suggested that system

- dependent (passive) equipment should not

be excluded from the disposal sector.

Although EPA believes that system

- dependent equipment will

not play a large role in the disposal sector, especially in

situations where several appliances are being evacuated at once,

it has changed the performance requirements for the disposal

sector to match those of the servicing sector. The primary reason

for the change is because of the comment from AHAM that highlighted

the potential overlap between the sectors and the possible scenario

where a technician legally using a system

- dependent device to

service the appliance would not be allowed to recover the refrigerant

from the same appliance if it were targeted for disposal. The

Agency is aware of localities where the only option for refrigerant

recovery from appliances is removal by service technicians and

the Agency does not want to eliminate this compliance option.

Obtaining compliance from as many technicians as possible and

facilitating removal of refrigerant is a primary goal of the

safe disposal program. Therefore, the equipment efficiency requirements

have been modified to mirror the equipment efficiency requirements

for the servicing sector ( see 82.158 ( l / m )).

The proposal discussed the difficulties of refrigerant recovery

from systems using CFC

- 12 when the ambient temperature falls

below 60 degrees F. One commenter stated that many larger recovery

operations actually occur indoors, although the Agency understands

that smaller operations may indeed occur outside. Methods, such 

### Page 91 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlas heating, to raise recovery efficiency were described by commenters.

EPA believes market incentives exist, once recovery is attempted,

to maximize the amount of refrigerant technicians try to recover

for sale and, therefore, prescribed procedures are not necessary.

The Agency intends to incorporate solutions into guidance documents

to this, and other problems, as they are raised.

Finally, the Agency wishes to remind individuals gathering

refrigerant at disposal that the refrigerant must be sold to

reclamation facilities for purification before it is reintroduced

into the servicing sector.

In summary, the safe disposal requirements in today's final

rule maintain the flexibility proposed on December 10, 1992.

EPA has further specified the procedures that final processors

may require from their suppliers who remove refrigerant and

the performance capability of equipment used is now consistent

with the servicing sector. Technicians are not required to be

certified but individuals who perform refrigerant recovery must

provide basic information to the EPA Regional Offices. For a

section by section summary of changes made to the proposed rule,

see section IV.

N. Servicing Apertures

Section 608 (b)(2) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate regulations

requiring that any "appliance, machine, or other good containing

a class I or class II substance in bulk shall not be manufactured,

sold, or distributed in interstate commerce or offered for sale

or distribution in interstate commerce unless it is equipped

with a servicing aperture or an equally effective design feature"

to facilitate removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal.

In today's notice, EPA is finalizing the requirement that all

air

- conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufactured after

November 15, 1993 be equipped with a servicing aperture or an

equally effective design feature.

In the proposed rule the Agency differentiated between appliances

that contained less than one pound of refrigerant and appliances

that contained more. EPA made this distinction to separate appliances

that would require servicing apertures and those that would

require process stubs or "pigtails". However, in light of comments

received with the publication of the proposed rule, the Agency

intends to distinguish equipment based on the definition of

small appliances found in section III. E. of this rule for the

purposes of this requirement. Based on this distinction, the

Agency requires that all small appliances be manufactured with

a process stub or "pigtail" within six months after publication

of this final rule. The Agency altered this requirement in order

to include other appliances that could contain more than one

pound of charge but that normally have a process stub rather

than a servicing aperture. These appliances include water coolers,

window air conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners,

heat pumps, package terminal heat pumps, freezers and refrigerators,

as well as any other equipment included in the definition of

small appliance. The Agency recognizes that such equipment rarely

requires entry into the refrigerant system, and that by requiring

a servicing aperture could significantly increase possible leak

rates. Since these systems rarely lose refrigerant during their

current operation, the Agency did not want to incur emissions

by requiring a servicing aperture for this equipment.

As proposed, the Agency is not dictating where the servicing

aperture or the process stub should be placed for this equipment

in today's rule. Several commenters believed that the Agency

should specify the placement of the process stub and servicing

aperture for different types of equipment, and that the common

design does not allow for isolation of components to enable

removal of liquid refrigerants. Given the varying types of air



### Page 92 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlconditioning and refrigeration equipment in the market, however,

the Agency could not accurately determine the appropriate placement

of these valves in all equipment. The Agency believes that manufacturers

themselves are best suited to decide the placement of these

valves. Manufacturers can decide the appropriate placement of

these valves, balancing potential leak rates, due to poor placement,

with the need to easily recover the refrigerant.

Several commenters believed that the use of schraeder valves,

flared or compression fittings and clamp

- on piercing access

valves should be prohibited. Valve cores restrict flow of liquid

refrigerant and provide easy access for vandals. Adapters for

charging hoses are not 100 percent leak

- free as some adapters

trap the refrigerant in the hose which allows for possible cross

contamination into other clean systems.

However, several commenters stated that schraeder valves

should not be prohibited, and that it is the technician and

not the valve that is the problem. If the isolated portion of

the system has been pumped down to atmospheric pressure, then

there is little or no loss when there is a need to remove the

valve stem. Other commenters stated that the schraeder valves

are effective devices that actually minimize leaks, and although

they tend to slow the process of recovering refrigerant, there

are devices that will remove the valve core to speed up the

process.

In today's final rule, the Agency is not prohibiting the

use of schraeder valves on small appliances. EPA believes that

such valves assist in the recovery of refrigerant, and that

concerns for their release of refrigerant can be minimized through

proper use. All schraeder valves should be capped while not

in use.

O. Exemption from Regulatory Requirements for Refrigerant Uses

for Which No High

- Efficiency Recovery Technology Exists

In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether it should

set up a procedure to grant exemptions from this rule's requirements

for refrigerant uses for which no suitable, high

- efficiency

recovery technology existed. The Agency noted that it had been

contacted by a technician servicing very high

- pressure refrigeration

equipment that could neither be evacuated on site using self

contained (active) recovery equipment nor transported to a shop

where self

- contained recovery equipment was located. Based on

this example, EPA was concerned that it might not be possible

to comply with the rule's requirements while servicing or disposing

of some types of appliances in some types of applications. The

Agency emphasized that exemptions would only be granted under

very limited circumstances, and that the burden of proof of

the need for an exemption would lie on the person seeking it.

EPA received several comments favoring the establishment

of a procedure whereby the Agency could review requests for

exemption on a case

- by

- case basis. One commenter agreed with

the need for an exemption process, but believed that exemptions

should only be granted until applicable recovery technologies

were developed. Other commenters favored the up

- front exemption

of certain sectors, such as airplanes and small appliances,

from the rule. Two commenters stated that there should be no

exemptions from the rule.

As discussed in section III. F, the Agency is allowing use

of system

- dependent (passive) equipment with less than 15 pounds

of very high

- pressure refrigerants (as well as other refrigerants),

which will allow individuals recovering less than 15 pounds

of very high

- pressure refrigerants with system

- dependent equipment

to continue doing so without seeking an exemption. EPA has,

therefore, decided that an exemption procedure is unnecessary. 

### Page 93 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlThe Agency believes that permitting system

- dependent recovery

equipment adequately addresses the concerns raised with regard

to very high

- pressure refrigerant.

EPA is not exempting any particular industry sector from

this rule's requirements because the Agency is required by section

608(a) to maximize recycling of class I and class II substances

during the service, repair, and disposal of appliances, and

recovery technologies exist for all of the applications of appliances

of which the Agency is aware. EPA believes that it has tailored

its requirements to ensure that they are practicable in all

industry sectors, including small appliances and airplanes.

IV. Summary of Changes to Proposed Rule

This section briefly describes the provisions of today's

final rule. Any changes made to the rule language as a result

of public comments are described. Various changes to the final

rule that have been made for purposes of clarification are not

described herein.

A. Authority, Purpose and Scope

There have been additions to the scope section to clarify

that the rule covers refrigerant reclaimers, appliance owners,

and manufacturers of appliances and recycling and recovery equipment

in addition to persons servicing, repairing, maintaining, and

disposing of appliances.

B

. Definitions ( 82.152 )

The following terms and definitions have been added or changed

since the rule was proposed:

The term "active recovery equipment" has been changed to

"self

- contained recovery equipment," and the definition (now

(u)) has been broadened to include equipment that may use means

other than an on

- board compressor to transfer refrigerant.

For the purposes of the leak repair requirements ( 82.156 ( i ))

,

definitions were added for commercial refrigeration (d) and

industrial process refrigeration (g). The disposal definition

(e) remained essentially as proposed with additional clarification

that it includes the entire disposal process.

The definition of "high

- pressure appliance" (f) has been

changed to include appliances using R

- 114. The term "intermediate

pressure appliance" has been eliminated.

The definition of "low

- loss fitting" (h) has been expanded

to include fittings that can be closed manually.

A definition of "major maintenance, service, or repair" (j)

was added.

A definition of MVAC

- like appliance (l) was added to specify

equipment used to cool driver or passenger compartments of non

road vehicles.

A definition of "normally containing" (m) a quantity of refrigerant

was added.

The term "passive recovery equipment" has been changed to

"system

- dependent recovery equipment," and the definition (now

(w) has been changed slightly for clarity.

A definition of "recovery efficiency" (s) was added.

The definition of "small appliance" (v) has been changed

to include specific products that are fully manufactured, charged,

and hermetically sealed in a factory with five pounds or less

of refrigerant.

C

. Prohibitions ( 82.154 )

In general, the prohibitions prevent persons from performing 

### Page 94 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlappliance maintenance, service, repair, and disposal without

adhering to the requirements of section 608 and this rule.

Prohibition (a) reiterates the statutory prohibition on the

knowing release of refrigerant during appliance maintenance,

service, repair, and disposal. This prohibition also states

that refrigerant released when the requirements of this rule

or the MVACs rule (Subpart B) are followed will be considered

"de minimis," and will therefore not be subject to the prohibition.

Prohibition (b) prohibits persons from opening appliances without

observing the required practices and using certified equipment.

Prohibitions (c) and (d) prohibit manufacturers of recycling

and recovery equipment from manufacturing uncertified equipment

and from altering certified equipment without having it recertified.

Prohibitions (e) and (f) prohibit persons who have not certified

to the Administrator that they have acquired recycling and recovery

equipment from performing appliance maintenance, service, repair,

or disposal.

Prohibitions (g) and (h) ban the sale of unreclaimed refrigerants

and sales of refrigerants by uncertified reclaimers. Prohibition

(i) bans the release by reclaimers of more than 1.5 percent

of the refrigerant received by them.

Prohibition (j) prohibits the sale of appliances (except

small appliances) that are not equipped with servicing apertures

six months after the final rule is published. Prohibition (k)

prohibits the sale of small appliances that are not equipped

with a process stub to facilitate the removal of refrigerant

at servicing and disposal.

The prohibition that appeared as (l) in the NPRM was eliminated

because of redundancy.

A new prohibition (l) has been added which prohibits anyone

but certified technicians from opening appliances (except MVACs)

or disposing of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC

- like appliances).

Prohibition (m) prevents technician training or testing programs

from issuing certificates pursuant to 82.161 unless the program

has been approved.

Prohibition (n) bans the sale of any class I or class II

substance after November 14, 1993 unless the sale is to certified

technicians, manufacturers, sold for eventual resale to certified

technicians, or charged into equipment by certified technicians.

D

. Required Practices ( 82.156 )

This section establishes requirements for refrigerant recovery

and disposition during the maintenance, service, repair, and

disposal of appliances.

The evacuation requirements in 82.156 ( a )( 1 ) ( for appliances

except small appliances) have been changed in a number of areas

since the rule was proposed. The refrigerant quantity threshold

between stringent and less stringent requirements has been changed

from 50 lbs to 200 lbs, and the relevant quantity is no longer

the total charge of the equipment, but the charge in the isolated

component of the equipment that is opened for service. EPA is

establishing less stringent requirements for appliances containing

HCFC

- 22 than were proposed, and the evacuation level for large

high

- pressure appliances has been changed from 20 inches to

15 inches. The effective date of the evacuation requirements

has been changed from 30 days after publication of the rule

to 60 days after publication of the rule.

EPA has added an exception to its evacuation requirements

for maintenance, service, or repair that is not "major" and

that is not followed by evacuation of the appliance to the environment.

The exception for leaky appliances has been expanded to allow

for evacuation of leaky low

- pressure appliances in addition 

### Page 95 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlto leaky high

- pressure appliances. These exceptions appear at

82.156 ( a ) ( 1 )

, ( 2 )

, and ( 3 ).

EPA has expanded its required practices for evacuation of

small appliances ( 82.156 ( a )( 4 )) to account for the fact that

recovery equipment certified under appendix B may now be used

in addition to equipment certified under appendix C.

The Agency has adopted applicable requirements from the MVACs

rule for the maintenance, service, and repair of MVAC

- like appliances

( 82.156 ( a )( 5 )).

EPA has added requirement (b) to ensure that technicians

who service, maintain, or repair appliances besides small appliances

possess self

- contained equipment in addition to system

- dependent

equipment.

Requirement (c) has been added to limit the use of system

dependent equipment to appliances with less than 15 pounds of

refrigerant.

MVAC

- like appliances have been excluded from provision (e),

regarding transfers of refrigerant between equipment owned by

the same person, because this provision contradicts the requirement

to "properly use" recycling equipment under the MVACs rule,

which is being adopted for MVAC

- like appliances.

Required practice 82.156 ( f ) was modified to specify that

ultimate disposers of small appliances and MVACs must either

remove the refrigerant from equipment or verify that it has

been removed. Further specificity was added to clarify activities

that facility operators could take to notify suppliers to remove

refrigerant if they are not removing it themselves. The last

sentence of the proposed 82.156 ( f ) was deleted

.

Required practice (h) regarding the performance standards

for equipment used to recover refrigerant from small appliances

was modified to reflect the changes in the efficiency standards

for servicing equipment. No changes were made to the required

practice (g) regarding equipment appropriate for removal of

refrigerant from MVACs at disposal.

Required practice 82.156 ( i ) was added to specify the size

of leaks that must be repaired in the industrial process and

commercial refrigeration sectors (35 percent per year), and

for all other equipment (15 percent per year) with charges larger

than 50 pounds.

E

. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Equipment ( 82.158 )

Section 82.158(a) requires manufacturers of recycling and

recovery equipment to have the equipment certified by an approved

equipment testing organization to meet EPA's requirements. Section

82.158(b) establishes these requirements for recycling and recovery

equipment used with appliances besides small appliances. The

levels of evacuation that the equipment must be able to achieve

( 82.158 ( b )( 1 )) have been changed since the proposal to conform

with the service practice standards described above. In addition,

EPA is now requiring ARI 740

- 1993 instead of ARI 740

- 1988 as

the method for testing equipment.

Provision 82.158 ( b )( 2 ) has been added to permit the testing

and certification of recycling or recovery equipment for which

no test methodology is set forth in ARI 740

- 1993. Standard 82.158(b)(3),

which adopts ARI's minimum requirements for equipment certification,

is unchanged ( except for its number ). Standard 82.158 ( b )( 4 )

has been changed to lower the quantity of refrigerant that can

be released during noncondensables purging to three percent

of the charge in two years.

Standard 82.158 ( b )( 5 ) has been changed to require that

recycling and recovery equipment possess "low

- loss fittings"

as defined at 82.152 ( h ) ( instead of " positive shutoff connections ").

Standard 82.158 ( b )( 6 ) has been added to require that equipment

have its liquid and vapor recovery rates measured. 

### Page 96 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlSection 82.158(c) establishes requirements for grandfathered

recycling and recovery equipment. These requirements have not

been changed since the proposal, except in the case of small

HCFC

- 22 equipment.

The equipment standard in 82.158 ( d ) was modified to require

90% efficiency when the compressor on the appliance is operating

and 80% efficiency when the compressor is not operational. These

requirements are the same for both passive and active equipment.

A provision was also added to establish a standard (four inches

of Hg vacuum) for equipment intended for use with small appliances

that is certified under Appendix B. The standard for equipment

used to recover refrigerant from small appliances at disposal

( 82.158 ( m )) was modified to reflect these changes also

. There

were no changes in 82.158 ( l )

- equipment used to recover refrigerant

from MVACs.

Requirement 82.158 ( f ) was added to apply the certification

requirements for recycling and recovery equipment used with

MVACs to recycling and recovery equipment used with MVAC

- like

appliances

. Requirement 82.158 ( g ) permits grandfathering of

recycling and recovery equipment intended for use with MVAC

like appliances as long as that equipment can draw a vacuum

of 102mm of mercury.

E

. Approved Equipment Testing Organizations ( 82.160 )

A requirement was added to 82.160 ( c ) to prevent organizations

from certifying equipment before they are approved by EPA. However,

82.160 ( e ) was added to allow organizations to certify equipment

tested previously under their programs if they can demonstrate

to EPA that both the program and the equipment met all the requirements

of this rule.

F

. Technician Certification ( 82.161 )

Section 82.161(a) establishes a mandatory certification requirement,

not in the NPRM, whereby all technicians must be certified by

an approved certifying program within 18 months of the effective

date of today's rule.

Section 82.161(b) describes the test subject material that

will be included on the certification test.

Section 82.161(c) describes the responsibilities of certifying

organizations.

Section 82.161 (d) and (e) describes the process for reconsideration

of a certifying program.

Section 82.161(f) requires certified technicians to be able

to perform recycling and recovery procedures. Failure to correctly

perform these procedures could result in the revocation of certification.

Section 82.161(g) establishes a method for certifying programs

to seek recognition for technicians trained prior to the effective

date of today's rule.

G. Certification by Owners of Recovery and Recycling Equipment

( 82.162 )

Section 82.162 requires the certification of equipment by

owners by September 13

, 1993

. New 82.162 ( a )( 3 ) and ( c )( 3 )

have been added. These sections require the equipment owners

to include the number of service vehicles used, as part of their

certification statement. Sections 82.162 (a)(3) and (c)(3) in

the NPRM now appear as 82.162 ( a )( 4 ) and ( c )( 4 ). These sections

were slightly modified. Equipment grandfathered by today's rule

may not have serial or model numbers, therefore the phrase "if

applicable" was added. Corrections were made to the addresses

listed in 82.162 ( a )( 5 ). 

### Page 97 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlI

. Reclaimer Certification ( 82.164 )

Section 82.164 establishes the requirements for reclaimers

reprocessing refrigerant after September 13, 1993. There were

no changes between the NPRM and today's rule.

J

. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements ( 82.166 )

Provision 82.166 ( b ) was added to facilitate the functioning

of the sales restriction.

Provision 82.166 ( c ) ( formerly ( b )) has been changed to

require submission of lists of certified equipment annually

at the end of each calendar year rather than annually beginning

60 days after publication of this rule.

Provision 82.166 ( f ) was added to require technician certification

programs to keep records of the names and addresses of all individuals

taking the tests, the scores of all certification tests administered,

and the dates and locations of all tests administered, and to

send EPA an activity report every six months.

Provision 82.166 ( j ) was added to require persons servicing

appliances normally containing over 50 pounds of refrigerant

to provide the owner and/or operator of such appliances with

documentation that indicates the amount of refrigerant added

to the appliance.

Provision 82.166 ( k ) was added to require owners and / or

operators of appliances normally containing over 50 pounds of

refrigerant to keep servicing records documenting the date and

type of service, as well as the quantity of refrigerant added.

Provision 82.166 ( l ) was added to require technicians to

keep a copy of their certificate at their place of business.

K. Appendices A, B and C.

Appendix A was not changed.

Appendix B was changed from ARI 740

- 1991 to ARI 740

- 1993.

Appendix C has been modified in some of its measurement techniques.

L. Standards for Becoming a Certifying Program for Technicians

(Appendix D)

Appendix D establishes additional requirements organizations

must meet in order to be approved as a technician certifying

program pursuant to 82.161

.

V. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

Executive Order No. 12291 requires the preparation of a regulatory

impact analysis (RIA) for major rules, defined by the order

as those likely to result in:

(1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

(2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual

industries, Federal, state or local government agencies, or

geographic industries; or

(3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the

United States

- based enterprises to compete with foreign

- based

enterprises in domestic or export markets.

The annualized costs for this rulemaking, $71 million, fall

under $100 million. Therefore, the Agency has determined that

this regulation does not meet the definition of a major rule

under E.O. 12291. Nonetheless, due to the proximity of the costs 

### Page 98 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlof this rule to the $100 million threshold, the Agency has fulfilled

the requirements of E.O. 12291 and prepared an RIA to assess

the impact of the regulation (see Regulatory Impact Analysis:

The National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, March

23, 1993) which is available for review in the public docket

for this rulemaking. This analysis is summarized below.

1. Baseline. Since these regulations are being promulgated

in addition to other regulations that affect the use of CFCs

and HCFCs, the baseline for this analysis must reflect the state

of affairs after the implementation of previous rules and before

the implementation of the final rule. Two provisions of the

Clean Air Act that must be considered when defining the baseline

for these regulations are the phaseout of CFCs required by section

604 of the Act and the prohibition on venting contained in section

608(c), which is self

- effectuating. For the purposes of the

analysis, two variables were chosen to describe the effects

of these provisions: the percentage of the market in which recycling

and recovery would occur as a result of the provision (referred

to as either market penetration or compliance); and the average

recapture efficiency of the recycling or recovery methods that

would be employed.

The CFC phaseout has two important effects for the baseline:

it affects the quantities of CFCs and HCFCs that need to be

recycled and it makes recycling cost

- effective for owners of

equipment in certain sectors. As the CFC phaseout restricts

the supply of CFCs, their prices will rise. As a result, substitute

chemicals will replace CFCs in new equipment and it will become

less expensive to recycle the CFCs in existing equipment than

to buy virgin CFCs to replace them. Sectors in which recycling

is likely to occur under the phaseout include retail food, cold

storage, chillers, refrigerated transport, and industrial process

refrigeration. In this analysis, market penetration is expected

to be 100%, and the efficiency of equipment to be about 95%

in these sectors under the phaseout. A recovery efficiency of

ninety

- five percent is assumed to be the level that is most

cost

- effective from a private (as opposed to a social) perspective.

This baseline assumes that producers will phase out the production

of CFCs by January 1, 1996.

The self

- effectuating prohibition on venting required by

section 608(c) can be considered a minimal requirement to recycle

because chemicals must be recycled, or at least stored, if they

cannot be vented. However, because the prohibition on venting

does not in itself contain standards, maximum recovery efficiency

and full compliance would not be expected under the prohibition

alone. The likely rates of compliance in the household refrigeration

and residential air

- conditioning sectors would be estimated

to reach approximately 80% under the prohibition alone, and

efficiencies are estimated to be 75% for these sectors.

Under the requirements of this recycling rule, recovery efficiencies

are expected to range between 90% and 99%, depending upon the

equipment requirements for each sector. The analysis assumes

full compliance across all sectors.

2. Costs. The costs of the recycling rule consist of the

costs of certifying recycling and recovery equipment, technician

certification, recordkeeping costs, and refrigerant storage

costs. The Agency estimates the cost for this regulatory program

over a 25 year period between 1994 and 2015 is $1.3 billion.

These costs were discounted at 2%. EPA performed this same analysis

with discount rates of 4% and 7%. The costs are $1 billion and

$0.8 billion, respectively.

3. Benefits. The benefits of the three provisions discussed

above consist of the avoided damage to human health and the

environment that would have occurred if, without regulation,

ozone

- depleting refrigerants had been released rather than recaptured. 

### Page 99 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlEPA's calculation of benefits includes the following: (1) Reduction

in the incidence of melanoma and non

- melanoma skin cancer cases

and fatalities, (2) reduction in the incidence of cataract cases,

(3) increases in the value of crops harvested due to reductions

in both direct UV effects and indirect effects from tropospheric

(ground

- based) ozone, (4) increases in the value of fish harvested

due to decreased levels of damaging UV radiation, and (5) decreased

costs in protecting polymer products.

Under the recycling rule, recycling efficiencies are assumed

to increase because certification of recycling and recovery

equipment increases the average efficiency of this equipment.

The Agency estimates the range of benefits to be from $.4 billion

to $1.7 billion, depending upon whether each life saved is valued

at $3 or $12 million. These benefits were discounted at a 2%

discount rate. The Agency estimated benefits at discount rates

of 4% and 7%. The resulting benefits were from $.1 billion to

$.6 billion at the 4% discount rate, and $.04 billion to $.2

billion for the 7% discount rate.

4. Initial Program Costs and Benefits for Technician Certification

The short

- term benefits of technician certification were

not included in the previous section. The Agency assumed that

all technicians immediately complied with the regulation, and

that the market fully transmitted all costs and benefits to

equipment owners and technicians. Under this "perfect market

scenario", technicians knew how to recycle efficiently, did

not mistakenly mix refrigerants, took precautions to avoid using

contaminated refrigerants, and worked to maximize benefits for

themselves, as well as for equipment owners.

Unfortunately, there are impediments to the functioning of

this market. First, technicians may not be fully accountable

to the owners. Eventual equipment failure and losses in energy

efficiency cannot be readily traced to poor servicing techniques.

These may be hidden costs, or may not surface until some time

after servicing. In such cases, the owner is unable to determine

the cause of the failure. Technician training can ensure an

educated workforce to avoid costly mistakes.

Furthermore, there are over 300,000 technicians. It is difficult

to assume that all 300,000 technicians immediately comply with

the regulation, and use proper servicing techniques. Technicians

must become trained in recycling techniques and become knowledgeable

of the regulation. A technician certification program would

provide this information as quickly as possible.

In a separate analysis, the Agency investigated short

- term

costs and benefits to the immediate implementation of the recycling

program. Under this scenario, the Agency assumes that without

technician certification and training, there are likely energy

efficiency losses due to inadvertent mixing of refrigerants.

The Agency estimates that in the first year, these costs could

exceed $100 million. In addition, trained technicians would

avoid introducing refrigerant contaminated with acids and other

corrosives due to compressor burnouts. The Agency estimates

this cost saving to be $15 million annually.

In addition, proper training could improve productivity.

Under this assumption, technicians could save $50 million in

the first year. Furthermore, increased recycling avoids the

need to retrofit a significant number of pieces of equipment.

This could save close to $88 million annually.

An increase in compliance rates due to better knowledge of

responsibilities yields environmental benefits. EPA anticipates

that an increase of 5% in compliance with the recycling regulation

yields an annualized benefit of $10 to $42 million. Through

increased recycling, the United States can avoid more than $6

to $26 million in environmental costs for production past the 

### Page 100 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlyear 1995 for essential uses.

The Agency believes that these short

- term cost savings and

benefits exceed the costs for such a program. EPA estimates

that the start

- up cost to certify 300,000 technicians can range

from $50 to $80 million. Even when compared to the long

- term

cost of $152 million for technician certification, these benefits

outweigh the cost.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Purpose

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601

- 612, requires

that Federal agencies examine the impacts of their regulations

on small entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency

is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking,

it must prepare and make available for public comment an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is not

required if the head of an agency certifies that a rule will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number

of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Agency has performed an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis and determined that this regulation is unlikely to

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

The analysis is found in appendix A in the Regulatory Impact

Analysis: The National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program

and is available for review in the docket. The methodology and

results of the analysis are presented below.

2. Methodology

To examine the impacts on small businesses, EPA characterized

the regulated community by identifying the SIC codes that would

be involved in the disposal of motor vehicle air conditioners

and in the servicing, repair, and disposal of small appliances,

residential air

- conditioning, and transport refrigeration. Firms

in these sectors were divided into six segments: Appliance repair

shops, air

- conditioning contractors, refrigerated transport

service dealers, scrap yards and intermediate processors, automobile

dismantlers, and autowreckers. Impacts on the retail food, cold

storage, chiller, and industrial process sectors were not analyzed

because refrigerant recycling and recovery is cost

- effective

from a private perspective in these sectors. For these sectors,

the private costs associated with recycling and recovery are

negligible or negative. In addition, two other sectors were

excluded from the analysis: Vocational schools and municipal

solid waste facilities. Data on vocational schools are scarce,

and the proposed regulations, which affect only one aspect of

vocational training, are not likely to have any significant

impact on vocational schools. Similarly, the regulations are

not likely to have a significant impact on municipal solid waste

facilities because these facilities generally do not accept

white goods such as refrigerators, freezers, and room air conditioners.

There was a disparity between the EPA and the Census Bureau

estimates of the number of establishments in each of the six

affected industry segments. In some areas, such as the appliance

repair segment, the number of establishments estimated by EPA

exceeded the number allocated to the corresponding SIC category.

In others, such as the air

- conditioning contractor segment,

EPA estimates fell below Census numbers for the corresponding

SIC. The disparities in each category were largely a matter

of definition. Because the Census Bureau assigns a business

to a given SIC code based on the source of the majority of its 

### Page 101 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlsales receipts, an SIC code may not include many businesses

that do only some work in the area of concern. At the same time,

some SIC codes may prove overly inclusive, such as SIC 1711,

"Plumbing, Heating, and Air

- conditioning Contractors," which

includes some establishments engaged only in plumbing work and

not in the service or disposal of air

- conditioning equipment.

In choosing the SIC codes that corresponded to segments of the

potential regulated community, EPA's analysis focussed primarily

on ensuring that each sector of the potential regulated community

had a corresponding SIC code that accurately represented its

structure. The fraction of businesses that would be defined

as small (under the Small Business Act, or SBA) among the establishments

identified by EPA in each segment was then assumed to be the

same as the fraction of businesses that would be defined as

small among those in the comparable SIC category.

After determining the number of entities in each industry

segment that would be classified as small, the Agency examined

the compliance costs initially incurred by firms and the extent

to which these costs could be passed on to consumers. EPA then

performed impact tests using sales, profits, and cash

- flow measures.

The costs incurred by a firm as a result of the proposed

rule include the following elements: Labor costs, operating

costs, capital costs, certification costs, and the avoided costs

of purchasing virgin refrigerant. To estimate these costs, EPA

used data on the quantity of air

- conditioning or refrigeration

equipment in each of the affected sectors and on the frequency

of service and disposal in each sector. EPA then divided affected

businesses into those with under $1 million annual sales and

those with over $1 million annual sales. This distinction is

important because larger firms perform more service and disposal

jobs than smaller firms and therefore incur higher labor and

operating costs. (The distinction bears no direct relationship

to the SBA definition of small business.) Annual direct compliance

costs per business ranged between $624 for small appliance repair

shops and $36,932 for large autowreckers.

Under certain conditions, some portion of regulatory costs

will be passed on to consumers. Since the proposed rule meets

these conditions, businesses will not bear all regulatory costs.

(For a complete discussion of regulatory costs incidence, please

see appendix A to the RIA.) Microeconomic theory suggests that

the ratio between the elasticity of demand for a good and the

elasticity of supply for that good is roughly equivalent to

the ratio between the producers' share of regulatory costs and

the consumers' share of regulatory costs. The extent to which

regulatory costs may be passed on to consumers, therefore, depends

upon the relationship between the elasticity of demand and the

elasticity of supply for the good in question. The elasticities

of demand and supply are a measure of how demand for a good

and supply of a good change in response to changes in price.

Although the factors that determine supply and demand elasticity

can be complex, certain forces frequently play an important

role in determining the character of supply and demand elasticity

for a good. Generally, demand for a good will decrease when

the price rises because consumers will choose to purchase substitutes

for the good. However, if substitutes are nonexistent or expensive,

consumers will have fewer alternative to purchasing the original

good, and demand will change very little. In this case, the

demand elasticity for the good is low. Supply of a good will

usually decrease when the price falls because it becomes less

profitable to produce the good. However, if it is expensive

to change the supply of the good (e.g., requires the retirement

of valuable capital equipment), producers will have fewer alternatives

to producing the good, and supply will change relatively little.

In this case, the supply elasticity of the good is low.

When the demand elasticity for a good is low and the supply 

### Page 102 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlelasticity for the good is high, the majority of regulatory

costs will likely be borne by consumers. EPA developed elasticity

estimates for each segment of the regulated community. Demand

elasticity estimates for the specific goods in question were

not available. As a result, the Agency used estimates of demand

elasticity in closely related industries as proxies for actual

elasticity estimates. Since no estimates of supply elasticity

were available, the Agency developed quantitative estimates

of supply elasticity based on its understanding of the various

segments of the regulated community.

EPA's analysis showed that demand was likely to be inelastic

in all affected industry segments. For instance, demand for

household appliance service is unlikely to fall significantly

in response to a rise in price because (1) Equipment such as

the household refrigerator renders a service that is vital to

most consumers, and (2) the few substitutes to appliance repair,

such as purchase of a new appliance, are often expensive and

impracticable. The situation is similar in the other service

segments. In the disposal segments, demand is likely to be inelastic

because consumers have few alternatives to disposing of appliances

when these items are retired, and auto dismantlers and wreckers

(who play the role of consumer in this transaction) have few

substitutes for junked automobiles in their operations.

Elasticities of supply varied somewhat more. The appliance

and residential air

- conditioning repair segments are likely

to have high supply elasticities because entering these businesses

requires a relatively low capital investment and moving into

related areas (e.g., heating) is relatively easy. On the other

hand, the supply elasticity of refrigerated transport service

is lower because refrigerated transport service is highly specialized

and entry into the industry entails substantial capital investment.

Scrap yards and intermediate processors are likely to respond

readily to price changes because they have a large degree of

flexibility with regard to which type of appliances they choose

to accept. Supplies of junked automobiles, however, are unlikely

to change significantly in response to the prices offered for

them.

Based on these estimates, EPA calculates that firms will

bear between four percent (for scrap yards and intermediate

processors) and 25 percent (for refrigerated transport service

dealers) of the compliance costs associated with the proposed

rule. Annual compliance costs borne by firms range between $39

for small appliance repair shops and $6,987 for large auto dismantlers.

(Again, the term "large" is used here to refer to a large small

business.)

To evaluate the significance of these costs, EPA performed

impact tests using sales, profits, and cash flow measures. Existing

EPA guidelines suggest that significant economic impacts on

small businesses occur when any one of the following three criteria

are satisfied (Environmental Protectio n Agency, Office of Policy,

Planning, and Evaluation, Guidelines for Complying with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Draft Document dated January 18,

1991.):

Annual compliance costs exceed one percent of sales ;

Annual compliance costs exceed 10 percent of profits ; or

Annual debt

- financed capital compliance costs exceed 20

percent of current cash flow.

These criteria makeup a screening test used to assess initially

the impacts likely to result from a proposed regulation. Should

a "substantial number" of small business, defined as over 20

percent of affected small business, satisfy any of the criteria

outlined above, EPA guidelines require that more detailed economic

analysis be performed. 

### Page 103 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlMany small establishments failed the profits and cash flow

tests (that is, profits and cash flow were negative) before

imposition of the regulation. These were thus determined to

be in poor financial condition under the baseline and their

continued failure of these tests was not attributed to the proposed

rule. Any small entities not in poor financial condition under

the baseline that failed any of the tests above were assumed

to incur a significant economic impact under the proposed rule.

EPA's analysis showed that the proposed rule will have a

significant impact on 16 percent of the affected small businesses.

These small businesses may respond in a number of ways. They

may: (1) Close as a result of the costs imposed by regulation,

(2) avoid the costs imposed by the regulation by ceasing work

on refrigeration and air

- conditioning equipment while continuing

to provide other types of service, or (3) continue to service

or dispose of affected equipment while incurring increased cost.

Available census and financial data suggest that most of

the 16 percent will continue to service or dispose of affected

equipment. EPA estimates that annual compliance costs borne

by firms as a result of the proposed rule will actually exceed

annual profits for approximately 2500 small businesses. These

2500 establishments comprise approximately 3 percent of all

small businesses in the regulated community. Firms that incur

annual compliance costs in excess of annual profits may be forced

out of business or, alternatively, may elect to discontinue

work that involves refrigeration or air

- conditioning equipment.

Firms whose annual compliance costs fall below their annual

profits are likely to stay in business.

Where possible, EPA has attempted to minimize the economic

impact of this regulation on small businesses. For instance,

EPA is proposing less stringent standards for the recovery of

refrigerant from small appliances, which are frequently repaired

by one

- or two

- man service shops. These standards would permit

the use of relatively inexpensive passive recovery devices.

In addition, EPA is proposing fewer requirements and a more

flexible program for the disposal of small appliances, room

air conditioners, and MVACs because the industries that dispose

of these items are unusually decentralized.

Moreover, this analysis probably overstated the potential

impacts of regulation for two reasons. First, it estimated the

combined impacts of both the section 608 recycling rule and

the self

- effectuating prohibition on venting. EPA estimates

that for the residential air

- conditioning and household appliance

sectors, 80 percent of recovery jobs can be attributed to the

prohibition on venting, and for transport refrigeration, 50

percent of recovery jobs can be attributed to the prohibition.

If this analysis had examined only the incremental impacts due

to the recycling rule, the estimate of the percentage of small

businesses affected significantly would have been reduced accordingly.

Second, this analysis examined each industry segment in isolation,

failing to account for interactions between competing industry

sectors (e.g., service vs. disposal of appliance) that would

tend to decrease costs borne by firms. Thus, the Agency certifies

that this regulation will not have an impact on a significant

number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule have

been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq. An Information Collection Request document (ICR No.

1626.02) has been prepared by EPA and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M Street, 

### Page 104 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlSW., (PM

- 223Y); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260

-

2740.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information

is estimated to vary from 0.08 to 180 hours per response with

an average of 0.2 hours per response, including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing the collection of

information.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions

for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch;

EPA; 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management

and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer

for EPA."

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone

layer.

Dated: April 23, 1993.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is

amended as follows:

PART 82

- PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. Authority: The authority citation for part 82 continues

to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671

- 7671q.

2. Part 82 is amended by adding subpart F to read as follows:

Subpart F

- Recycling and Emissions Reduction

Sec.

82.150 Purpose and scope.

82.152 Definitions.

82.154 Prohibitions.

82.156 Required practices.

82.158 Standards for recycling and recovery equipment.

82.160 Approved equipment testing organizations.

82.161 Technician certification.

82.162 Certification by owners of recovery and recycling equipment.

82.164 Reclaimer certification.

82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Appendix A to Subpart F

- Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants

Appendix B to Subpart F

- Performance of Refrigerant Recovery,

Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment

Appendix C to Subpart F

- Method for Testing Recovery Devices

for Use With Small Appliances

Appendix D to Subpart F

- Standards for Becoming a Certifying

Program for Technicians

Subpart F

- Recycling and Emissions Reduction 

### Page 105 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html82.150 Purpose and scope

.

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce emissions of

class I and class II refrigerants to the lowest achievable level

during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances

in accordance with section 608 of the Clean Air Act.

(b) This subpart applies to any person servicing, maintaining,

or repairing appliances except for motor vehicle air conditioners.

This subpart also applies to persons disposing of appliances,

including motor vehicle air conditioners. In addition, this

subpart applies to refrigerant reclaimers, appliance owners,

and manufacturers of appliances and recycling and recovery equipment.

82.152 Definitions.

(a) Appliance means any device which contains and uses a

class I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is

used for household or commercial purposes, including any air

conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.

(b) Approved equipment testing organization means any organization

which has applied for and received approval from the Administrator

pursuant to 82.160

.

(c) Certified refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment

means equipment certified by an approved equipment testing organization

to meet the standards in 82.158 ( b ) or ( d )

, equipment certified

pursuant to 82.36 ( a )

, or equipment manufactured before November

15

, 1993

, that meets the standards in 82.158 ( c )

, ( e )

, or

(g).

( d ) Commercial refrigeration means

, for the purposes of

82.156(i), the refrigeration appliances utilized in the retail

food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail food includes

the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, convenience

stores, restaurants and other food service establishments. Cold

storage includes the equipment used to store meat, produce,

dairy products, and other perishable goods. All of the equipment

contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds.

(e) Disposal means the process leading to and including:

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded

appliance into or on any land or water;

(2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit,

dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or

on any land or water; or

(3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component

parts.

(f) High

- pressure appliance means an appliance that uses

a refrigerant with a boiling point between

- 50 and 10 degrees

Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury).

This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using

refrigerants

- 12,

- 22,

- 114,

- 500, or

- 502.

(g) Industrial process refrigeration means, for the purposes

of 82.156 ( i )

, complex customized appliances used in the chemical

,

pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing industries.

This sector also includes industrial ice machines and ice rinks.

(h) Low

- loss fitting means any device that is intended to

establish a connection between hoses, appliances, or recovery

or recycling machines and that is designed to close automatically

or to be closed manually when disconnected, minimizing the release

of refrigerant from hoses, appliances, and recovery or recycling

machines.

(i) Low

- pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a

refrigerant with a boiling point above 10 degrees Centigrade

at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). This definition

includes but is not limited to equipment utilizing refrigerants

- 11,

- 113, and

- 123.

(j) Major maintenance, service, or repair means any maintenance, 

### Page 106 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlservice, or repair involving the removal of any or all of the

following appliance components: Compressor, condenser, evaporator,

or auxiliary heat exchanger coil.

(k) Motor vehicle air conditioner (MVAC) means any appliance

that is a motor vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR

part 82, subpart B.

(l) MVAC

- like appliance means mechanical vapor compression,

open

- drive compressor appliances used to cool the driver's or

passenger's compartment of an non

- road motor vehicle. This includes

the air

- conditioning equipment found on agricultural or construction

vehicles. This definition is not intended to cover appliances

using HCFC

- 22 refrigerant.

(m) Normally containing a quantity of refrigerant means containing

the quantity of refrigerant within the appliance or appliance

component when the appliance is operating with a full charge

of refrigerant.

(n) Opening an appliance means any service, maintenance,

or repair on an appliance that could be reasonably expected

to release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere

unless the refrigerant were previously recovered from the appliance.

(o) Person means any individual or legal entity, including

an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state,

municipality, political subdivision of a state, Indian tribe,

and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United

States, and any officer, agent, or employee thereof.

(p) Process stub means a length of tubing that provides access

to the refrigerant inside a small appliance or room air conditioner

and that can be resealed at the conclusion of repair or service.

(q) Reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to

at least the purity specified in the ARI Standard 700

- 1988,

Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants (appendix A to

40 CFR part 82, subpart F) and to verify this purity using the

analytical methodology prescribed in the ARI Standard 700

- 1988.

In general, reclamation involves the use of processes or procedures

available only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.

(r) Recover refrigerant means to remove refrigerant in any

condition from an appliance without necessarily testing or processing

it in any way.

(s) Recovery efficiency means the percentage of refrigerant

in an appliance that is recovered by a piece of recycling or

recovery equipment.

(t) Recycle refrigerant means to extract refrigerant from

an appliance and clean refrigerant for reuse without meeting

all of the requirements for reclamation. In general, recycled

refrigerant is refrigerant that is cleaned using oil separation

and single or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable

core filter

- driers, which reduce moisture, acidity, and particulate

matter. These procedures are usually implemented at the field

job site.

(u) Self

- contained recovery equipment means refrigerant recovery

or recycling equipment that is capable of removing the refrigerant

from an appliance without the assistance of components contained

in the appliance.

(v) Small appliance means any of the following products that

are fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in

a factory with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant: refrigerators

and freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners (including

window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners),

packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under

- the

- counter

ice makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.

(w) System

- dependent recovery equipment means refrigerant

recovery equipment that requires the assistance of components

contained in an appliance to remove the refrigerant from the

appliance. 

### Page 107 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html(x) Technician means any person who performs maintenance,

service, or repair that could reasonably be expected to release

class I or class II substances from appliances into the atmosphere,

including but not limited to installers, contractor employees,

in

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

also means any person disposing of appliances except for small

appliances.

(y) Very high

- pressure appliance means an appliance that

uses a refrigerant with a boiling point below

- 50 degrees Centigrade

at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). This definition

includes but is not limited to equipment utilizing refrigerants

- 13 and

- 503.

82.154 Prohibitions

.

(a) Effective June 14, 1993, no person maintaining, servicing,

repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or

otherwise release into the environment any class I or class

II substance used as refrigerant in such equipment. De minimis

releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover

refrigerants are not subject to this prohibition. Releases shall

be considered de minimis if they occur when:

( 1 ) The required practices set forth in 82.156 are observed

and recovery or recycling machines that meet the requirements

set forth in 82.158 are used ; or

(2) The requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 82, subpart

B are observed.

The knowing release of refrigerant subsequent to its recovery

from an appliance shall be considered a violation of this prohibition.

(b) Effective July 13, 1993 no person may open appliances

except MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair, and no person

may dispose of appliances except for small appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC

- like appliances:

(1) Without observing the required practices set forth in

82.156 ; and

(2) Without using equipment that is certified for that type

of appliance pursuant to 82.158

.

(c) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may manufacture

or import recycling or recovery equipment for use during the

maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except MVACs,

and no person may manufacture or import recycling or recovery

equipment for use during the disposal of appliances except small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances, unless the equipment

is certified pursuant to 82.158 ( b )

, ( d )

, or ( f )

, as applicable

.

(d) Effective June 14, 1993, no person shall alter the design

of certified refrigerant recycling or recovery equipment in

a way that would affect the equipment's ability to meet the

certification standards set forth in 82.158 without resubmitting

the altered design for certification testing. Until it is tested

and shown to meet the certification standards set forth in

82.158, equipment so altered will be considered uncertified

for the purposes of 82.158

.

(e) Effective August 12, 1993, no person may open appliances

except MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair, and no person

may dispose of appliances except for small appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC

- like appliances, unless such person has certified to

the Administrator pursuant to 82.162 that such person has

acquired certified recovery or recycling equipment and is complying

with the applicable requirements of this subpart.

(f) Effective August 12, 1993, no person may recover refrigerant

from small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances for purposes

of disposal of these appliances unless such person has certified

to the Administrator pursuant to 82.162 that such person has 

### Page 108 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlacquired recovery equipment that meets the standards set forth

in 82.158 ( l ) and / or ( m )

, as applicable

, and that such person

is complying with the applicable requirements of this subpart.

(g) Effective August 12, 1993 until November 13, 1995, no

person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant any

class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of

used refrigerant unless the class I or class II substance has

been reclaimed as defined at 82.152 ( q ).

(h) Effective August 12, 1993 until November 13, 1995, no

person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant any

class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of

used refrigerant unless the refrigerant has been reclaimed by

a person who has been certified as a reclaimer pursuant to

82.164.

(i) Effective August 12, 1993, no person reclaiming refrigerant

may release more than 1.5% of the refrigerant received by them.

(j) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may sell or distribute,

or offer for sale or distribution, any appliances, except small

appliances, unless such equipment is equipped with a servicing

aperture to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing

and disposal.

(k) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may sell or distribute,

or offer for sale or distribution any small appliance unless

such equipment is equipped with a process stub to facilitate

the removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal.

(l) Effective November 14, 1994 no person may open an appliance

except for an MVAC and no person may dispose of an appliance

except for a small appliance, MVAC, or MVAC

- like appliance,

unless such person has been certified as a technician for that

type of appliance pursuant to 82.161

.

(m) No technician training or testing program may issue certificates

pursuant to 82.161 unless the program complies with all of

the standards of 82.161 and appendix D

, and has been granted

approval.

(n) Effective November 14, 1994 no person may sell or distribute,

or offer for sale or distribution, any class I or class II substance

for use as a refrigerant to any person unless:

(1) The buyer has been certified as a Type I, Type II, Type

III

, or Universal technician pursuant to 82.161 ;

(2) The buyer has been certified pursuant to 40 CFR part

82, subpart B;

(3) The refrigerant is sold only for eventual resale to certified

technicians or to appliance manufacturers (e.g., sold by a manufacturer

to a wholesaler, sold by a technician to a reclaimer);

(4) The refrigerant is sold to an appliance manufacturer;

(5) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance; or

(6) the refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a certified

technician during maintenance, service, or repair.

(o) It is a violation of this subpart to accept a signed

statement pursuant to 82.156 ( f )( 2 ) if the person knew or had

reason to know that such a signed statement is false.

82.156 Required practices

.

(a) Effective July 13, 1993, all persons opening appliances

except for MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair must evacuate

the refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part to be

serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver

or a recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to 82.158

.

All persons disposing of appliances except for small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances must evacuate the refrigerant

in the entire unit to a recovery or recycling machine certified

pursuant to 82.158

.

(1) Persons opening appliances except for small appliances, 

### Page 109 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlMVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances for maintenance, service, or

repair must evacuate to the levels in Table 1 before opening

the appliance, unless

(i) Evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere is not

to be performed after completion of the maintenance, service,

or repair, and the maintenance, service, or repair is not major

as defined at 82.152 ( j ) ; or

(ii) Due to leaks in the appliance, evacuation to the levels

in Table 1 is not attainable, or would substantially contaminate

the refrigerant being recovered. In any of these cases, the

requirements of 82.156 ( a )( 2 ) must be followed

.

(2)(i) If evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere is

not to be performed after completion of the maintenance, service,

or repair, and if the maintenance, service, or repair is not

major as defined at 82.152 ( j )

, the appliance must :

(A) Be evacuated to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before

it is opened if it is a high

- or very high

- pressure appliance;

or

(B) Be pressurized to 0 psig before it is opened if it is

a low

- pressure appliance, without using methods, e.g., nitrogen,

that require subsequent purging.

(ii) If, due to leaks in the appliance, evacuation to the

levels in Table 1 is not attainable, or would substantially

contaminate the refrigerant being recovered, persons opening

the appliance must:

(A) Isolate leaking from non

- leaking components wherever

possible;

(B) Evacuate non

- leaking components to be opened to the levels

specified in Table 1; and

(C) Evacuate leaking components to be opened to the lowest

level that can be attained without substantially contaminating

the refrigerant. In no case shall this level exceed 0 psig.

(3) Persons disposing of appliances except for small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances, must evacuate to the levels

in Table 1.

Table 1.

- Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances

[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances]

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard

3 atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)

ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 Using recovery 3

3 or recycling 3 Using recovery or recycling

Type of appliance 3 equipment 3 equipment manufactured or

3 manufactured 3 imported on or after Nov. 15,

3 or imported 3 1993

3 before Nov. 15, 3

3 1993 3

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3

HCFC

- 22 appliance, or 3 0 3 0.

isolated component of such 3 3

appliance, normally 3 3

containing less than 200 3 3

pounds of refrigerant. 3 3

HCFC

- 22 appliance, or 3 0 3 0.

isolated component of such 3 3

appliance, normally 3 3

containing less than 200 3 3

pounds of refrigerant. 3 3

HCFC

- 22 appliance, or 3 4 3 10.

isolated component of such 3 3 

### Page 110 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlappliance, normally 3 3

containing 200 pounds or 3 3

more of refrigerant. 3 3

Other high

- pressure 3 4 3 10.

appliance, or isolated 3 3

component of such 3 3

appliance, normally 3 3

containing less than 200 3 3

pounds of refrigerant. 3 3

Other high

- pressure 3 4 3 15.

appliance, or isolated 3 3

component of such 3 3

appliance, normally 3 3

containing 200 pounds or 3 3

more of refrigerant. 3 3

Very high

- pressure 3 0 3 0.

appliance. 3 3

Low

- pressure appliance .... 3 25 3 25 mm Hg absolute.

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

( 4) Persons opening small appliances for maintenance, service,

or repair must:

(i) When using recycling and recovery equipment manufactured

before November 15, 1993, recover 80% of the refrigerant in

the small appliance; or

(ii) When using recycling or recovery equipment manufactured

on or after November 15, 1993, recover 90% of the refrigerant

in the appliance when the compressor in the appliance is operating,

or 80% of the refrigerant in the appliance when the compressor

in the appliance is not operating; or

(iii) Evacuate the small appliance to four inches of mercury

vacuum.

(5) Persons opening MVAC

- like appliances for maintenance,

service, or repair may do so only while properly using, as defined

at 82.32 ( e )

, recycling or recovery equipment certified pursuant

to 82.158 ( f ) or ( g )

, as applicable

.

(b) Effective July 13, 1993, all persons opening appliances

except for small appliances and MVACs for maintenance, service,

or repair and all persons disposing of appliances except for

small appliances must have at least one piece of certified,

self

- contained recovery equipment available at their place of

business.

(c) System

- dependent equipment shall not be used with appliances

normally containing more than 15 pounds of refrigerant.

(d) All recovery or recycling equipment shall be used in

accordance with the manufacturer's directions unless such directions

conflict with the requirements of this subpart.

(e) Refrigerant may be returned to the appliance from which

it is recovered or to another appliance owned by the same person

without being recycled or reclaimed, unless the appliance is

an MVAC

- like appliance.

(f) Effective July 13, 1993, persons who take the final step

in the disposal process (including but not limited to scrap

recyclers and landfill operators) of a small appliance, room

air conditioning, MVACs, or MVAC

- like appliances must either:

(1) Recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance

in accordance with paragraph (g) or (h) of this section, as

applicable; or

(2) Verify that the refrigerant has been evacuated from the

appliance or shipment of appliances previously. Such verification

must include a signed statement from the person from whom the

appliance or shipment of appliances is obtained that all refrigerant

that had not leaked previously has been recovered from the appliance 

### Page 111 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlor shipment of appliances in accordance with paragraph (g) or

(h) of this section, as applicable. This statement must include

the name and address of the person who recovered the refrigerant

and the date the refrigerant was recovered or a contract that

refrigerant will be removed prior to delivery.

(3) Persons complying with paragraph (f)(2) of this section

must notify suppliers of appliances that refrigerant must be

properly removed before delivery of the items to the facility.

The form of this notification may be warning signs, letters

to suppliers, or other equivalent means.

(g) All persons recovering refrigerant from MVACs and MVAC

like appliances for purposes of disposal of these appliances

must reduce the system pressure to or below 102 mm of mercury

vacuum, using equipment that meets the standards set forth in

82.158 ( l ).

(h) All persons recovering the refrigerant from small appliances

for purposes of disposal of these appliances must either:

(1) Recover 90% of the refrigerant in the appliance when

the compressor in the appliance is operating, or 80% of the

refrigerant in the appliance when the compressor in the appliance

is not operating; or

(2) Evacuate the small appliance to four inches of mercury

vacuum.

(i) (1) Owners of commercial refrigeration and industrial

process refrigeration equipment must have all leaks repaired

if the equipment is leaking at a rate such that the loss of

refrigerant will exceed 35 percent of the total charge during

a 12 month period, except as described in paragraph (i)(3) of

this section.

(2) Owners of appliances normally containing more than 50

pounds of refrigerant and not covered by paragraph (i)(1) of

this section must have all leaks repaired if the appliance is

leaking at a rate such that the loss of refrigerant will exceed

15 % of the total charge during a 12

- month period, except as

described in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.

(3) Owners are not required to repair the leaks defined in

paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section if, within 30 days,

they develop a one

- year retrofit or retirement plan for the

leaking equipment. This plan (or a legible copy) must be kept

at the site of the equipment. The original must be made available

for EPA inspection on request. The plan must be dated and all

work under the plan must be completed within one year of plan's

date.

(4) Owners must repair leaks pursuant to paragraphs (i)(1)

and (2) of this section within 30 days of discovery or within

30 days of when the leak(s) should have been discovered, if

the owners intentionally shielded themselves from information

which would have revealed a leak.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control

number 2060

- 0256)

82.158 Standards for recycling and recovery equipment

.

(a) Effective November 15, 1993, all manufacturers and importers

of recycling and recovery equipment intended for use during

the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except MVACs

and MVAC

- like appliances or during the disposal of appliances

except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances, shall

have had such equipment certified by an approved equipment testing

organization to meet the applicable requirements in paragraph

(b) or (d) of this section. All manufacturers and importers

of recycling and recovery equipment intended for use during

the maintenance, service, or repair of MVAC

- like appliances 

### Page 112 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlshall have had such equipment certified pursuant to 82.36 ( a ).

(b) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November

15, 1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair

of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like

appliances or during the disposal of appliances except small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances must be certified

by an approved equipment testing organization to meet the following

requirements:

(1) In order to be certified, the equipment must be capable

of achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of

this section under the conditions of the ARI Standard 740

- 1993,

Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling and/or Reclaim

Equipment (ARI 740

- 1993) (Appendix B):

Table 2.

- Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or

Recycling Equipment Intended for Use With Appliances {1}

[Manufactured on or after November 15, 1993]

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is 3 Inches

intended to be used 3 of Hg

3 vacuum

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3

HCFC

- 22 appliances, or isolated component of such appliances, 3 0

normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. 3

HCFC

- 22 appliances, or isolated component of such appliances, 3 10

normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant. 3

Very high

- pressure appliances .................................. 3 0

Other high

- pressure appliances, or isolated component of such 3 10

appliances, normally containing less than 200 pounds of 3

refrigerant. 3

Other high

- pressure appliances, or isolated component of such 3 15

appliances, normally containing 200 pounds or more of 3

refrigerant. 3

Low

- pressure appliances ........................................ 3 { 2} 25

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

{ 1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances.

{2} mm Hg absolute.

The vacuums specified in inches of Hg vacuum must be achieved

relative to an atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches of Hg absolute.

(2) Recovery or recycling equipment whose recovery efficiency

cannot be tested according to the procedures in ARI 740

- 1993

may be certified if an approved third

- party testing organization

adopts and performs a test that demonstrates, to the satisfaction

of the Administrator, that the recovery efficiency of that equipment

is equal to or better than that of equipment that:

(i) Is intended for use with the same type of appliance;

and

(ii) Achieves the level of evacuation in Table 2.

(3) The equipment must meet the minimum requirements for

ARI certification under ARI 740

- 1993.

(4) If the equipment is equipped with a noncondensables purge

device:

(i) The equipment must not release more than five percent

of the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through noncondensables

purging under the conditions of ARI 740

- 1993; and

(ii) Effective May 14, 1995, the equipment must not release

more than three percent of the quantity of refrigerant being

recycled through noncondensables purging under the conditions

of ARI 740

- 1993.

(5) The equipment must be equipped with low

- loss fittings 

### Page 113 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlon all hoses.

(6) The equipment must have its liquid recovery rate and

its vapor recovery rate measured under the conditions of ARI

740

- 1993.

(c) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15,

1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances

except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances or

during the disposal of appliances except small appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC

- like appliances will be considered certified if it

is capable of achieving the level of evacuation specified in

Table 3 of this section when tested using a properly calibrated

pressure gauge:

Table 3.

- Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or

Recycling Machines Intended for Use With Appliances {1}

[Manufactured before November 15, 1993]

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 Inches of vacuum

Type of air

- conditioning or refrigeration equipment 3 ( relative to

with which recovery or recycling machine is intended 3 standard

to be used 3 atmospheric

3 pressure of 29.9

3 inches Hg)

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3

HCFC

- 22 equipment, or isolated component of such 3 0

equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds 3

of refrigerant. 3

HCFC

- 22 equipment, or isolated component of such 3 4

equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of 3

refrigerant. 3

Very high

- pressure equipment ......................... 3 0

Other high

- pressure equipment, or isolated component 3 4

of such equipment, normally containing less than 200 3

pounds of refrigerant. 3

Other high

- pressure equipment, or isolated component 3 4

of such equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or 3

more of refrigerant. 3

Low

- pressure equipment ............................... 3 25

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

{ 1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances.

(d) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November

15, 1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair

of small appliances must be certified by an approved equipment

testing organization to be capable of either:

(1) Recovering 90% of the refrigerant in the test stand when

the compressor of the test stand is operating and 80% of the

refrigerant when the compressor of the test stand is not operating

when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions

under the conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery

Devices for Use with Small Appliances; or

(2) Achieving a four

- inch vacuum under the conditions of

appendix B, ARI 740

- 1993.

(e) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15,

1993 for use with small appliances will be considered certified

if it is capable of either:

(1) Recovering 80% of the refrigerant in the system, whether

or not the compressor of the test stand is operating, when used

in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions under the

conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices 

### Page 114 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlfor Use with Small Appliances; or

(2) Achieving a four

- inch vacuum when tested using a properly

calibrated pressure gauge.

(f) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November

15, 1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair

of MVAC

- like appliances must be certified in accordance with

82.36 ( a ).

(g) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15,

1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of MVAC

like appliances must be capable of reducing the system pressure

to 102 mm of mercury vacuum under the conditions of the SAE

Standard, SAE J1990 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart B).

(h) Manufacturers and importers of equipment certified under

paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section must place a label on

each piece of equipment stating the following:

THIS EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY [APPROVED EQUIPMENT

TESTING ORGANIZATION] TO MEET EPA's MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR

RECYCLING OR RECOVERY EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR USE WITH [APPROPRIATE

CATEGORY OF APPLIANCE].

The label shall also show the date of manufacture and the

serial number (if applicable) of the equipment. The label shall

be affixed in a readily visible or accessible location, be made

of a material expected to last the lifetime of the equipment,

present required information in a manner so that it is likely

to remain legible for the lifetime of the equipment, and be

affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed from the

equipment without damage to the label.

(i) The Administrator will maintain a list of equipment certified

pursuant to paragraphs (b), (d), and (f) of this section by

manufacturer and model. Persons interested in obtaining a copy

of the list should send written inquiries to the address in

82.160 ( a ).

(j) Manufacturers or importers of recycling or recovery equipment

intended for use during the maintenance, service, or repair

of appliances except MVACs or MVAC

- like appliances or during

the disposal of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and

MVAC

- like appliances must periodically have approved equipment

testing organizations conduct either:

(1) Retests of certified recycling or recovery equipment;

or

(2) Inspections of recycling or recovery equipment at manufacturing

facilities to ensure that each equipment model line that has

been certified under this section continues to meet the certification

criteria.

Such retests or inspections must be conducted at least once

every three years after the equipment is first certified.

(k) An equipment model line that has been certified under

this section may have its certification revoked if it is subsequently

determined to fail to meet the certification criteria. In such

cases, the Administrator or her or his designated representative

shall give notice to the manufacturer or importer setting forth

the basis for her or his determination.

(l) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from MVACs and

MVAC

- like appliances before they are disposed of must be capable

of reducing the system pressure to 102 mm of mercury vacuum

under the conditions of the SAE Standard, SAE J1990 (appendix

A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart B).

(m) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from small appliances

before they are disposed of must be capable of either:

(1) Removing 90% of the refrigerant when the compressor of

the small appliance is operating and 80% of the refrigerant 

### Page 115 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlwhen the compressor of the small appliance is not operating,

when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions

under the conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery

Devices for Use With Small Appliances; or

(2) Evacuating the small appliance to four inches of vacuum

when tested using a properly calibrated pressure gauge.

82.160 Approved equipment testing organizations

.

(a) Any equipment testing organization may apply for approval

by the Administrator to certify equipment pursuant to the standards

in 82.158 and appendices B or C of this subpart

. The application

shall be sent to: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric

Protection Division, 6205

- J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

(b) Applications for approval must include written information

verifying the following:

(1) The list of equipment present at the organization that

will be used for equipment testing.

(2) Expertise in equipment testing and the technical experience

of the organization's personnel.

(3) Thorough knowledge of the standards as they appear in

82.158 and appendices B and / or C ( as applicable ) of this subpart

.

(4) The organization must describe its program for verifying

the performance of certified recycling and recovery equipment

manufactured over the long term, specifying whether retests

of equipment or inspections of equipment at manufacturing facilities

will be used.

(5) The organization must have no conflict of interest and

receive no direct or indirect financial benefit from the outcome

of certification testing.

(6) The organization must agree to allow the Administrator

access to records and personnel to verify the information contained

in the application.

(c) Organizations may not certify equipment prior to receiving

approval from EPA. If approval is denied under this section,

the Administrator or her or his designated representative shall

give written notice to the organization setting forth the basis

for her or his determination.

(d) If at any time an approved testing organization is found

to be conducting certification tests for the purposes of this

subpart in a manner not consistent with the representations

made in its application for approval under this section, the

Administrator reserves the right to revoke approval. In such

cases, the Administrator or her or his designated representative

shall give notice to the organization setting forth the basis

for her or his determination.

(e) Testing organizations seeking approval of an equipment

certification program may also seek approval to certify equipment

tested previously under the program. Interested organizations

may submit to the Administrator at the address in 82.160 ( a )

verification that the program met all of the standards in

82.160(b) and that equipment to be certified was tested to and

met the applicable standards in 82.158 ( b ) or ( d ). Upon EPA

approval, the previously tested equipment may be certified without

being retested (except insofar as such retesting is part of

the testing organization's program for verifying the performance

of equipment manufactured over the long term

, pursuant to

82.160(b)(4)).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control

number 2060

- 0256)

82.161 Technician certification

. 

### Page 116 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html(a) Effective November 14, 1994, persons who maintain, service,

or repair appliances, except MVACs, and persons who dispose

of appliances, except for small appliances, room air conditioners,

and MVACs, must be certified by an approved technician certification

program as follows:

(1) Persons who maintain, service, or repair small appliances

as defined in 82.158 ( v ) must be properly certified as Type

I technicians.

(2) Persons who maintain, service, or repair high or very

high

- pressure appliances, except small appliances and MVACs,

or dispose of high or very high

- pressure appliances, except

small appliances and MVACs, must be properly certified as Type

II technicians.

(3) Persons who maintain, service, or repair low

- pressure

appliances or dispose of low

- pressure appliances must be properly

certified as Type III technicians.

(4) Persons who maintain, service, or repair low

- and high

pressure equipment as described in 82.161 ( a ) ( 1 )

, ( 2 ) and

(3) must be properly certified as Universal technicians.

(5) Persons who maintain, service, or repair MVAC

- like appliances

must either be properly certified as Type II technicians or

complete the training and certification test offered by a training

and certification program approved under 82.40

.

(b) Test Subject Material. The Administrator shall maintain

a bank of test questions divided into four groups, including

a core group and three technical groups. The Administrator shall

release this bank of questions only to approved technician certification

programs. Tests for each type of certification shall include

a minimum of 25 questions drawn from the core group and a minimum

of 25 questions drawn from each relevant technical group. These

questions shall address the subject areas listed in appendix

D.

(c) Program Approval. Persons may seek approval of any technician

certification program (program), in accordance with the provisions

of this paragraph, by submitting to the Administrator at the

address in 82.160 ( a ) verification that the program meets all

of the standards listed in appendix D and the following standards:

(1) Alternative Examinations. Programs are encouraged to

make provisions for non

- English speaking technicians by providing

tests in other languages or allowing the use of a translator

when taking the test. If a translator is used, the certificate

received must indicate that translator assistance was required.

A test may be administered orally to any person who makes this

request, in writing, to the program at least 30 days before

the scheduled date for the examination. The letter must explain

why the request is being made.

(2) Recertification. The Administrator reserves the right

to specify the need for technician recertification at some future

date, if necessary, by placing a notice in the Federal Register.

(3) Proof of Certification. Programs must issue individuals

a wallet

- sized card to be used as proof of certification, upon

successful completion of the test. Programs must issue an identification

card to technicians that receive a score of 70 percent or higher

on the closed

- book certification exam, within 30 days. Programs

providing Type I certification using the mail

- in format, must

issue a permanent identification card to technicians that receive

a score of 84 percent or higher on the certification exam, no

later than 30 days after the program has received the exam and

any additional required material. Each card must include, at

minimum, the name of the certifying program, and the date the

organization became a certifying program, the name of the person

certified, the type of certification, a unique number for the

certified person, and the following text:

[Name of person] has been certified as a [Type I, Type II, 

### Page 117 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlType III, and/or Universal, as appropriate] technician as required

by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.

(4) The Administrator reserves the right to consider other

factors deemed relevant to ensure the effectiveness of certification

programs.

(d) If approval is denied under this section, the Administrator

shall give written notice to the program setting forth the basis

for her or his determination.

(e) If at any time an approved program violates any of the

above requirements, the Administrator reserves the right to

revoke approval. In such cases, the Administrator or her or

his designated representative shall give notice to the organization

setting forth the basis for her or his determination.

(f) Authorized representatives of the Administrator may require

technicians to demonstrate on the business entity's premises

their ability to perform proper procedures for recovering and/or

recycling refrigerant. Failure to demonstrate or failure to

properly use the equipment may result in revocation of the certificate.

Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may

also result in revocation or suspension of the certificate.

If a technician's certificate is revoked, the technician would

need to recertify before maintaining, servicing, repairing or

disposing of any appliances.

(g) Persons seeking approval of a technician certification

program may also seek approval for technician certifications

granted previously under the program. Interested persons may

submit to the Administrator at the address in 82.160 ( a ) verification

that the program met all of the standards of 82.161 ( c ) and

appendix D, or verification that the program met all of the

standards of 82.161 ( c ) and appendix D

, except for some elements

of the test subject material, in which case the person must

submit verification that supplementary information on that material

will be provided pursuant to appendix D, section (j).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control

number 2060

- 0256)

82.162 Certification by owners of recovery and recycling

equipment.

(a) No later than August 12, 1993, or within 20 days of commencing

business for those persons not in business at the time of promulgation,

persons maintaining, servicing, or repairing appliances except

for MVACs, and persons disposing of appliances except for small

appliances and MVACs, must certify to the Administrator that

such person has acquired certified recovery or recycling equipment

and is complying with the applicable requirements of this subpart.

Such equipment may include system

- dependent equipment but must

include self

- contained equipment, if the equipment is to be

used in the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except

for small appliances. The owner or lessee of the recovery or

recycling equipment may perform this certification for his or

her employees. Certification shall take the form of a statement

signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible

officer and setting forth:

(1) The name and address of the purchaser of the equipment,

including the county name;

(2) The name and address of the establishment where each

piece of equipment is or will be located;

(3) The number of service trucks (or other vehicles) used

to transport technicians and equipment between the establishment

and job sites and the field;

(4) The manufacturer name, the date of manufacture, and if

applicable, the model and serial number of the equipment; and 

### Page 118 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html(5) The certification must also include a statement that

the equipment will be properly used in servicing or disposing

of appliances and that the information given is true and correct.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region I

, Mail Code APC

,

JFK Federal Building, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

New York

New Jersey

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region II

, Jacob K

. Javits

Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 5000, New York, NY

10278.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

Delaware

District of Columbia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Virginia

West Virginia

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region III

, Mail Code

3AT21, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

must send their certifications to: 

### Page 119 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlCAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region IV

, 345 Courtland

Street, NE., Mail Code APT

- AE, Atlanta, GA 30365.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

Illinois

Indiana

Michigan

Minnesota

Ohio

Wisconsin

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region V

, Mail Code AT 18 J

,

77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604

- 3507.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

Arkansas

Louisiana

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region VI

, Mail Code 6 T

EC, First Interstate Tower at Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Ave.,

Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202

- 2733.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

Iowa

Kansas

Missouri

Nebraska

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region VII

, Mail Code

ARTX/ARBR, 726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

Colorado

Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Utah

Wyoming

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region VIII

, Mail Code

8AT

- AP, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202

- 2405. 

### Page 120 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlOwners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

American Samoa

Arizona

California

Guam

Hawaii

Nevada

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region IX

, Mail Code A

3, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having

their places of business in:

Alaska

Idaho

Oregon

Washington

must send their certifications to:

CAA 608 Enforcement Contact

, EPA Region X

, Mail Code AT

082, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101.

(b) Certificates under paragraph (a) of this section are

not transferable. In the event of a change of ownership of an

entity that maintains, services, or repairs appliances except

MVACs, or that disposes of appliances except small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances, the new owner of the entity

shall certify within 30 days of the change of ownership pursuant

to paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) No later than August 12, 1993, persons recovering refrigerant

from small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

- like appliances for purposes

of disposal of these appliances must certify to the Administrator

that such person has acquired recovery equipment that meets

the standards set forth in 82.158 ( l ) and / or ( m )

, as applicable

,

and that such person is complying with the applicable requirements

of this subpart. Such equipment may include system

- dependent

equipment but must include self

- contained equipment, if the

equipment is to be used in the disposal of appliances except

for small appliances. The owner or lessee of the recovery or

recycling equipment may perform this certification for his or

her employees. Certification shall take the form of a statement

signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible

officer and setting forth:

(1) The name and address of the purchaser of the equipment,

including the county name;

(2) The name and address of the establishment where each

piece of equipment is or will be located;

(3) The number of service trucks (or other vehicles) used

to transport technicians and equipment between the establishment

and job sites and the field;

(4) The manufacturer's name, the date of manufacture, and

if applicable, the model and serial number of the equipment;

and

(5) The certification must also include a statement that

the equipment will be properly used in recovering refrigerant

from appliances and that the information given is true and correct. 

### Page 121 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlThe certification shall be sent to the appropriate address in

paragraph (a).

(d) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart

may result in revocation or suspension of certification under

paragraph (a) or (c) of this section. In such cases, the Administrator

or her or his designated representative shall give notice to

the organization setting forth the basis for her or his determination.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control

number 2060

- 0256)

82.164 Reclaimer certification

.

Effective August 12, 1993, persons reclaiming used refrigerant

for sale to a new owner must certify to the Administrator that

such person will:

(a) Return refrigerant to at least the standard of purity

set forth in ARI Standard 700

- 1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon

Refrigerants;

(b) Verify this purity using the methods set forth in ARI

Standard 700

- 1988;

(c) Release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during

the reclamation process, and

(d) Dispose of wastes from the reclamation process in accordance

with all applicable laws and regulations. The data elements

for certification are as follows:

(1) The name and address of the reclaimer;

(2) A list of equipment used to reprocess and to analyze

the refrigerant; and

(3) The owner or a responsible officer of the reclaimer must

sign the certification stating that the refrigerant will be

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

Standard 700

- 1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,

that the purity of the refrigerant will be verified using the

methods set forth in ARI Standard 700

- 1988, that no more than

1.5 percent of the refrigerant will be released during the reclamation

process, that wastes from the reclamation process will be properly

disposed of, and that the information given is true and correct.

The certification should be sent to the following address: Section

608 Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric Protection Division,

(6205

- J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

(e) Certificates are not transferable. In the event of a

change in ownership of an entity which reclaims refrigerant,

the new owner of the entity shall certify within 30 days of

the change of ownership pursuant to this section.

(f) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart

may result in revocation or suspension of the certification

of the reclaimer. In such cases, the Administrator or her or

his designated representative shall give notice to the organization

setting forth the basis for her or his determination.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control

number 2060

- 0256)

82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

.

(a) All persons who sell or distribute any class I or class

II substance for use as a refrigerant must retain invoices that

indicate the name of the purchaser, the date of sale, and the

quantity of refrigerant purchased.

(b) Purchasers of any class I or class II refrigerants who

employ technicians who recover refrigerants may provide evidence

of each technician's certification to the wholesaler who sells 

### Page 122 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlthem refrigerant; the wholesaler will then keep this information

on file. In such cases, the purchaser must notify the wholesaler

regarding any change in a technician's certification or employment

status.

(c) Approved equipment testing organizations must maintain

records of equipment testing and performance and a list of equipment

that meets EPA requirements. A list of all certified equipment

shall be submitted to EPA within 30 days of the organization's

approval by EPA and annually at the end of each calendar year

thereafter.

(d) Approved equipment testing organizations shall submit

to EPA within 30 days of the certification of a new model line

of recycling or recovery equipment the name of the manufacturer

and the name and/or serial number of the model line.

(e) Approved equipment testing organizations shall notify

EPA if retests of equipment or inspections of manufacturing

facilities conducted pursuant to 82.158 ( j ) show that a previously

certified model line fails to meet EPA requirements. Such notification

must be received within thirty days of the retest or inspection.

(f) Programs certifying technicians must maintain records

in accordance with section (g) of appendix D of this subpart.

(g) Reclaimers must maintain records of the names and addresses

of persons sending them material for reclamation and the quantity

of the material (the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants)

sent to them for reclamation. Such records shall be maintained

on a transactional basis.

(h) Reclaimers must maintain records of the quantity of material

sent to them for reclamation, the mass of refrigerant reclaimed,

and the mass of waste products. Reclaimers must report this

information to the Administrator annually within 30 days of

the end of the calendar year.

(i) Persons disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC

like appliances must maintain copies of signed statements obtained

pursuant to 82.156 ( f )( 2 ).

(j) Persons servicing appliances normally containing 50 or

more pounds of refrigerant must provide the owner/operator of

such appliances with an invoice or other documentation, which

indicates the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance.

(k) Owners/operators of appliances normally containing 50

or more pounds of refrigerant must keep servicing records documenting

the date and type of service, as well as the quantity of refrigerant

added. The owner/operator must keep records of refrigerant purchased

and added to such appliances in cases where owners add their

own refrigerant. Such records should indicate the date(s) when

refrigerant is added.

( l ) Technicians certified under 82.161 must keep a copy

of their certificate at their place of business.

(m) All records required to be maintained pursuant to this

section must be kept for a minimum of three years unless otherwise

indicated. Entities that dispose of appliances must keep these

records on

- site.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control

number 2060

- 0256)

Appendix A to Subpart F

- Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants

This appendix is based on Air

- conditioning and Refrigeration

Institute Standard 700

- 88:

Section 1. Purpose

1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to enable users

to evaluate and accept/reject refrigerants regardless of source

(new, reclaimed and/or repackaged) for use in new and existing

refrigerating and air conditioning products within the scope 

### Page 123 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlof ARI.

1.1.1 This standard is intended for the guidance of the industry,

including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, repackagers,

distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for consumers.

1.2 Review and Amendment. This standard is subject to review

and amendment as the technology advances.

Section 2. Scope

2.1 Scope. This standard defines and classifies refrigerant

contaminants primarily based on standard and generally available

test methods and specifies acceptable levels of contaminants

(purity requirements) for various fluorocarbon refrigerants

regardless of source. These refrigerants are: R11; R12; R13;

R22; R113; R114; R500; R502 and R503 as referenced in the ANSI/ASHRAE

Standard "Number Designation of Refrigerants" (American Society

of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,

Standard 34

- 78).

Section 3. Definitions

3.1 "Shall", "Should", "Recommended", or "It Is Recommended".

"Shall", "should", "recommended", or "it is recommended" shall

be interpreted as follows:

3.1.1 Shall. Where "shall" or "shall not" is used for a provision

specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with the

standard is claimed.

3.1.2 Should, Recommended, or It is Recommended. "Should",

"recommended", or "it is recommended" is used to indicate provisions

which are not mandatory but which are desirable as good practice.

Section 4. Characterization of Refrigerants and Contaminants

4.1 Characterization of refrigerants and contaminants addressed

are listed in the following general classifications:

4.1.1 Characterization

a. Boiling point

b. Boiling point range

4.1.2 Contaminants

a. Water

b. Chloride ion

c. Acidity

d. High boiling residue

e. Particulates/solids

f. Non

- condensables

g. Other refrigerants

Section 5. Sampling, Test Methods and Maximum Permissible Contaminant

Levels

5.1 The recommended referee test methods for the various

contaminants are given in the following paragraphs. If alternate

test methods are employed, the user must be able to demonstrate

that they produce results equivalent to the specified referee

method.

5.2 Refrigerant Sampling.

5.2.1 Special precautions should be taken to assure that

representative samples are obtained for analysis. Sampling shall

be done by trained laboratory personnel following accepted sampling

and safety procedures.

5.2.2 Gas Phase Sample. A gas phase sample shall be obtained

for determining the non

- condensables by connecting the sample

cylinder to an evacuated gas sampling bulb by means of a manifold.

The manifold should have a valve arrangement that facilitates

evacuation of all connecting tubing leading to the sampling

bulb. Since non

- condensable gases, if present, will concentrate

in the vapor phase of the refrigerant, care must be exercised

to eliminate introduction of air during the sample transfer. 

### Page 124 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlPurging is not an acceptable procedure for a gas phase sample

since it may introduce a foreign product. Since R11 and R113

have normal boiling points at or above room temperatures, non

condensable determination is not required for these refrigerants.

5.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample, which may

be obtained as follows, is required for all tests listed in

this standard, except the test for non

- condensables. Place an

empty sample cylinder with the valve opened in an oven at 230 ø F

[110 ø C] for one hour. Remove it from the oven while hot, immediately

connect to an evacuation system and evacuate to less than 1

mm. mercury (1000 microns). Close the valve and allow it to

cool.

5.2.3.1 The valve and lines from the unit to be sampled shall

be clean and dry. Connect the line to the sample cylinder loosely.

Purge through the loose connection. Make the connection tight

at the end of the purge period. Take the sample as a liquid

by chilling the sample cylinder slightly. Do not load the cylinder

over 80 percent full at room temperature. This can be accomplished

by weighing the empty cylinder and then the cylinder with refrigerant.

The cylinder must not become completely full of liquid below

130 ø F [54.4 ø C]. When the desired amount of refrigerant has been

collected, close the valve(s) and disconnect the sample cylinder

immediately.

5.2.3.2 Check the sample cylinder for leaks and record the

gross weight.

5.3 Refrigerant Boiling Point and Boiling Range.

5.3.1 The test method shall be that described in the Federal

Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants" BB

- F

- 1421 B dated

March 5, 1982, section 4.4.3.

5.3.2 The required values for boiling point and boiling point

range are given in Table 1, "Physical Properties of Fluorocarbon

Refrigerants and Maximum Contaminant Levels."

5.3.3 Gas chromatography (GC) is an acceptable alternate

test method which can be used to characterize refrigerants.

This is done by comparison to the known standards. Listed below

are some readily available GC methods.

Alternate Gas Chromatography Test Methods

[See Appendix A for titles and sources]

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Refrigerant 3 ICI 3 Dupont 3 Allied

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3 3

R11 3 RSV/ALAB/CM3 and 3 F3205.165.01CW 3 G

- 11

- 7A

3 RSV/ALAB/CM4 3 3

R12 3 RSV/ALAB/CM5 3 F3227.165.01CW(P) 3 G

- 12

- 7A

R13 3 RSV/ALAB/CM20 3 F3275.165.01CC(P) 3

-

R22 3 RSV/ALAB/CM8 3 F3290.165.01LV(P) 3 G

- 22

- 7A

R113 3 RSV/ALAB/CM6 3 F3297.165.01CC 3 GSVD

- 1A

R114 3 RSV/ALAB/CM21 3 F3305.165.01CC(P) 3 G

- 114

- 7A

R500 3 RSV/ALAB/CM5 3 F3327.165.01CW(P) 3 G

- 500

- 7A

R502 3 RSV/ALAB/CM8 3 F3333.165.01CC 3 G

- 502

- 7A

R503 3 RSV/ALAB/CM20 3 F3337.165.01CW(P) 3 G

- 503

- 7A

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Note: Equivalent laboratory test methods may be available from other producers of these

refrigerants.

5.4 Water Content.

5.4.1 The Karl Fischer Test Method shall be used for determining

the water content of refrigerant. This method is described in

ASTM Standard for "Water In Gases Using Karl Fisher Reagent"

E700

- 79, reapproved 1984 (American Society for Testing Materials,

Philadelphia, PA). This method can be used for refrigerants 

### Page 125 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlthat are either a liquid or a gas at room temperature, including

Refrigerants 11 and 113. For all refrigerants, the sample for

water analysis shall be taken from the liquid phase of the container

to be tested. Proper operation of the analytical method requires

special equipment and an experienced operator. The precision

of the results is excellent if proper sampling and handling

procedures are followed. Refrigerants containing a colored dye

can be successfully analyzed for water using this method.

5.4.2 Water is a harmful contaminant in refrigerants because

it causes freeze up, corrosion and promotes unfavorable chemical

breakdown. The refrigerants covered in this standard shall have

a maximum water content of 10 parts per million (ppm) by weight.

5.5 Chloride Ions. The refrigerant shall be tested for chlorides

as an indication of the presence of hydrochloric or similar

acids.

5.5.1 The test method shall be that described in the Federal

Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB

- F

- 1421B, dated

March 5, 1982, (U.S. General Services Administration) section

4.4.4 (silver nitrate reagent). This simple test will detect

HC1 and other halogens and requires only a 5 ml sample. The

test will show noticeable turbidity at equivalent HC1 levels

of about 25 ppm by weight or higher.

5.5.2 The results of the test shall not exhibit any sign

of turbidity. Report the results as "pass" or "fail."

5.6 Acidity.

5.6.1 The acidity test uses the titration principle to detect

any compound that ionizes as an acid. The test requires about

a 100 to 120 gram sample and has a lower detection limit of

0.1 ppm by weight.

5.6.2 The test method shall be per Allied approved analytical

procedure "Determination of Acidity in Genetron(R) and Genesolv(R)

Fluorocarbons," GP

- GEN

- 2A (used by permission of Allied

- Signal,

Inc., Columbia Road and Park Avenue, P.O. Box 1139R, Morristown,

New Jersey 07960), or DuPont procedure, "The Determination of

Acid Number

- Visual Titrimetric Procedure," FPL

- 3

- 1974 (used

by permission of Freon Products Division E.I. duPont de Nemours

and Co., Inc., Brandywine Building 13237, Wilmington, Delaware

19898).

5.6.3 The maximum permissible acidity is 1 ppm by weight.

5.7 High Boiling Residue.

5.7.1 High boiling residue will be determined by measuring

the residue after evaporation of a standard volume of refrigerant

at a temperature 50 ø F [10.0 ø C], above the boiling point of the

sample using a Goetz tube as specified in the Federal Specification

for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB

- F

- 1421B, dated March 5,

1982. Oils and organic acids will be captured by this method.

5.7.2 The value for high boiling residue shall be expressed

as a percentage by volume and shall not exceed the maximum percent

specified in Table 1.

5.8 Particulates/Solids.

5.8.1 During the Boiling Range test, a measured amount of

sample is evaporated from a Goetz bulb under controlled temperature

conditions. The particulates/solids shall be determined by visual

examination of the empty Goetz bulb after the sample has evaporated

completely. Presence of dirt, rust or other particulate contamination

is reported as "fail."

5.8.2 For details of the above test method, refer to the

DuPont method for "Determination of Boiling Range, Residue,

Particulates" F3200.037.01CW(P) (used by permission of Freon

Products Division, E.I. duPoint de Nemours and Co., Inc.).

5.9 Non

- Condensables.

5.9.1 Non

- condensable gases consist primarily of air accumulated

in the vapor phase of refrigerant

- containing tanks. The solubility

of air in the refrigerants liquid phase is extremely low and 

### Page 126 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlair is not significant as a liquid phase contaminant. The presence

of non

- condensable gases may reflect poor quality control in

transferring refrigerants to storage tanks and cylinders.

5.9.2 The test method shall be that described in the Federal

Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB

- F

- 1421B, dated

March 5, 1982, section 4.4.2 (perchloroethylene method). Gas

Chromatography, as described in 5.3.3 is an acceptable alternate

test method.

5.9.3 The maximum level of non

- condensables in the vapor

phase of a refrigerant in a container shall not exceed 1.5 percent

by volume.

5.10 Other Refrigerants.

5.10.1 The amount of other refrigerants in the subject refrigerant

shall be determined by one of the gas chromatographic methods

described in 5.3.3 for the appropriate refrigerant.

5.10.2 The subject refrigerant shall not contain more than

0.5 percent by weight of other refrigerants (see Table 1).

Section 6. Reporting Procedure

6.1 The source (manufacturer, reclaimer or repackager) of

the packaged refrigerant should be identified. The fluorocarbon

refrigerant shall be identified by its accepted refrigerant

number and/or its chemical name. Maximum permissible levels

of contaminants are shown in Table 1. Test results shall be

tabulated in a like manner.

Section 7. Voluntary Conformance

7.1 Voluntary Conformance. Conformance to this standard is

voluntary. However, any refrigerant specified as meeting these

requirements shall meet all of the requirements given in this

standard.

Table 1

- Physical Properties of Fluorocarbon Refrigerants and Maximum Contaminant Levels

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 Refrigerants

ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 R11 3 R12 3 R13 3 R22 3 R113 3 R114 3 R500 3 R502 3 R503

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Physical 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Properties: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Boiling 3 74.9 3

- 21.6 3

- 114.6 3

- 41.4 3 117.6 3 38.8 3

- 28.3 3

- 49.8 3

- 127.6

point. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

F @ 29.92 3 [ 23.8] 3 [

- 29.8] 3 [

- 81.4] 3 [

- 40.8] 3 [ 47.6] 3 [ 3.8] 3 [

- 33.5] 3 [

- 45.4] 3 [

- 88.7]

in. Hg. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Boiling 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.9 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.9 3 0.9 3 0.9

range F 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

for 5% to 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

85% by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

volume 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

distilled 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Vapor Phase 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Contaminant 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Air and 3 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5

other non 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

- condens

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

ables (in 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

filled 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

container 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

) Max. % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

by volume 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

### Page 127 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlLiquid Phase 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Contaminant 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Water

- ppm 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10

by weight 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Chloride 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass

ion

- no 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

turbidity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

to pass 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

by test. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Acidity

- 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0

Max. ppm 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

by weight 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

High 3 0.01 3 0.01 3 0.05 3 0.01 3 0.03 3 0.01 3 0.05 3 0.01 3 0.01

boiling 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

residues

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Max. % by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

volume. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Particula

- 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass

tes/ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Solids

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

visually 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

clean to 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

pass. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Other ref

- 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5

rigerants 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

- Max. % by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

weight. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Titles and Sources of Alternate Gas Chromatography Test Methods

ICI

General Chemical Business

ICI Chemicals and Polymer Ltd.

P.O. Box 13

The Heath

Runcorn Cheshire, England WA74QF

Methods for the Analysis of "Arctons," MD1400/32 "Organic Impurities by Gas Chromatography"

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Refrigerant 3 Method No. 3 Title

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3

R11 3 RSV/ALAB/CM3 and RSV/ALAB/CM4 3 Arcton 11.

R12 3 RSV/ALAB/CM5 3 Arcton 12.

R13 3 RSV/ALAB/CM20 3

............................................................

R22 3 RSV/ALAB/CM8 3 Arcton 22.

R113 3 RSV/ALAB/CM6 3 Arcton 113.

R114 3 RSV/ALAB/CM21 3 Arcton 114.

R500 3 RSV/ALAB/CM5 3

............................................................

R502 3 RSV/ALAB/CM8 3

............................................................

R503 3 RSV/ALAB/CM20 3

............................................................

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Note: Used with permission of the source. 

### Page 128 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlDuPont

Freon Products Division

E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc.

1007 Market Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19898

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Refrigerant 3 Method No. 3 Title

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3

R11 3 F3205.165.01CW 3 Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography "Freon" 11

3 3 Fluorocarbon.

R12 3 F3227.165.01CW(P) 3 " Freon" 12 Determination of Purity.

R13 3 F3275.165.01CC(P) 3 Determination of Composition "Freon" 13 Fluorocarbon.

R22 3 F3290.165.01LV(P) 3 " Freon" 22 Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography.

R113 3 F3297.165.01CC 3 " Freon" 113 Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography.

R114 3 F3305.165.01CC(P) 3 " Freon" 114 Fluorocarbon

- Determination of Composition.

R500 3 F3327.165.01CW(P) 3 " Freon" 500 Determination of Composition by Gas.

R502 3 F3333.165.01CC 3 " Freon" 502 Determination of Composition Chromatography.

R503 3 F3337.165.01CW(P) 3 " Freon" 503 Determination of Composition.

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Note: Used with permission of the source.

Allied

Allied

- Signal, Inc.

Engineered Material Sector

P.O. Box 1139R

Morristown, New Jersey 07960

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Refrigerant 3 Method No. 3 Title

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3

R11 3 G

- 11

- 7A 3 Determination of Genetron(R) 11 Fluorocarbon (Assay)

3 3 Fluorocarbon 12, Carbon Tetrachloride, and Non

- Specified

3 3 Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 11 Fluorocarbon.

R12 3 G

- 12

- 7A 3 Determination of Genetron(R) 12 Fluorocarbon (Assay),

3 3 Fluorocarbons 11, 13, 22 and Non

- Specified Fluorocarbons in

3 3 Genetron(R) 12 Fluorocarbons.

R13 3 3

............................................................

R22 3 G

- 22

- 7A 3 Determination of Genetron(R) 22 Fluorocarbons (Assay),

3 3 Fluorocarbons 12, 21, 23 and Non

- Specified Fluorocarbons in

3 3 Genetron(R) 22 Fluorocarbons.

R113 3 GSVD

- 1A 3 Determination of Genesolv(R) D (Assay), Fluorocarbons 112, 114,

3 3 122, 123 and 1112a in Genesolv(R) D.

R114 3 G

- 114

- 7A 3 Determination of Genetron(R) 114 Fluorocarbon (Assay),

3 3 Fluorocarbons 113, 115, 123, and Non

- Specified

3 3 Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 114 Fluorocarbon.

R500 3 G

- 500

- 7A 3 Determination of Fluorocarbon 12, Fluorocarbon 152a and Non

-

3 3 Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 500 Fluorocarbon.

R502 3 G

- 502

- 7A 3 Determination of Fluorocarbon 22 and Fluorocarbon 115, and

3 3 Non

- Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 502 Fluorocarbon.

R503 3 G

- 503

- 7A 3 Determination of Fluorocarbon 13, 23, 12, 22 and Non

-

3 3 Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 503 Fluorocarbon.

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Note: Used with permission of the source. 

### Page 129 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlBibliography

For additional information on subjects or tests described

in this Standard see:

1. ASHRAE Handbook Refrigeration 1986, Chapter 7, "Moisture

and Other Contaminant Control in Refrigerant Systems." American

Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA 30329.

2. ASTM Standard Designation D3401

- 78, Standard Test Method

for "Water in Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures."

American Society for Testing Materials, 1916 Race Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103.

3. ASTM Standard D1533

- 83, "Water in Insulating Liquid (Karl

Fischer Reaction Method)." American Society for Testing

Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

4. ASTM Standard 2989

- 74 (reapproved 1981), Standard Test Method

for "Acidity

- Alkalinity of Halogenated Organic Solvents

and Their Admixtures." American Society for Testing Materials,

1916 Race street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

5. DuPont Technical Bulletin B

- 8, "Quality Specifications and

Methods of Analysis for the `Freon' Fluorocarbon Refrigerants."

Freon Products Division, E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co.,

Inc.

6. Parmelee, H. M. "Solubility of Air in Freon

- 12 and Freon

-

22." Refrigerating Engineering, June 1951, page 573.

7. Wojtkowski, E.F. "System Contamination and Cleanups," ASHRAE

Journal, June 1964, page 49.

Appendix B to Subpart F

- Performance of Refrigerant Recovery,

Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment

This appendix is based on Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration

Institute Standard 740

- 91.

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment

Section 1. Purpose

1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish

methods of testing for rating and evaluating the performance

of refrigerant recovery, and/or recycling equipment, and general

equipment requirements (herein referred to as "equipment") for

containment or purity levels, capacity, speed, and purge loss

to minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated refrigerants.

1.1.1 This standard is intended for the guidance of the industry,

including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, repackers,

distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for consumers.

1.1.2 This standard is not intended to be used as a guide

in defining maximum levels of contaminants in recycled or reclaimed

refrigerants used in various applications.

1.2 Review and Amendment. This standard is subject to review

and amendment as the technology advances.

Section 2. Scope

2.1 Scope. This standard defines general equipment requirements

and the test apparatus, test mixtures, sampling and analysis

techniques that will be used to determine the performance of

recovery and/or recycling equipment for various refrigerants

including R11, R12, R13, R22, R113, R114, R123, R134a, R500,

R502, and R503, as referenced in the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34

-

1992, "Number Designation of Refrigerants" (American Society

of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc.).

Section 3. Definitions

3.1 Recovered refrigerant. Refrigerant that has been removed

from a system for the purpose of storage, recycling, reclamation 

### Page 130 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlor transportation.

3.2 Recover. To remove refrigerant in any condition from

a system and store it in an external container without necessarily

testing or processing it in any way.

3.3 Recycle. To reduce contaminants in used refrigerant by

oil separation, non

- condensable removal and single or multiple

passes through devices which reduce moisture, acidity and particulate

matter, such as replaceable core filter

- driers. This term usually

applies to procedures implemented at the field job site or in

a local service shop.

3.4 Reclaim. To reprocess refrigerant to new product specifications

by means which may include distillation. Chemical analysis of

the refrigerant is required to determine that appropriate product

specifications are met. The identification of contaminants,

required chemical analysis, and acceptable contaminant levels

will be established in the latest edition of ARI Standard 700

"Specifications of Fluorocarbon and other Refrigerants." This

term usually implies the use of processes or procedures available

only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.

3.5 Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample. A mixture of

new and/or reclaimed refrigerant and specified quantities of

identified contaminants which are representative of field obtained,

used refrigerant samples and which constitute the mixture to

be processed by the equipment under test.

3.6 Push/Pull Method. The push/pull refrigerant recovery

method is defined as the process of transferring liquid refrigerant

from a refrigeration system to a receiving vessel by lowering

the pressure in the vessel and raising the pressure in the system,

and by connecting a separate line between the system liquid

port and the receiving vessel.

3.7 Recycle Rate. The amount of refrigerant processed (in

pounds) divided by the time elapsed in the recycling mode in

pounds per minute. For equipment which uses a separate recycling

sequence, the recycle rate does not include the recovery rate

(or elapsed time). For equipment which does not use a separate

recycling sequence, the recycle rate is a maximum rate based

solely on the higher of the liquid or vapor recovery rate, by

which the rated contaminant levels can be achieved.

3.8 Equpment Classification.

3.8.1 Self Contained Equipment. A refrigerant recovery or

recycling system which is capable of refrigerant extraction

without the assistance of components contained within an air

conditioning or refrigeration system.

3.8.2 System Dependent Equipment. Refrigerant recovery equipment

which requires for its operation the assistance of components

contained in an air conditioning or refrigeration system.

3.9 "Shall", "Should", "Recommended" or "It is Recommended",

"Shall" "Should", "recommended", or "it is recommended" shall

be interpreted as follows:

3.9.1 Shall. Where "shall" or "shall not" is used for a provision

specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with the

standard is claimed.

3.9.2 Should, Recommended, or It is Recommended, "Should",

"recommended", is used to indicate provisions which are not

mandatory but which are desirable as good practice.

Section 4. General Equipment Requirements

4.1 The equipment manufacturer shall provide operating instructions,

necessary maintenance procedures, and source information for

replacement parts and repair.

4.2 The equipment shall indicate when any filter/drier(s)

needs replacement. This requirement can be met by use of a moisture

transducer and indicator light, by use of a sight glass/moisture

indicator, or by some measurement of the amount of refrigerant

processed such as a flow meter or hour meter. Written instructions 

### Page 131 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlsuch as "to change the filter every 400 pounds, or every 30

days" shall not be acceptable except for equipment in large

systems where the Liquid Recovery Rate is greater than 25 lbs/min

[11.3 Kg/min] where the filter/drier(s) would be changed for

every job.

4.3 The equipment shall either automatically purge non

- condensables

if the rated level is exceeded or alert the operator that the

non

- condensable level has been exceeded. While air purge processes

are subject to the requirements of this section, there is no

specific requirement to include an air purge process for "recycle"

equipment.

4.4 The equipment's refrigerant loss due to non

- condensable

purging shall not be exceeded 5% by weight of total recovered

refrigerant. (See Section 9.4)

4.5 Internal hose assemblies shall not exceed a permeation

rate of 12 pounds mass per square foot [ 5.8 g / cm 2 ] of internal

surface per year at a temperature of 120 F [48.8 ø C] for any

designated refrigerant.

4.6 The equipment shall be evaluated at 75 F [24 ø C] per

7.1. Normal operating conditions range from 50 ø F to 104 F [10

ø C to 40 ø C].

4.7 Exemptions:

4.7.1 Equpment intended for recovery only shall be exempt

from sections 4.2 and 4.3.

Table 1.

- Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Samples

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 R11 3 R12 3 R13 3 R22 3 R113 3 R114 3 R123 3 R134a 3 R500 3 R502 3 R503

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Moisture 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

content: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

PPM by 3 100 3 80 3 30 3 200 3 100 3 85 3 100 3 200 3 200 3 200 3 30

weight of 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

pure ref

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

rigerant. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Particulate 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

content: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

PPM by 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80 3 80

weight of 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

pure ref

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

rigerant 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

characte

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

rized by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

{ 1}. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Acid content: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

PPM by 3 500 3 100 3 NA 3 500 3 400 3 200 3 500 3 100 3 100 3 100 3 NA

weight of 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

pure ref

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

rigerant

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

( mg KOH 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

per kg 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

refrig.) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

characte

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

rized by 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

{ 2}. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Mineral oil 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

content: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

% by 3 20 3 5 3 NA 3 5 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 NA

weight of 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

pure ref

- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

rigerant. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

### Page 132 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlViscosity 3 300 3 150 3 3 300 3 300 3 300 3 300 3 150 3 150 3 150 3

( SUS). 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Non conde

- 3 NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

nsable 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

gases air 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

content % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

volume{3} 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

{ 1} Particulate content shall consist of inert materials and shall comply with particulate requirements in ASHRAE

Standard 63.2, "Method of Testing of Filtration Capacity of Refrigerant Liquid Line Filters and Filter Driers."

{2} Acid consists of 60% oleic acid and 40% hydrochloric acid on a total number basis.

{3} Synthetic ester based oil.

Section 5. Contaminated Refrigerants

5.1 The standard contaminated refrigerant sample shall have

the characteristics specified in Table 1, except as provided

in 5.2

5.2 Recovery equipment not rated for any specific contaminant

can be tested with new or reclaimed refrigerant.

Section 6. Test Apparatus

6.1 Self Contained Equipment Test Apparatus. The apparatus

as shown in Figure 1 consists of a 3 cubic foot [0.085 m3] mixing

chamber with a conical

- shaped bottom, although a larger mixing

chamber is permissible. The size of the mixing chamber depends

upon the size of the equipment. The outlet at the bottom of

the cone and all restrictions and valves for liquid and vapor

refrigerant lines in the test apparatus shall be a minimum of

0.375 in. [9.5 mm] inside diameter or equivalent. The minimum

inside diameter for large equipment for use on chillers shall

be 1.5 in. [38 mm.]. The mixing chamber shall contain various

ports for receiving liquid refrigerant, oil, and contaminants.

A recirculating line connected from the bottom outlet through

a recirculating pump and then to a top vapor port shall be provided

for stirring of the mixture. Isolation valves may be required

for the pump. Alternative stirring means may be used if demonstrated

to be equally effective.

6.1.1 For liquid refrigerant feed, the liquid valve is opened.

For vapor refrigerant feed, the vapor valve is opened and refrigerant

passes through an evaporator coil. Flow is controlled by a thermostatic

expansion valve to create 5 F [3 ø C] superheat at an evaporator

temperature of 70 F ñ 3 F[21 ø C ñ 2 ø ]. The evaporator coil or

equivalent evaporator means shall be either sized large enough

for the largest system or be sized for each system.

6.1.2 An alternative method for vapor refrigerant feed is

to pass through a boiler and then an automatic pressure regulating

valve set at refrigerant saturation pressure at 75 F ñ 3 F [24

ø C ñ 2 ø C].

6.2 System Dependent Equipment Test Apparatus. This test

apparatus is to be used for final recovery vacuum rating of

all system dependent equipment.

6.2.1 The test apparatus shown in Figure 2 consists of a

complete refrigeration system. The manufacturer shall identify

the refrigerants to be tested. The test apparatus can be modified

to facilitate operation or testing of the system dependent equipment

if the modifications to the apparatus are specifically described

within the manufacturer's literature. (See Figure 2.) A 1/4

inch [6.3 mm] balance line shall be connected across the test

apparatus between the high and low pressure sides, with an isolation

valve located at the connection to the compressor high side.

A 1/4 inch [6.3 mm] access port with a valve core shall be

located in the balance line for the purpose of measuring final

recovery vacuum at the conclusion of the test. 

### Page 133 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html>>>> See the accompanying hardcopy volume for non

- machine

- readable

data that appears at this point.

Section 7. Performance Testing

7.1 Contaminant removal and performance testing shall be

conducted at 75 F ñ 2 F [23.9 ø C ñ 1.1 ø C].

7.1.1 The equipment shall be prepared for operation per the

instruction manual.

7.1.2 The contaminated sample batch shall consist of not

less than the sum of the amounts required to complete steps

7.1.2.2 and 7.1.2.3 below.

7.1.2.1 A liquid sample shall be drawn from the mixing chamber

prior to starting the test to assure quality control of the

mixing process.

7.1.2.2 Vapor refrigerant feed testing, if elected, shall

normally be processed first. After the equipment reaches stabilized

conditions of condensing temperature and/or storage tank pressure,

the vapor feed recovery rate shall be measured. One method is

to start measuring the vapor refrigerant recovery rate when

85% of refrigerant remains in the mixing chamber and continue

for a period of time sufficient to achieve the accuracy in 9.2.

If liquid feed is not elected, complete Step 7.1.2.4.

7.1.2.3 Liquid refrigerant feed testing, if elected, shall

be processed next. After the equipment reaches stabilized conditions,

the liquid feed recovery rate shall be measured. One method

is to wait 2 minutes after starting liquid feed and then measure

the liquid refrigerant recovery rate for a period of time sufficient

to achieve the accuracy in 9.1. Continue liquid recovery operation

as called for in 7.1.2.4.

7.1.2.4 Continue recovery operation until all liquid is removed

from the mixing chamber and vapor is removed to the point where

the equipment shuts down per automatic means or is manually

stopped per the operating instructions.

7.1.2.5 After collecting the first contaminated refrigerant

sample batch, the liquid and vapor value of the apparatus shall

be closed and the mixing chamber pressure recorded after 1 minute

as required in 9.5. After preparing a second contaminated refrigerant

sample batch, continue recovery until the storage container

reaches 80% liquid fill level. After recycling and measuring

the recycle rate per section 7.1.3, set this container aside

for the vapor sample in 8.2.2.

7.1.2.6 Interruptions in equipment operations as called for

in instruction manual are allowable.

7.1.3 Recycle as called for in equipment operating instructions.

Determine recycle rate by appropriate means as required in 9.3.

7.1.4 Repeat steps 7.1.2, 7.1.2.4, and 7.1.3 with contaminated

refrigerant sample until equipment indicator(s) show need to

change filter(s). It will not be necessary to repeat the recycle

rate determination in 7.1.3.

7.1.4.1 For equipment with a multiple pass recirculating

filter system, analyze the contents of the previous storage

container.

7.1.4.2 For equipment with a single pass filter system, analyze

the contents of the current storage container.

7.1.5 Refrigerant loss due to the equipment's non

- condensable

gas purge shall be determined by appropriate means. (See Section

9.4.)

7.2 System Dependent Equipment. This procedure shall be used

for vacuum rating of all system dependent equipment. Liquid

refrigerant recovery rate, vapor refrigerant recovery rate,

and recycle rate are not tested on system dependent systems. 

### Page 134 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html7.2.1 The apparatus operation and testing shall be conducted

at 75 F ñ 2 F. [23.9 ø C. ñ / 1.1. ø C.].

7.2.2 The apparatus shall be charged with refrigerant per

its system design specifications.

7.2.3 For measurement of final recovery vacuum as required

in 9.5, first shut the balance line isolation valve and wait

1 minute for pressure to balance. Then connect and operate the

recovery system per manufacturers recommendations. When the

evacuation is completed, open the balance line isolation valve

and measure the pressure in the balance line.

Section 8. Sampling and Chemical Analysis Methods

8.1 The referee test methods for the various contaminants

are summarized in the following paragraphs. Detailed test procedures

are included in Appendix A "Test Procedures for ARI STD 700."

If alternate test methods are employed, the user must be able

to demonstrate that they produce results equivalent to the specified

referee method.

8.2 Refrigerant Sampling.

8.2.1 Sampling Precautions. Special precautions should be

taken to assure that representative samples are obtained for

analysis. Sampling shall be done by trained laboratory personnel

following accepted sampling and safety procedures.

8.2.2 Gas Phase Sample. A gas phase sample shall be obtained

for determining the non

- condensables. Since non

- condensable

gases, if present, will concentrate in the vapor phase of the

refrigerant, care must be exercised to eliminate introduction

of air during the sample transfer. Purging is not and acceptable

procedure for a gas phase sample since it may introduce a foreign

product. Since R11, R113 and R123 have normal boiling points

at or above room temperature, noncondensable determination is

not required for these refrigerants.

8.2.2.1 The sample cylinder shall be connected to an evacuated

gas sampling bulb by means of a manifold. The manifold should

have a valve arrangement that facilitates evacuation of all

connecting tubing leading to the sampling bulb.

8.2.2.2 After the manifold has been evacuated, close the

valve to the pump and open the valve on the system. Allow the

pressure to equilibrate and close valves.

8.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample is required

for all tests listed in this standard, except the test for non

condensables.

8.2.3.1 Place an empty sample cylinder with the valve open

in an oven at 230 F [110 ø C] for one hour. Remove it from the

oven while hot, immediately connect to an evacuation system

and evacuate to less than 1mm. mercury (1000 microns). Close

the valve and allow it to cool.

8.2.3.2 The valve and lines from the unit to be sampled shall

be clean and dry. Connect the line to the sample cylinder loosely.

Purge through the loose connection. Make the connection tight

at the end of the purge period. Take the sample as a liquid

by chilling the sample cylinder slightly. Accurate analysis

requires that the sample container be filled to at least 60%

by volume; however under no circumstances should the cylinder

be filled to more than 80% by volume. This can be accomplished

by weighing the empty cylinder and then the cylinder with refrigerant.

When the desired amount of refrigerant has been collected, close

the valve(s) and disconnect the sample cylinder immediately.

8.2.3.3 Check the sample cylinder for leaks and record the

gross weight.

8.3 Water Content.

8.3.1. The Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration shall be the

primary test method for determining the water content of refrigerants.

This method is described in Appendix A. This method can be used

for refrigerants that are either a liquid or a gas at room temperature, 

### Page 135 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlincluding Refrigerants 11 and 13. For all refrigerants, the

sample for water analysis shall be taken from the liquid phase

of the container to be tested. Proper operation of the analytical

method requires special equipment and an experienced operator.

The precision of the results is excellent if proper sampling

and handling procedures are followed. Refrigerants containing

a colored dye can be successfully analyzed for water using this

method.

8.3.2 The Karl Fischer Test Method is an acceptable alternative

test method for determining the water content of refrigerants.

This method is described in ASTM Standard for "Water in gases

Using Karl Fisher Reagent" E700

- 79, reapproved 1984 (American

Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA).

8.3.3 Report the moisture level in parts per million by weight

if a sample is required.

8.4 Chloride. The refrigerant shall be tested for chlorides

as an indication of the presence of hydrochloric or similar

acids. The recommended procedure is intended for use with new

or reclaimed refrigerants. Significant amounts of oil may interfere

with the results by indicating a failure in the absence of chlorides.

8.4.1 The test method shall be that described in Appendix

A "Test Procedures for ARI

- 700." The test will show noticeable

turbidity at equivalent chloride levels of about 3 ppm by weight

or higher.

8.4.2 The results of the test shall not exhibit any sign

of turbity. Report results as "pass" or "fail."

8.5 Acidity.

8.5.1 The acidity test uses the titration principle to detect

any compound that is highly soluble in water and ionizes as

an acid. The test method shall be that described in Appendix

A. "Test Procedures for ARI

- 700." The test may not be suitable

for determination of high molecular weight organic acids; however

these acids will be found in the high boiling residue test outlined

in Section 5.7. The test requires about a 100 to 120 gram sample

and has a low detection limit of 0.1 ppm by weight as HC1.

8.6 High Boiling Residue.

8.6.1 High boiling residue will be determined by measuring

the residue of a standard volume of refrigerant after evaporation.

The refrigerant sample shall be evaporated at room temperature

or a temperature 50 F [10 ø

. 0C], above the boiling point of the

sample using a Goetz tube as specified in Appendix A "Test Procedures

for ARI

- 700." Oils and or organic acids will be captured by

this method.

8.6.2 The value for high boiling residue shall be expressed

as a percentage by volume.

8.7 Particulates/Solids.

8.7.1 A measured amount of sample is evaporated from a Goetz

bulb under controlled temperature conditions. The particulates/solids

shall be determined by visual examination of the empty Goetz

bulb after the sample has evaporated completely. Presence of

dirt, rust or other particulate contamination is reported a

"fail." For details of this test method, refer to Appendix B

"Test Procedures for ARI

- 700."

8.8 Non

- Condensables

8.8.1 A vapor phase sample shall be used for determination

of non

- condensables. Non

- condensable gases consist primarily

of air accumulated in the vapor phase of refrigerant containing

tanks. The solubility of air in the refrigerants liquid phase

is extremely low and air is not significant as a liquid phase

contaminant. The presence of non

- condensable gases may reflect

poor quality control in transferring refrigerants to storage

tanks and cylinders.

8.8.2 The test method shall be gas chromatography with a

thermal conductivity detector as described in Appendix A "Test 

### Page 136 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlProcedures for ARI

- 700."

8.8.2.1 The Federal Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,"

BB

- F

- 1421B, dated March 5, 1992, section 4.4.2 (perchloroethylene

method) is an acceptable alternate test method.

8.8.3 Report the level of non

- condensable as percent by volume.

Section 9. Performance Calculation and Rating

9.1 The liquid refrigerant recovery rate shall be expressed

in pounds per minute [kg/min] and measured by weight change

at the mixing chamber (See Figure 1) divided by elapsed time

to an accuracy within .02 lbs/min. [.009 kg/min]. Ratings using

the Push/Pull method shall be identified "Push/Pull". Equipment

may be rated by both methods.

9.2 The vapor refrigerant recovery rate shall be expressed

in pounds per minute [kg/min] and measured by weight change

at the mixing chamber (See Figure 1) divided by elapsed time

to an accuracy within .02 lbs/min. [.0.009 kg/min].

9.3 The recycle rate is defined in 3.7 and expressed in pounds

per minute [kg/min] of flow and shall be per ASHRAE 41.7

- 84

"Procedure For Fluid Measurement Of Gases" or ASHRAE 41.8

- 89

"Standard Method of Flow of Fluids

- Liquids."

9.3.1 For equipment using multipass recycling or a separate

sequence, the recycle rate shall be determined by dividing the

net weight W of the refrigerant to be recycled by the actual

time T required to recycle the refrigerant. Any set

- up or operator

interruptions shall not be included in the time T. The accuracy

of the recycle rate shall be within .02 lbs/min. [.009 kg/min].

9.3.2 If no separate recycling sequence is used, the recycle

rate shall be the higher of the vapor refrigerant recovery rate

or the liquid refrigerant recovery rate. The recycle rate shall

match a process which leads to contaminant levels in 9.6. Specifically,

a recovery rate determined from bypassing a contaminant removal

device cannot be used as a recycle rate when the contaminant

levels in 9.6 are determined by passing the refrigerant through

the containment removal device.

9.4 Refrigerant loss due to non

- condensable purging shall

be less than 5%. This rating shall be expressed as "passed"

if less than 5%.

This calculation will be based upon net loss of non

- condensables

and refrigerant due to the purge divided by the initial net

content. The net loss shall be determined by weighing before

and after the purge, by collecting purged gases, or an equivalent

method.

9.5 The final recovery vacuum shall be the mixing chamber

pressure called for in 7.1.2.5 expressed in inches of mercury

vacuum, [mm Hg or kP]. The accuracy of the measurement shall

be within ñ

. 1 inch [ ñ 2.5mm] of Hg and rounding down to the nearest

whole number.

9.6 The contaminant levels remaining after testing shall

be published as follows:

Moisture content, PPM by weight

Chloride ions, Pass/Fail

Acidity, PPM by weight

High boiling residue, percentage by volume

Particulate/solid, Pass/Fail

Non

- condensables, % by volume

9.7 Product Literature: Except as provided under product

labelling in Section 11. performance ratings per 9.1, 9.2, 9.3,

and 9.5 must be grouped together and shown for all listed refrigerants

(11.2) subject to limitations of 9.8. Wherever any contaminant

levels per 9.6 are rated, all ratings in 9.6 must be shown for

all listed refrigerants subject to limitations of 9.8. The type

of equipment in 11.1 must be included with either grouping.

Optional ratings in 9.8 need not be shown. 

### Page 137 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html9.8 Ratings shall include all of the parameters for each

designed refrigerant in 11.2 as shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2.

- Performance

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3 3 3 System

Parameter/type of equipment 3 Recovery 3 Recovery 3 Recycle 3 depende

-

3 3 / recycle 3 3 nt equ

-

3 3 3 3 ipment

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3 3 3

Liquid refrigerant recovery 3 ( 2) 3 ( 2) 3 N/A 3 N/A

rate. 3 3 3 3

Vapor refrigerant recovery rate 3 ( 2) 3 ( 2) 3 N/A 3 N/A

3 3 3 3

Final recovery vacuum.......... 3 ( 1) 3 ( 1) 3 N/A 3 ( 1)

Recycle rate................... 3 N/A 3 ( 1) 3 ( 1) 3 N/A

Refrigerant loss due to non

- 3 ( 3) 3 ( 1) 3 ( 1) 3 N/A

condensable purging. 3 3 3 3

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

1 Mandatory rating.

2 For a recovery or recovery/recycle unit, one must rate for either liquid

feed only or vapor feed only or can rate for both. If rating only the one,

the other shall be indicated by "N/A."

3 For Recovery Equipment, these parameters are optional. If not rated, use

N/A.

Table 3.

- Contaminants

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3 Recovery/ 3 3 System

Contaminant/type of equipment 3 Recovery 3 recycle 3 Recycle 3 dependent

3 3 3 3 equipment

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3 3 3

Moisture content ................. 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA.

Chloride ions .................... 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA.

Acidity .......................... 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA.

High boiling residue ............. 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA.

Particulates ..................... 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA.

Non

- condensables ................. 3 (*) 3 x 3 x 3 NA.

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

* For Recovery Equipment, these parameters are optional. If not rated, use N/A.

x Mandatory rating.

Section 10. Tolerances

10.1 Any equipment tested shall produce contaminant levels

not higher than the published ratings. The liquid refrigerant

recovery rate, vapor refrigerant recovery rate, final recovery

vacuum and recycle rate shall not be less than the published

ratings.

Section 11. Product Labelling

11.1 Type of equipment. The type of equipment shall be as

listed:

11.1.1 Recovery only

11.1.2 System Dependent Recovery

11.1.3 Recovery/Recycle 

### Page 138 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html11.1.4 Recycle only

11.2 Designated refrigerants and the following as applicable

for each:

11.2.1 Liquid Recovery Rate

11.2.2 Vapor Recovery Rate

11.2.3 Final Recovery Vacuum

11.2.4 Recycle Rate

Section 12. Voluntary Conformance

12.1 Conformance. While conformance with this standard is

voluntary, conformance shall not be claimed or implied for products

or equipment within its Purpose (Section 1) and Scope (Section

2) unless such claims meet all of the requirements of the standards.

Appendix A

Particulate Used in Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample.

1. Particulate Specification

1.1 The particulate material pm will be a blend of 50% coarse

air cleaner dust as received, and 50% retained on a 200

- mesh

screen. The coarse air cleaner dust is available from: AC Spark

Plug Division, General Motors Corporation, Flint, Michigan.

1.2 Preparation of Particulate Materials

To prepare the blend of contaminant, first wet screen a quantity

of coarse air cleaner dust on a 200

- mesh screen (particle retention

74 pm). This is done by placing a portion of the dust on a 200

-

mesh screen and running water through the screen while stirring

the dust with the fingers. The fine contaminant particles passing

through the screen are discarded. The +200 mesh particles collected

on the screen are removed and dried for one hour at 230 F [110

ø C]. The blend of standard contaminant is prepared by mixing

50% by weight of coarse air cleaner dust as received after drying

for one hour at 230 F [110 ø C] with 50% by weight of the +200

mesh screened dust.

1.3 The coarse air cleaner dust as received and the blend

used as the standard contaminant have the following approximate

particle size analysis: Wt. % in various size ranges, pm.

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Size range 3 As received 3 Blend

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3 3

0

- 5 .......................................... 3 12 3 6

5

- 10 ......................................... 3 12 3 6

10

- 20 ......................................... 3 14 3 7

20

- 40 ......................................... 3 23 3 11

40

- 80 ......................................... 3 30 3 32

80

- 200 ........................................ 3 9 3 38

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Appendix C to Subpart F

- Method for Testing Recovery Devices

for Use With Small Appliances

Recovery Efficiency Test Procedure for Refrigerant Recovery

Equipment Used on Small Appliances

The following test procedure is utilized to evaluate the

efficiency of equipment designed to recover ozone depleting

refrigerants (or any substitute refrigerant subject to the recycling

rules promulgated pursuant to section 608 of the Clean Air Act 

### Page 139 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlAmendments of 1990) from small appliances when service of those

appliances requires entry into the sealed refrigeration system

or when those appliances are destined for disposal. This procedure

is designed to calculate on a weight or mass basis the percentage

of a known charge of CFC

- 12 refrigerant removed and captured

from a test stand refrigeration system. Captured refrigerant

is that refrigerant delivered to a container suitable for shipment

to a refrigerant reclaimer plus any refrigerant remaining in

the recovery system in a manner that it will be transferred

to a shipping container after additional recovery operations.

The test stand refrigeration system required for this procedure

is constructed with standard equipment utilized in currently

produced household refrigerator and freezer products. The procedure

also accounts for compressor oils that might be added to or

removed from the test stand compressor or any compressor used

in the recovery system.

I. Test Stand

Test stands are constructed in accordance with the following

standards.

1. Evaporator

- 5/16 in. outside dia. with 30 cu. in. volume.

2. Condenser

- 1/4 in. outside dia. with 20 cu. in volume.

3. Suction line capillary heat exchanger

- appropriate for

compressor used.

4. An 800

- 950 Btu/hr high side case (rotary) compressor;

or (depending on the test senario);

5. An 800

- 9500 Btu/hr low side case (reciprocating) compressor.

A person seeking to have its recovery system certified shall

specify the compressors by manufacturer and model that are to

be used in test stands constructed for evaluation of its equipment,

and the type and quantity of compressor to be used in those

compressors. Only a compressor oil approved for use by the compressor's

manufacturer may be specified, and the quantity of compressor

oil specified shall be an appropriate quantity for the type

of oil and compressor to be used. In order to reduce the cost

of testing, the person seeking certification of its recovery

system may supply an EPA approved third party testing laboratory

with test stands meeting these standards for use in evaluating

its recovery system.

II. Test Conditions

Tests are to be conducted at 75 degrees F, plus or minus

2 degrees F (23.9 C +/

- 1.1 C). Separate tests are conducted

on both high side case compressor stands and low side case compressor

stands. Separate tests are also conducted with the test stand

compressor running during the recovery operation, and without

the test stand compressor running during the recovery operation,

to calculate the system's recovery efficiency under either condition.

These tests are to be performed using a representative model

of all equipment used in the recovery system to deliver recovered

refrigerant to a container suitable for shipment to a refrigerant

reclaimer. The test stands are to be equipped with access valves

permanently installed as specific by the recovery system's vendor

to represent the valves used with that system in actual field

operations.

A series of five (5) recovery operations are to be performed

for each compressor scenario and a recovery efficiency is calculated

based on the total quantity of refrigerant captured during all

five (5) recoveries. Alternatively, at the request of the recovery

system's vendor, a recovery efficiency is to be calculated for

each recovery event. In this case, a statistically significant

number of recovery operations are to be performed. Determination

of what is a statistically significant number of recoveries

is to be calculated as set out below. These individual recovery 

### Page 140 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlefficiencies are then averaged.

There are four (4) compressor scenarios to be tested. These

are a high side case compressor in working condition; a high

side case compressor in nonworking condition; a low side case

compressor in working condition; and a low side case compressor

in nonworking condition. Recovery efficiencies calculated for

the two working compressor scenarios are to be averaged to report

a working compressor performance. The two nonworking compressor

efficiencies are also to be averaged to report a nonworking

compressor performance.

If large scale equipment is required in the system to deliver

recovered refrigerant to a refrigerant reclaimer (eg. carbon

desorption equipment) and it is not possible to have that equipment

evaluated under the procedure, the system's vendor shall obtain

engineering data on the performance of that large scale equipment

that will reasonably demonstrate the percentage refrigerant

lost when processed by that equipment. That data will be supplied

to any person required to evaluate the performance of those

systems. The following procedure will also be modified as needed

to determine the weight of refrigerant recovered from a test

stand and delivered to a container for shipment to the large

process equipment for further processing. The percentage loss

documented to occur during processing is then to be applied

to the recovery efficiencies calculated in this modified procedure

to determine the overall capture efficiency for the entire system.

The following are definitions of symbols used in the test

procedure.

Test Stand:

"TSO" means an original test stand weight.

"TSC" means a charged test stand weight.

Shipping Containers:

"SCO" means the original or empty weight of shipping container(s).

"SCF" means the final or full weight of shipping container(s).

Recover/Transfer System:

"RSO" means the original weight of a recovery/transfer system.

"RSF" means the final weight of a recovery/transfer system.

"OL" means the net amount of oil added/removed from the recovery

device and/or transfer device between the beginning and

end of the test for one compressor scenario.

Weighing steps are conducted with precision and accuracy of

plus or minus 1.0 gram.

III. Test Procedure

1. Evacuate the test stand to 20 microns vacuum (pressure

measured at a vacuum pump) for 12 hours.

2. Weigh the test stand (TSO).

3. If this is the first recovery operation being performed

for a compressor scenario (or if a recovery efficiency is to

be calculated for each recovery event), then weigh all devices

used in the recovery system to deliver recovered refrigerant

to a container suitable for shipment or delivery to a refrigerant

reclaimer. Weigh only devices that can retain refrigerant in

a manner that it will ultimately be transferred to a shipping

container without significant release to the atmosphere (RSO).

4. Weigh final shipping containers (SCO).

5. Charge the test stand with an appropriate CFC

- 12 charge

(either 6 oz. or 9 oz.).

6. Run the test stand for four (4) hours with 100% run time. 

### Page 141 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html7. Turn off the test stand for twelve (12) hours. During

this period evaporate all condensation that has collected on

the test stand during step 6.

8. Weigh the test stand (TSC).

9. Recover CFC

- 12 from the test stand and perform all operations

needed to transfer the recovered refrigerant to one of the shipping

containers weighed in step 4. All recovery and transfer operations

are to be performed in accordance with the operating instructions

provided by the system's vendor. The compressor in the test

stand is to remain "off" or be turned "on" during the recovery

operation depending on whether the test is for a nonworking

or working compressor performance evaluation. If a recovery

efficiency is to be calculated for each recovery event, transfer

the captured refrigerant to a shipping container and then skip

to step 13. Otherwise continue. If the system allows for multiple

recovery operations to be performed before transferring recovered

refrigerant to a shipping container, the transfer operation

can be delayed until either the maximum number of recovery operations

allowed before a transfer is required have been performed, or

the last of the five (5) recovery operations has been performed.

10. Perform any oil removal or oil addition operations needed

to properly maintain the test stand and the devices used for

recovery or transfer operations. Determine the net weight of

the oil added or removed from the recovery device and/or transfer

device. (OP1 for oil added, OP2 for oil removed).

11. Evacuate the test stand to 20 microns vacuum for 4 hours.

12. Return to step 2 unless five (5) recovery operations

have been performed.

13. Weigh all final shipping containers that received recovered

refrigerant (SCF).

14. Weigh the equipment weighed in step three (3) above (RSF).

If a recovery efficiency is to be calculated for each recovery

event, perform calculations and return to step one (1) for additional

recoveries.

IV. Calculations

A. For Five (5) Consecutive Recoveries

Refrigerant Recoverable equals the summation of charged test

stand weights minus original test stand weights.

5

Refrigerant Recoverable = ä ( TSCi

- TSOi)

i=1

Oil Loss equals the net weight of oil added to and removed

from the recovery device and/or transfer device.

5

OL = ä ( OP1i

- OP2i)

i=1

Refrigerant Recovered equals the final weight of shipping

containers minus the initial weight of final shipping containers,

plus final recovery system weight, minus original recovery system

weight, plus the net value of all additions and removals of

oil from the recovery and transfer devices.

n

Refrigerant Recovered = ( ä SCFi

- SCOi ) + RSF

- RSO

- OL 

### Page 142 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmli=1

n=number of shipping containers used.

Recovery Efficiency equals Refrigerant Recovered divided

by Refrigerant Recoverable times 100%.

Refrigerant Recovered

Recovery Efficiency = ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 100%

Refrigerant Recoverable

B. For Individual Recoveries

Refrigerant Recoverable equals the charged test stand weight

minus the original test stand weight.

Refrigerant Recoverable = TSCO

- TSO

Refrigerant Recovered equals the final weight of the shipping

container minus the initial weight of the shipping container

plus the final weight of the recovery system minus the original

recovery system weight.

Refrigerant Recovered = SCF

- SCO + RSF

- RSO

Recovery Efficiency equals Refrigerant Recovered divided

by Refrigerant Recoverable times 100 percent.

Refrigerant Recovered

Recovery Efficiency = ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 100%

Refrigerant Recoverable

C. Calculation of a Statistically Significant Number of Recoveries

Nadd = (( t * sd )/(. 10 * X )) 2

- N

Where:

Nadd=the number of additional samples required to achieve

90% confidence.

sd=Standard deviation, or (X/(N

- 1 ) 5 )

X=Sample average

N=Number of samples tested

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Number of samples 3 t for 90%

3 confidence 

### Page 143 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

3

2........................................................... 3 6.814

3........................................................... 3 2.920

4........................................................... 3 2.353

5........................................................... 3 2.132

6........................................................... 3 2.015

7........................................................... 3 1.943

8........................................................... 3 1.895

9........................................................... 3 1.860

10........................................................... 3 1.833

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Procedure:

1. Compute Nadd after completing two recoveries.

2. If Nadd>0, then run an additional test.

3. Re

- compute Nadd. Continue to test additional

samples until Nadd<0.

V. Test Procedure Approval and Certification

Each vendor of capture equipment for small appliances desiring

certification will provide a representative model of its capture

system and its recommended recovery procedures to an EPA approved

third party laboratory for testing in accordance with this procedure.

The third party laboratory will certify recovery systems that

when tested in accordance with this procedure demonstrate a

sufficient recovery efficiency to meet EPA regulatory requirements.

Appendix D to Subpart F

- Standards for Becoming a Certifying

Program for Technicians

Standards for Certifying Programs

a. Test Preparation

Certification for Type II, Type III and Universal technicians

will be dependent upon passage of a closed

- book, proctored test,

administered in a secure environment, by an EPA

- approved certifying

program.

Certification for Type I technicians will be dependent upon

passage of an EPA

- approved test, provided by an EPA

- approved

certifying program. Organizations providing Type I certification

only, may chose either an on

- site format, or a mail

- in format,

similar to what is permitted under the MVACs program.

Each certifying program must assemble tests by choosing a

prescribed subset from the EPA test bank. EPA expects to have

a test bank with a minimum of 500 questions, which will enable

the certifying program to generate multiple tests in order to

discourage cheating. Each test must include 25 questions drawn

from Group 1 and 25 questions drawn from each relevant technical

Group. Tests for Universal technicians will include 100 questions

(25 from Group 1 and 25 from each relevant technical Group).

Each 50

- question test represents 10 percent of the total test

bank. Questions should be divided in order to sufficiently cover

each topic within the Group.

Each certifying program must show a method of randomly choosing

which questions will be on the tests. Multiple versions of the

test must be used during each testing event. Test answer sheets

or (for those testing via the computer medium) computer files

must include the name and address of the applicant, the name

and address of the certifying program, and the date and location 

### Page 144 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlat which the test was administered.

Training material accompanying mail

- in Type I tests must

not include sample test questions mimicking the language of

the certification test. All mail

- in material will be subject

to review by EPA.

Certifying programs may charge individuals reasonable fees

for the administration of the tests. EPA will publish a list

of all approved certifying programs periodically, including

the fees charged by the programs. This information will be available

from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline.

b. Proctoring

A certifying program for Type II, Type III and Universal

technicians must designate or arrange for the designation of

at least one proctor registered for each testing event. If more

than 50 people are taking tests at the same time at a given

site, the certifying organization must adhere to normal testing

procedures, by designating at least one additional proctor or

monitor for every 50 people taking tests at that site.

The certification test for Type II, Type III and Universal

technicians is a closed

- book exam. The proctors must ensure

that the applicants for certification do not use any notes or

training materials during testing. Desks or work space must

be placed in a way that discourages cheating. The space and

physical facilities are to be conducive to continuous surveillance

by the proctors and monitors during testing.

The proctor may not receive any benefit from the outcome

of the testing other than a fee for proctoring. Proctors cannot

know in advance which questions are on the tests they are proctoring.

Proctors are required to verify the identity of individuals

taking the test by examining photo identification. Acceptable

forms of identification include but are not limited to drivers'

licenses, government identification cards, passports, and military

identification.

Certifying programs for Type I technicians using the mail

in format, must take sufficient measures at the test site to

ensure that tests are completed honestly by each technician.

Each test for Type I certification must provide a means of verifying

the identification of the individual taking the test. Acceptable

forms of identification include but are not limited to drivers'

licenses numbers, social security numbers, and passport numbers.

c. Test Security

A certifying program must demonstrate the ability to ensure

the confidentiality and security of the test questions and answer

keys through strict accountability procedures. An organization

interested in developing a technician certification program

will be required to describe these test security procedures

to EPA.

After the completion of a test, proctors must collect all

test forms, answer sheets, scratch paper and notes. These items

are to be placed in a sealed envelope.

d. Test Content

All technician certification tests will include 25 questions

from Group I. Group I will ask questions in the following areas:

I. Environmental impact of CFCs and HCFCs

II. Laws and regulations

III. Changing industry outlook

Type I, Type II and Type III certification tests will include

25 questions from Group II. Group II will ask questions covering

sector

- specific issues in the following areas:

IV. Leak detection

V. Recovery Techniques 

### Page 145 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlVI. Safety

VII. Shipping

VII. Disposal

Universal Certification will include 75 questions from Group

II, with 25 from each of the three sector

- specific areas.

e. Grading

Tests must be graded objectively. Certifying programs must

inform the applicant of their test results no later than 30

days from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using

the mail

- in format, must notify the applicants of their test

results no later than 30 days from the date the certifying programs

received the completed test and any required documentation.

Certifying programs may mail or hand deliver the results.

The passing score for the closed

- book Type I, Type II, Type

III and Universal certification test is 70 percent. For Type

I certification tests using the mail

- in format, passing score

is 84 percent.

f. Proof of Certification

Certifying programs must issue a standard wallet

- sized identification

card no later than 30 days from the date of the test. Type I

certifying programs using mail

- in formats must issue cards to

certified technicians no later than 30 days from the date the

certifying program receives the completed test and any required

documentation.

Each wallet

- sized identification card must include, at a

minimum, the name of the certifying program including the date

the certifying program received EPA approval, the name of the

person certified, the type of certification, a unique number

for the certified person and the following text:

[name of person] has been certified as [Type I, Type II,

Type III and/or Universal

- as appropriate] technician as required

by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.

g. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Certifying programs must maintain records for at least three

years which include but are not limited to the names and addresses

of all individuals taking the tests, the scores of all certification

tests administered, and the dates and locations of all tests

administered.

Certifying programs must send EPA an activity report every

six months, the first to be submitted six months following approval

of the program by EPA. This report will include the pass/fail

rate and testing schedules. This will allow the Agency to determine

the relative progress and success of these programs. If the

certifying program believes a test bank question needs to be

modified, information about that question should also be included.

Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval

from EPA. Each testing center must display a copy of that letter.

h. Additional Requirements

EPA will periodically inspect testing sites to ensure compliance

with EPA regulations. If testing center discrepancies are found,

they must be corrected within a specified time period. If discrepancies

are not corrected, EPA may suspend or revoke the certifying

programs's approval. The inspections will include but are not

limited to a review of the certifying programs' provisions for

test security, the availability of space and facilities to conduct

the administrative requirements and ensure the security of the

tests, the availability of adequate testing facilities and spacing

of the applicants during testing, a review of the proper procedures

regarding accountability, and that there is no evidence of misconduct 

### Page 146 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.htmlon the part of the certifying programs, their representatives

and proctors, or the applicants for certification.

If the certifying programs offer training or provide review

materials to the applicants, these endeavors are to be considered

completely separate from the administration of the certification

test.

i. Approval Process

EPA anticipates receiving a large number of applications

from organizations seeking to become certifying programs. In

order to certify as many technicians as possible in a reasonable

amount of time, EPA will give priority to national programs.

Below are the guidelines EPA will use:

First: Certifying programs providing at least 25 testing

centers with a minimum of one site in at least 8 different states

will be considered.

Second: Certifying programs forming regional networks with

a minimum of 10 testing centers will be considered.

Third: Certifying programs providing testing centers in geographically

isolated areas not sufficiently covered by the national or regional

programs will be considered.

Fourth: All other programs applying for EPA approval will

be considered.

Sample application forms may be obtained by contacting the

Stratopheric Ozone Hotline at 1

- 800

- 296

- 1996.

j. Grandfathering

EPA will grandfather technicians whose programs seek and

receive EPA approval as a certifying program. As part of this

process, these certifying programs may be required to send EPA

approved supplemental information or provide additional testing

to ensure the level of the technicians' knowledge. The certifying

programs will also issue new identification cards meeting the

requirements specified above.

Persons who are currently technicians must be certified by

November 14, 1994. Technicians that participated in certification

programs which do not become EPA

- approved certifying programs

must either receive EPA

- approved supplemental information from

the original testing organization or be certified by taking

a test given by an EPA

- approved certification organization by

November 14, 1994.

k. Sample Application

EPA has provided a sample application. The Agency designed

the application to demonstrate the information certifying programs

must provide to EPA. Programs are not required to use this form

or this format.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control

number 2060

- 0256)

[FR Doc. 93

- 10832 Filed 5

- 13

- 93; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560

- 50

- P

Ozone Home | Ozone Science | Rules & Regulations | Alternatives

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us

Last updated on Friday, March 25th, 2005

URL: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html 

### Page 147 of 147 U.S. EPA: Section 608 Final Rule

10/14/2005 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html