32044 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–6107–1]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;

Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute

Refrigerants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the

rule on refrigerant recycling

promulgated under section 608 of the

Clean Air Act to clarify how the

requirements of section 608 extend to

refrigerants that are used as substitutes

for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)

refrigerants. This proposed rule would

supplement a self-effectuating

prohibition on venting substitute

refrigerants to the atmosphere that

became effective on November 15, 1995.

It would also exempt certain substitute

refrigerants from the prohibition on the

basis of current evidence that their

release does not pose a threat to the

environment. In addition, EPA is

proposing to change the current

requirements for CFC and HCFC

refrigerants to accommodate the

proliferation of new refrigerants on the

market and to strengthen and clarify the

existing leak repair requirements for

equipment containing CFC and HCFC

refrigerants. This proposed rule will

significantly reduce emissions of

environmentally harmful refrigerants in

a cost-effective manner.

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed rule must be received by

August 10, 1998, unless a hearing is

requested by June 18, 1998. If a hearing

is requested, written comments must be

received by August 31, 1998. If

requested, a public hearing will be held

at 10:00 am, July 1, 1998, at 501 3rd St.

NW, Washington, DC in the 1st Floor

Conference Room. Individuals wishing

to request a hearing must contact the

Stratospheric Ozone Information

Hotline at 1–800–296–1996 by June 18,

1998. To find out whether a hearing will

take place, contact the Stratospheric

Ozone Information Hotline between

June 22, 1998 and July 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in duplicate to the attention

of Air Docket No. A–92–01 VIII.H at:

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Additional information may be found at

Air Docket No. A–91–42, which is

incorporated by reference for purposes

of this rulemaking. (Please do not

submit comments on this proposed rule

to A–91–42.) The Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center is

located in room M–1500, Waterside

Mall (Ground Floor), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Dockets may be

inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debbie Ottinger, Program

Implementation Branch, Stratospheric

Protection Division, Office of

Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air

and Radiation (6205–J), 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460. The

Stratospheric Ozone Information

Hotline at 1–800–296–1996 can also be

contacted for further information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

contents of this preamble are listed in

the following outline:

I. Regulated Entities

II. Background

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

B. Factors Considered in the Development

of this Proposal

C. Public Participation

III. Scope of Statutory and Proposed

Regulatory Requirements

A. Overview of Proposed Requirements

1. HFCs and PFCs

2. Chemically Active Common Gases

3. Hydrocarbons

4. Proposed Changes to Requirements for

CFCs and HCFCs

B. Determination of Whether Release or

Disposal Poses a Threat to the

Environment

1. Methodology

2. HFCs and PFCs

3. Chemically Active Common Gases

4. Hydrocarbons

5. Inert Atmospheric Constituents

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Appliance

a. Inclusion of Heat Transfer Devices in the

Term ‘‘Appliance’’

b. Coverage of One-Time Expansion

Devices

c. Secondary Loops

2. Full Charge

3. High-pressure Appliance

4. Higher-pressure Appliance

5. Leak Rate

6. Low-pressure Appliance

7. Opening

8. Reclaim

9. Refrigerant

10. Substitute

11. Technician

12. Very-high-pressure Appliance

B. Required Practices

1. Evacuation of Appliances

a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances

Other Than Small Appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC-like Appliances

b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances

c. Evacuation Levels for Disposed MVACs,

MVAC-like Appliances, and Small

Appliances

d. Request for Comment on Establishing

Special Evacuation Requirements for

Heat Transfer Appliances

e. Proposed Clarifications of Evacuation

Requirements

2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant

a. Background

b. Extending Purity Requirements to HFC

and PFC Refrigerants

c. Updating the Purity Standard

d. Generic Standard of Purity

e. Possible Application of Standard of

Purity to New Refrigerants

3. Leak Repair

a. Comfort Cooling Chillers

b. Commercial Refrigeration

c. Industrial Process Refrigeration

d. Cross-sector Issues

e. Coverage of HFC and PFC Appliances

f. Clarification of Current Requirements

4. Proposed Changes for Servicing of

MVAC-like Appliances

a. Background

b. Recent Amendments to Subpart B

c. Today’s Proposal

C. Equipment Certification

1. Certification of Recovery and Recycling

Equipment Intended for Use with

Appliances Except Small Appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances

a. Background

b. Certification of Recovery/recycling

Equipment Used with HFCs and PFCs

c. Use of Representative Refrigerants in

Equipment Testing

d. Additional Refrigerants

e. Materials Compatibility

f. Fractionation

g. Flammability

2. Certification of Recovery and Recycling

Equipment Intended for Use with Small

Appliances

3. Approval of Equipment Testing

Organizations to Test Recovery

Equipment with HFC and PFC

Refrigerants

4. Use of Existing CFC/HCFC Recovery

Equipment with HFC and PFC

Refrigerants

D. Technician Certification

E. Sales Restriction

F. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances

1. Coverage of HFCs and PFCs

2. Possible Clarifications

G. Certification by Owners of Recycling or

Recovery Equipment

H. Servicing Apertures

I. Prohibition on Manufacture of One-Time

Expansion Devices that Contain Other

than Exempted Refrigerants

J. Recordkeeping Requirements

V. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility

E. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

F. Children’s Health Protection
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32045

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action include those who manufacture,

own, maintain, service, repair, or

dispose of all types of air-conditioning

and refrigeration equipment; those who

sell or reclaim refrigerants; and

manufacturers of refrigerant recycling

and recovery equipment. Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ......... Manufacturers of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment.

Technicians who service, maintain, repair, or dispose of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

Owners of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, including building owners and operators, grocery stores, chemical, pharmaceutical, and petrochemical manufacturers, ice machine operators, utilities.

Manufacturers of recycling and recovery equipment.

Refrigerant reclaimers.

Scrap yards and auto dismantlers.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be affected by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be affected.

To determine whether your company is

regulated by this action, you should

carefully examine the applicability

criteria contained in section 608 of the

Clean Air Amendments of 1990;

discussed in regulations published on

December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69638); and

discussed below. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

Effective November 15, 1995, section

608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act prohibits

the knowing release of substitutes for

CFC and HCFC refrigerants during the

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal

of air-conditioning and refrigeration

equipment, unless EPA determines that

such release does not pose a threat to

the environment. Although EPA is

proposing to determine that releases of

some substitute refrigerants do not pose

a threat to the environment, there are

other substitutes, specifically HFCs and

PFCs, for which EPA is not proposing to

make such a determination. Thus, EPA

is proposing a regulation that will

clarify how the venting prohibition of

section 608(c)(2) must be implemented

for HFC and PFC refrigerants, as well as

any other refrigerants whose release

EPA does not find does not pose a threat

to the environment. EPA is also

proposing to strengthen the existing leak

repair requirements for some types of

appliances containing CFCs and HCFCs,

in recognition of design changes that

have lowered achievable leak rates.

By establishing requirements

regarding the maintenance, service,

repair, and disposal of appliances

containing HFC and PFC refrigerants,

EPA believes that this proposed rule

would help to minimize any

environmental harm that might result

from the transition away from ozonedepleting chemicals. In this respect, this

proposed rule is similar to regulations

being implemented under sections 609

and 612 of the Act. This rule would

directly limit emissions of gases that

result in global warming, whose

possible consequences are discussed at

length in section III.B.2 below. In

addition, the proposed rule would

reduce emissions of ozone-depleting

refrigerants by establishing a consistent

regulatory framework for all halocarbon

refrigerants and by lowering leak rates

for appliances containing ozonedepleting refrigerants. The

environmental and human health

consequences of ozone depletion

include increased rates of skin cancer

and cataracts, suppression of the

immune system, increased formation of

ground-level ozone, damage to crops

and other plants, and damage to marine

microorganisms at the base of the

aquatic food chain. The establishment of

a consistent regulatory framework

would also facilitate compliance with

the Section 608 National Recycling and

Emissions Reduction Program by

simplifying and clarifying regulatory

requirements.

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990, provides the legal

basis for this rulemaking. It requires

EPA to establish a comprehensive

program to limit emissions of ozonedepleting refrigerants, and prohibits the

release of these refrigerants, and

eventually their substitutes, during the

servicing and disposal of airconditioning and refrigeration

equipment.

Section 608 is divided into three

subsections. In brief, the first, section

608(a), requires regulations to reduce

the use and emission of class I

substances (CFCs, halons, carbon

tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform)

and class II substances (HCFCs) to the

lowest achievable level, and to

maximize the recycling of such

substances. Section 608(b) requires that

the regulations promulgated pursuant to

subsection (a) contain requirements

concerning the safe disposal of class I

and class II substances. Finally, section

608(c) establishes self-effectuating

prohibitions on the venting into the

environment of class I or class II

substances, and eventually their

substitutes, during servicing and

disposal of air-conditioning or

refrigeration equipment.

Specifically, subsection 608(c)

provides in paragraph (1) that, effective

July 1, 1992, it is ‘‘unlawful for any

person, in the course of maintaining,

servicing, repairing, or disposing of an

appliance or industrial process

refrigeration, to knowingly vent or

otherwise knowingly release or dispose

of any class I or class II substance used

as a refrigerant’’ in a manner that

‘‘permits such substance to enter the

environment.’’ The statute exempts from

this self-effectuating prohibition ‘‘de

minimis releases associated with good

faith attempts to recapture and recycle

or safely dispose’’ of a substance. EPA

considers releases to meet the criteria

for exempted de minimis releases when

they occur while the recycling and

recovery requirements of the section 608

and 609 regulations are followed (40

CFR 82.154(a)). Section 608(c)(2)

extends the prohibition on venting to

substances that are substitutes for class

I and class II refrigerants, effective

November 15, 1995, unless the

Administrator determines that such

venting or release does not pose a threat

to the environment.

On May 14, 1993, EPA published final

regulations implementing subsections

(a), (b), and (c)(1) (58 FR 28660). These

regulations include evacuation

requirements for appliances being

serviced or disposed of, standards and

testing requirements for recycling and

recovery equipment, certification

requirements for technicians, purity
32046 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1As discussed below, ammonia may nevertheless

be exempted from these regulations because EPA is

standards and testing requirements for

used refrigerant sold to a new owner,

certification requirements for refrigerant

reclaimers, leak repair requirements,

and requirements for the safe disposal of

appliances that enter the waste stream

with the charge intact.

EPA is today proposing regulations to

implement and clarify the requirements

of section 608(c)(2), which extends the

prohibition on venting to substitutes for

CFC and HCFC refrigerants. EPA

believes that these regulations are also

important to the Agency’s efforts to

continue to carry out its mandate under

section 608(a) to minimize emissions of

ozone-depleting substances. In addition

to sections 608 (a) and (c), EPA is

relying on its authority under section

301(a) of the Act to promulgate these

requirements.

While section 608(c) is selfeffectuating, EPA regulations are

necessary to define ‘‘(d)e minimis

releases associated with good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or

safely dispose’’ of such substances and

to effectively implement and enforce the

venting prohibition. EPA believes that

these regulations will help to implement

the prohibition by providing: (1) Clear

guidance to technicians working with

substitute refrigerants on what releases

do and do not constitute violations of

the prohibition, (2) information on the

performance of recycling and recovery

equipment intended for use with

substitute refrigerants through the

equipment certification program, and (3)

information on how to recycle

effectively and efficiently through the

technician certification program.

Section 301(a) authorizes EPA to

‘‘prescribe such regulations as are

necessary to carry out (its) functions

under this Act.’’ Section 608(c) provides

EPA authority to promulgate regulations

to interpret, implement and enforce the

venting prohibition. Section 301(a)

supplements EPA’s authority under

section 608(c) to promulgate regulations

to carry out EPA’s functions under

section 608(c).

Section 608(a) provides EPA

additional authority to promulgate

many of the requirements proposed

today. Section 608(a) requires EPA to

promulgate regulations regarding use

and disposal of class I and II substances

that ‘‘reduce the use and emission of

such substances to the lowest

achievable level’’ and ‘‘maximize the

recapture and recycling of such

substances.’’ Section 608(a) further

provides that ‘‘(s)uch regulations may

include requirements to use alternative

substances (including substances which

are not class I or class II substances)

* * * or to promote the use of safe

alternatives pursuant to section 612 or

any combination of the foregoing.’’ As

discussed further below, improper

handling of substitute substances is

likely to produce contamination (and

therefore reduction in recycling) and

release of class I and class II substances.

EPA’s authority to promulgate

regulations regarding use of class I and

II substances, including requirements to

use alternatives, is sufficiently broad to

include requirements on how to use

alternatives, where this is needed to

reduce emissions and maximize

recycling of class I and II substances.

In particular, certification

requirements for technicians who

perform work that could release

substitute refrigerants to the

atmosphere, as enforced through a sales

restriction on substitutes, are critical to

fulfill the statutory goals for class I and

II substances. Technician certification

and a sales restriction are necessary to

ensure that persons lacking the

expertise tested through certification do

not release or contaminate class I and II

substances in the course of using

substitutes to recharge or perform other

work on systems containing class I and

II substances. In addition, applying one

consistent set of requirements to all

relevant refrigerants will promote

compliance with and enforcement of

those requirements for both ozonedepleting refrigerants and their

substitutes by reducing complexity and

minimizing loopholes.

As discussed below, EPA is proposing

requirements very similar to those for

CFCs and HCFCs for some alternative

refrigerants, while EPA is proposing to

exempt other refrigerants from the

prohibition on venting because their

release or disposal does not pose a

threat to the environment.

B. Factors Considered in the

Development of this Proposal

In developing these proposed

regulations, EPA has considered a

number of factors. First, EPA has

considered which non-ozone-depleting

refrigerants should be classified as

‘‘substitute’’ refrigerants. EPA is

proposing to adopt a definition that is

similar to that adopted by EPA in its

Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) Program, except the proposed

definition omits the proviso of the

SNAP definition that a substitute be

‘‘intended for use as a replacement for

a class I or class II substance.’’ For the

purposes of section 608, therefore, EPA

proposes to consider a refrigerant a

substitute in a certain end-use if the

substance is used as a substitute for

CFCs or HCFCs in that end-use by any

user. That is, EPA would consider a

refrigerant a ‘‘substitute’’ for CFCs or

HCFCs under section 608 if any of the

following were the case: (1) The

substitute refrigerant immediately

replaced a CFC or HCFC in a specific

instance, (2) the substitute refrigerant

replaced another substitute that

replaced a CFC or HCFC in a specific

instance (was a second- or latergeneration substitute), or (3) the

substitute refrigerant had always been

used in a particular instance, but other

users in that end-use had used it to

replace a CFC or HCFC.

EPA does not believe that it is

appropriate under section 608 to

consider the intent or history of an

individual user in determining whether

a refrigerant is a ‘‘substitute’’ for CFCs

or HCFCs in a given instance. First, it

is reasonable to interpret ‘‘substitute’’ to

include second- or later as well as firstgeneration substitutes for CFCs and

HCFCs. As discussed earlier, the goal of

these regulations is to minimize any

environmental harm that might be

associated with the transition away from

CFC and HCFC refrigerants. In many

cases, the transition away from CFCs

and HCFCs is a multi-step process, with

substitutes supplanting each other as

they are tested and developed. In the

absence of the phaseout of CFCs and

HCFCs, the later-generation substitutes

would probably never have been used.

Thus, even if a substance is not being

used as a direct substitute for CFCs or

HCFCs in a particular instance, its use

is the result of the transition away from

CFCs and HCFCs and the substance

serves as a substitute for these

chemicals. (Of course, the

environmental impact of the release of

the chemical is the same regardless of

what it replaces.)

Second, it is also reasonable to

interpret ‘‘substitute’’ to mean a

refrigerant that is occasionally used as a

substitute for CFC or HCFC refrigerants

in a given end-use (e.g., cold storage

warehouses), even if the refrigerant has

always been used by a particular user or

in a particular end-use. EPA has broad

authority to promulgate and implement

clear, enforceable regulations, and

exercise of this authority would be

impeded if the Agency had to attempt

to trace the individual histories of

specific appliances in implementing

and enforcing the requirements. As an

example of how this definition would

work under these regulations, ammonia

used in cold storage warehouses would

be considered a ‘‘substitute,’’ and would

therefore be subject to section 608(c)(2),1
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32047

proposing to determine that it is adequately

controlled under other authorities.

because at least some cold storage

warehouses have substituted ammonia

for CFCs. This would be true even if the

ammonia in a given cold storage

warehouse were the original refrigerant

at that particular site, or if another

substitute had first replaced the original

CFC refrigerant and ammonia in turn

had replaced that substitute.

Using this criterion, EPA has

identified five classes of substitute

refrigerants in the sectors covered by the

SNAP rule: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrocarbons

(HCs), chemically active common gases,

including ammonia and chlorine, and

inert atmospheric constituents,

including carbon dioxide and water.

EPA has divided substitutes into these

classes on the basis of the varying

environmental impacts of each class and

the varying regulatory structures already

in place for each class.

As the second factor in this proposed

rulemaking, EPA has made a proposed

determination regarding whether or not

the release or disposal of a substitute

refrigerant during the service or disposal

of an appliance poses a threat to the

environment. This determination

consists of two findings. In the first

finding, EPA determines whether

release or disposal of a substitute

refrigerant could pose a threat to the

environment due to the toxicity or other

inherent characteristic of the refrigerant.

In the second finding, EPA determines

whether and to what extent such release

or disposal actually takes place during

the servicing and disposal of appliances.

The release and disposal of many

substitute refrigerants are limited and/or

controlled by other authorities, such as

OSHA regulations and building codes.

To the extent that release during the

servicing and disposal of appliances is

adequately controlled by other

authorities, EPA proposes to defer to

these authorities rather than set up a

second regulatory regime.

As is discussed in more detail below,

EPA recognizes that release of HFCs and

PFCs during the servicing and disposal

of appliances could pose a threat to the

environment due to the global warming

potential (GWP) of these refrigerants,

that release of hydrocarbons during the

servicing and disposal of appliances

could pose a threat due to the

flammability and smog-forming

capability of these refrigerants, and that

release of chemically active common

gases during the servicing and disposal

of appliances could pose a threat due to

the toxicity and flammability of these

refrigerants. However, EPA is proposing

to determine that the release of

hydrocarbons and chemically active

common gases during the servicing and

disposal of appliances is adequately

controlled by other authorities, and

therefore does not actually pose a threat.

EPA is also proposing to determine that

the release of inert atmospheric

constituents during the servicing and

disposal of appliances does not pose a

threat to the environment.

As the third factor in this proposed

rulemaking, EPA has considered the

availability of technology to control

releases, the environmental benefits of

controlling releases, and the costs of

controlling releases for each class of

substitutes. (In proposing new

permissible leak rates for certain CFC

and HCFC appliances, EPA has

considered these factors for CFCs and

HCFCs.) In addition, as much as

possible, EPA has sought to maintain

consistency between the proposed

requirements for HFCs and those for

CFCs and HCFCs. The Agency considers

such consistency important for two

reasons. First, it will reduce confusion,

simplify the regulatory scheme, and

ease compliance both with the

requirements applying to substitutes

and with those applying to CFCs and

HCFCs. Second and more important, the

Agency believes that much of the

rationale for the recycling program

developed for ozone-depleting

refrigerants applies to any recycling

program for environmentally harmful

refrigerants.

C. Public Participation

In developing this proposed rule, EPA

has also considered comments received

during meetings with industry,

government, and environmental

representatives. On March 10, 1995,

EPA convened a meeting with 20

representatives of appliance

manufacturers, servicers, and users,

recycling and recovery equipment

manufacturers, equipment testers, and

refrigerant reclaimers and wholesalers,

soliciting comment on a range of

regulatory options. A summary of this

meeting is available in the public docket

for this rulemaking. EPA has also met

with industry and government

representatives to gather data on

refrigerant emissions, to better

understand current industry practices,

and to determine when and how

existing regulatory authorities control

emissions of substitute refrigerants.

Finally, EPA has worked with the airconditioning and refrigeration

industry’s primary standards-setting

organizations, the Air Conditioning and

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the

American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), in

developing its proposal. Wherever

appropriate, EPA has incorporated

standards and guidelines from these

organizations into the proposed rule.

III. Scope of Statutory and Proposed

Regulatory Requirements

A. Overview of Proposed Requirements

1. HFCs and PFCs

EPA is proposing to extend the

regulatory framework for CFCs and

HCFCs to HFCs and PFCs, making

appropriate adjustments for the varying

physical properties and environmental

impacts of these refrigerants. Thus,

appliances containing HFC or PFC

refrigerants would have to be evacuated

to established levels; recycling and

recovery equipment used with HFCs or

PFCs would have to be certified

(although existing recovery equipment

that met certain minimum standards

would be grandfathered); technicians

who work with HFCs or PFCs would

have to be certified (although

technicians who have been certified to

work with CFCs and HCFCs would be

grandfathered); sales of HFC and PFC

refrigerants would be restricted to

certified technicians; used HFC and PFC

refrigerants sold to a new owner would

have to be tested to verify that they meet

industry purity standards; refrigerant

reclaimers who purify HFCs or PFCs

would have to be certified; owners of

HFC and PFC appliances above a certain

size would have to repair leaks above a

certain size; final disposers of small

appliances and motor vehicle air

conditioners (MVACs) containing HFCs

or PFCs would have to ensure that

refrigerant was recovered from this

equipment before it was disposed of;

and manufacturers of HFC and PFC

appliances would have to provide a

servicing aperture or a ‘‘process stub’’

on their equipment in order to facilitate

recovery of the refrigerant.

2. Chemically Active Common Gases

EPA is proposing to find that for the

purposes of section 608, the release and

disposal of chlorine and ammonia do

not pose a threat to the environment

because the release and disposal of

these refrigerants during the servicing

and disposal of appliances are

adequately controlled by other

authorities in the air-conditioning and

refrigeration applications where these

refrigerants are currently used.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that

the venting prohibition does not apply

to these substances and the Agency is

not proposing recycling requirements

for these refrigerants at this time.
32048 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

2The CFCs and HCFCs being replaced by the

HFCs are also greenhouse gases, though their direct

warming effect is counteracted somewhat by the

indirect cooling effect caused by their destruction

of stratospheric ozone, which is itself a greenhouse

gas. The IPCC Second Assessment noted that ‘‘The

net GWPs for the ozone-depleting gases, which

include the direct ‘‘warming’’ and indirect

‘‘cooling’’ effects, have now been

estimated.* * * The indirect effect reduces their

net GWPs: those of the chlorofluorocarbons tend to

be positive, while those of the halons tend to be

negative’’ (IPCC Second Assessment, Working

Group I report, p. 73).

3The IPCC was jointly established by the World

Meteorological Organization and the United

Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess

the scientific information that is related to the

various components of the climate change issue,

and to formulate realistic response strategies for the

management of the climate change issue. The first

IPCC report was developed by 170 scientists from

However, these proposed findings apply

to currently SNAP-identified end uses

only. If ammonia and chlorine are

proposed for use in other applications,

EPA will evaluate whether the venting

prohibition and recycling requirements

should apply in those applications.

3. Hydrocarbons

EPA is proposing to find that for the

purposes of section 608, the release and

disposal of hydrocarbons during the

servicing and disposal of appliances do

not pose a threat to the environment,

because they are adequately controlled

by other authorities in the industrial

process refrigeration applications in

which these refrigerants are currently

used. Therefore, EPA is proposing to

find that the venting prohibition does

not apply to these substances and the

Agency is not proposing recycling

requirements for these refrigerants at

this time. However, these proposed

findings apply to currently SNAPidentified end uses only. If

hydrocarbons are proposed for use in

other applications, EPA will evaluate

whether the venting prohibition and

recycling requirements should apply in

those applications.

4. Proposed Changes to Requirements

for CFCs and HCFCs

In today’s document, EPA is also

proposing a number of changes to the

regulations covering CFC and HCFC

refrigerants. Several of these proposed

changes are intended to accommodate

the growing number of refrigerants (both

HFCs and HCFCs) that either are or will

be subject to the regulations. Such

changes include the adoption of

evacuation requirements based solely on

the saturation pressures of refrigerants,

the use of representative refrigerants

from saturation pressure categories for

certifying recycling and recovery

equipment, and the adoption of the

most recent industry purity and

analytical standard for refrigerants, ARI

700–1995, which includes a number of

refrigerants omitted from its

predecessor, ARI 700–1993.

Based on improvements in equipment

design and maintenance that have

reduced leak rates over the last five

years, EPA is also proposing to reduce

the maximum allowable leak rates for

appliances containing more than 50

pounds of refrigerant. At the same time,

EPA is proposing to make several

changes to the leak repair requirements

promulgated at § 82.156(i), the

associated recordkeeping provisions at

§ 82.166(n) and (o), and the definition of

‘‘full charge’’ at § 82.152. EPA is also

proposing to add a definition for ‘‘leak

rate’’ under § 82.152 for the purposes of

§ 82.156(i). The need for most of these

proposed changes was brought to EPA’s

attention by industry stakeholders. EPA

is also responding to inquiries

concerning whether or not leaks that

occur after repairs have been completed

and all applicable verification tests have

been successfully performed are

considered new leaks. In addition, the

stakeholders suggested several clarifying

changes to the recordkeeping

provisions.

B. Determination of Whether Release or

Disposal Poses a Threat to the

Environment

1. Methodology

In determining whether the release or

disposal of a substitute refrigerant

during the servicing and disposal of

appliances poses a threat to the

environment, EPA has examined the

potential effects of the refrigerant from

the moment of release to its breakdown

in the environment, considering

possible impacts on workers, building

occupants, and the environment as a

whole. As noted above, these effects

vary among the different classes of

refrigerant. EPA has also examined the

extent to which the release or disposal

of a substitute is already controlled by

other authorities. In some cases, such

authorities tightly limit the quantity of

the substitute emitted or disposed of; in

others, they ensure that the substitute is

disposed of in a way that will limit its

impact on human health and the

environment. In still others, existing

authorities address some threats (e.g.,

occupational exposures) but not others

(e.g., long-term environmental impacts).

The analysis below discusses the

potential environmental impacts of and

existing controls on each class of

refrigerants.

2. HFCs and PFCs

a. Potential Environmental Impacts

i. Toxicity and Flammability

Most HFCs and PFCs have been

classified as A1 refrigerants under

ASHRAE Standard 34, indicating that

they have low toxicity and no ability to

propagate flame under the test

conditions of the Standard. (The

exception is HFC 152a, which has been

classified as an A2 refrigerant. This

indicates that it may propagate flame

under the test conditions, but only at

relatively high concentrations and with

relatively low heat of combustion.)

However, like CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs

can have central nervous system

depressant and cardiotoxic effects at

high concentrations (several thousand

ppm) and can displace oxygen at very

high concentrations.

ii. Long-term Environmental Impacts

Once released into the atmosphere,

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and

perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have the ability

to trap heat that would otherwise be reradiated from the Earth back to space.

This ability, along with the relatively

long atmospheric lifetime of these gases

(particularly the PFCs), gives both HFCs

and PFCs relatively high global warming

potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a gas is

a measure of the ability of a kilogram of

that gas to contribute to global warming

compared to the ability of a kilogram of

carbon dioxide to contribute to global

warming over a given span of time. The

100-year GWPs of HFCs under

consideration for use as refrigerants

range from 140 (for HFC–152a) to 11,700

(for HFC–23), and the GWPs of PFCs

under consideration for use as

refrigerants range from 8,700

(perfluorocyclo-butane) to 9,200

(perfluoroethane). HFC 134a, the most

common individual HFC used in airconditioning and refrigeration

equipment, has a global warming

potential of 1,300. Thus, the global

warming impact of releasing a kilogram

of an HFC or PFC ranges from 140 to

11,700 times the impact of releasing a

kilogram of CO2.2 (Factoring in the 35%

uncertainty associated with individual

GWPs, this range becomes 90 to 15,800.)

EPA recognizes that the release of

refrigerants with high global warming

potentials could pose a threat to the

environment. Internationally accepted

science indicates that increasing

concentrations of greenhouse gases,

including HFCs and PFCs, will

ultimately raise atmospheric and

oceanic temperatures. Although the

precise timing and extent of likely

warming are uncertain, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) 3 concluded in a 1995
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32049

25 countries and was peer-reviewed by an

additional 200 scientists. Since that time, the

number of scientists developing and reviewing the

report has grown. This group comprises most of the

active scientists working in the field in the world

today, and therefore the report is an authoritative

statement of the views of the international scientific

community at this time.

Report that the global mean temperature

would probably rise between 1 and

3.5°C by 2100. Such a temperature rise

would probably be associated with a

number of adverse environmental

impacts, including increased drought at

middle latitudes, increased flood

frequency and inundation due to sea

level rise, and forest and species loss

due to the rapid poleward migration of

ideal ranges.

It is already well established that

naturally occurring greenhouse gases

keep the Earth 33°C warmer than it

otherwise would be. Since 1800, human

activities have released additional

greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at

an exponentially increasing rate.

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon

dioxide have risen by approximately 30

percent; methane concentrations have

risen by 145 percent; and nitrous oxide

concentrations have risen by 15 percent.

In addition, concentrations of manmade fluorocarbons, which have no

natural source, have risen quickly over

the past 50 years.

These trends may have already had an

influence on global climate. The draft of

the most recent report of the IPCC stated

that ‘‘emerging evidence points towards

a detectable human influence on

climate.’’ In support of this statement,

the draft report notes that the global

mean surface temperature has increased

by between about 0.3 and 0.6°C since

the late 19th century, that the 20th

century global mean temperature is at

least as high as that of any other century

since 1400 A.D. (before which data are

too sparse to allow reliable estimates),

that the years since 1990 have been

some of the warmest in the instrumental

record (the nine warmest years this

century have all occurred since 1980),

and that sea levels around the world

have risen by between 10 and 25

centimeters over the past 100 years.

Moreover, several other events

consistent with global warming have

been observed, including a decrease in

Northern Hemisphere snow cover, a

simultaneous decrease in Arctic sea ice,

and continued melting of alpine

glaciers. The report concludes:

Observed global warming over the past 100

years is larger than our best estimates of the

magnitude of natural climate variability over

at least the last 600 years. More importantly,

there is evidence of an emerging pattern of

climate response in the observed climate

record to forcings by greenhouse gases and

sulphate aerosols. The evidence comes from

the geographical, seasonal and vertical

patterns of temperature change. Taken

together, these results point towards a

detectable human influence on global

climate.

Because of the large thermal inertia of

Earth’s climate system (including the

atmosphere and the oceans), the full

effects of added greenhouse gases are

not likely to be felt until many decades

after their release into the atmosphere.

Once these effects are felt, reversing

them will take centuries. Thus, policy

decisions in the near term have longterm consequences.

Global warming is expected to have

far-reaching effects both domestically

and internationally. Changes in

precipitation and increased evaporation

from higher temperatures could affect

water supplies and water quality, posing

threats to hydropower, irrigation,

fisheries, and drinking water. In the

U.S., floods and droughts will probably

occur more often because of an

intensification of the hydrologic cycle.

The IPCC report projects that sea level

will rise by about 50 cm by 2100, using

a mid-range emissions scenario and

best-estimate values of climate

sensitivity and ice-melt sensitivity to

warming. Such a rise could inundate

more than 5,000 square miles of land in

the U.S. if no protective actions are

taken. Low-lying areas on the U.S.

Atlantic and Gulf coasts are especially

at risk. Internationally, parts of many

low-lying areas such as parts of the

Maldives, Egypt, and Bangladesh could

be completely inundated and made

uninhabitable by a similar sea level rise.

Climate change could also have direct

impacts on human health. Global

warming may shift the range of

infectious diseases, increasing the risks

of malaria and dengue fever in the

United States. Changing temperatures

and precipitation patterns may produce

new breeding sites for pests and

pathogens. In addition, climate change

is likely to increase deaths from heat

stress.

Agriculture would also be affected, as

large areas of the eastern and central

U.S. are expected to become drier as the

earth warms. Although changes in

management practices and technological

advances might reduce many of the

potentially negative effects of climate

change in agriculture, such changes

would be expensive. Agricultural

production in developing countries is

likely to be more vulnerable to climate

change, given that they have fewer

economic resources.

Finally, climate change could

profoundly affect natural habitats and

wildlife. Temperature changes of the

magnitude expected from the enhanced

greenhouse effect have occurred in the

past, but the previous changes took

place over centuries or millennia,

whereas those expected from increased

greenhouse gases will take place over

decades. For example, the ideal range

for some North American forest species

may shift as much as 300 miles to the

north over the next several decades.

Rates of natural migration and

adaptation of species and communities

appear to be much slower than the

predicted rate of climate change. As a

result, populations of many species and

inhabited ranges could change as the

climate to which they are adapted

effectively shifts northward or to higher

elevations.

b. Current Practices and Controls

Under the SNAP program, HFCs

(either pure or in blends) have been

approved for use in almost every major

air-conditioning and refrigeration enduse, including household refrigerators,

motor vehicle air conditioners, retail

food refrigeration, comfort cooling

chillers, industrial process refrigeration,

and refrigerated transport. HFC 134a in

particular has claimed a large share of

the market for non-ozone-depleting

substitutes in these applications. Given

this range of applications, HFCs have

the potential to come into contact with

consumers, workers, the general

population, and the environment.

EPA has approved PFCs for use in

relatively few end-uses because of their

large global warming potentials and

long atmospheric lifetimes. These enduses include uranium isotope

separation, for which no other substitute

refrigerant has been found, and some

heat-transfer applications. In these

applications, PFCs may come into

contact with workers, the general

population, and the environment.

Analyses performed for both this rule

and the SNAP rule indicate that existing

regulatory requirements and industry

practices are likely to keep the exposure

of consumers, workers, and the general

population to HFCs and PFCs below

levels of concern (although recycling

requirements would reduce still further

the probability of significant exposure)

(U.S. EPA. 1994. Risk Screen on the Use

of Substitutes for Class I OzoneDepleting Substances: Refrigeration and

Air Conditioning, Office of Air and

Radiation, March 15, 1994. Office of Air

and Radiation, March 15,1994, and

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the

Substitutes Recycling Rule, Office of Air

and Radiation, 1998). However, these

requirements and practices do not
32050 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

4ASHRAE 15, Safety Code for Mechanical

Refrigeration, is an industry standard developed by

the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and

Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE 15 forms the

basis for state and local building codes throughout

the U.S.

5ASHRAE Guideline 3 recommends recycling of

all fluorocarbon refrigerants, but is not codified or

enforced by any governmental agency.

6 In 1995, a modeling study indicated that

trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a breakdown product of

HFC 134a, might accumulate and concentrate in

urban wetlands with high evaporation rates. EPA is

monitoring the research in this area. To the extent

that TFA formation and concentration pose a threat

to the environment, recycling requirements for HFC

134a will address this threat as well as the threat

from global warming related to HFC 134a.

7Note that a finding under section 612 that a

substitute is acceptable for use in a closed

refrigeration system is different from a finding

under section 608(c)(2) that the release of that

substitute does not pose a threat to the

environment. Thus, substances that have been

approved under SNAP for use as refrigerants may

nevertheless be subject to the venting prohibition of

608(c)(2).

8PELs are established by OSHA, TLVs and STELs

by the American Congress of Governmental

Industrial Hygienists, and RELs and IDLHs by the

National Institute of Occupational Safety and

Health (NIOSH). PELs and TLVs are 8=hour timeweighted averages (TWAs).

address release of HFCs or PFCs to the

wider environment.

For example, ASHRAE Standard 15 4

requirements for equipment with large

charge sizes are likely to limit the

exposure of building occupants and

workers to HFC and PFC refrigerants,

but will not necessarily reduce releases

to the outdoors. Under ASHRAE 15,

equipment containing large charges of

HFCs or PFCs (or HCFCs or CFCs) must

be located in a machinery room that

meets certain requirements. These

include requirements for tight-fitting,

outward-opening doors, refrigerant

detectors that actuate alarms when

refrigerant levels rise above

recommended long-term exposure

levels, and mechanical ventilation that

discharges to the outdoors. However,

ASHRAE 15 does not include

requirements for refrigerant recycling.5

In general, ASHRAE 15 addresses

design specifications rather than service

and disposal practices such as recycling,

and ASHRAE 15 requirements are

codified and enforced by state or local

building code agencies rather than by

contractor or technician licensing

boards.

Similarly, the American Industrial

Hygiene Association (AIHA) has

developed exposure limits for HFCs.

These may be referenced by OSHA

under its general duty clause to compel

employers to protect employees from

identified health hazards. However,

local exhaust ventilation rather than

recycling may be used to minimize

exposures during service and disposal

operations that involve significant

releases of refrigerant. This will reduce

worker exposure to the refrigerant, but

will not reduce the exposure of the

general environment.

Finally, many of the statutory and

regulatory mechanisms that limit release

of other substitutes such as ammonia do

not apply to HFCs or PFCs. HFCs and

PFCs are not listed chemicals for SARA

Title III or CERCLA reporting

requirements; nor are they listed as EPA

section 112(r) hazardous air pollutants.

c. Conclusion

Given the high global warming

potentials of HFCs and PFCs and the

fact that no authority other than section

608(c)(2) currently controls their release

from appliances into the environment,

EPA is not proposing to find that the

release of HFCs and PFCs does not pose

a threat to the environment. 6

EPA’s consideration of global

warming potential in determining

whether to exempt refrigerants from the

venting prohibition of 608(c)(2) is

supported by precedent under the Title

VI regulatory program, Presidential

directive, and the legislative history of

section 608. First, EPA has specifically

considered the global warming potential

of substitutes in determining whether

they are acceptable for various end uses

under the Significant New Alternatives

Program (SNAP) that implements

section 612.7 As stated in the final

SNAP rule (59 FR 13049, March 18,

1994), EPA believes that ‘‘overall risk’’

includes global warming potential.

Second, in October 1993, the President

directed EPA through the Climate

Change Action Plan (CCAP) to work

with manufacturers, sellers, and users of

PFCs and HFCs to minimize emissions

of these substances.

Third, the legislative history of

section 608(c)(2) indicates that Congress

specifically intended that EPA consider

the global warming potential of

substitute refrigerants in determining

whether to exempt them from the

venting prohibition. In a statement read

into the record shortly before passage of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,

Senators Chafee and Baucus, the Senate

managers of the bill, stated that

‘‘(section 608(c)(2)) is an important

provision because many of the

substitutes being developed * * * are

‘greenhouse gases’ and have radiative

properties that are expected to

exacerbate the problem of global climate

change.’’ The Senators specifically

directed that ‘‘(t)he Administrator shall

consider long term threats, such as

global warming, as well as acute threats

(in making the determination under

608(c)(2))’’ (Cong. Rec. S 16948 (Oct. 27,

1990)). EPA believes that in light of this

legislative history, the precedents cited

above, and the expected effects of global

warming, it would be very difficult to

justify exempting HFCs or PFCs from

the venting prohibition of paragraph

608(c)(2) on the basis that their release

does not pose a threat to the

environment.

3. Chemically Active Common Gases

The two chemically active common

gases used as refrigerants are ammonia

and chlorine.

a. Potential Environmental Impacts

i. Toxicity and Flammability

Ammonia can pose a human health

hazard through either inhalation or

ingestion. It is irritating at relatively low

concentrations, and disabling (and

possibly deadly) at higher

concentrations. Ammonia can also pose

a hazard to aquatic organisms if it is

discharged to surface waters at high

concentrations.

Ammonia is classified as a B2

refrigerant under ASHRAE 34,

indicating that it is toxic at relatively

low concentrations and flammable at

relatively high concentrations. Toxicity

reference values that have been

established for ammonia include a

Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50

ppm, a Threshold-Limit Value (TLV)

and a Recommended Exposure Limit

(REL) of 25 ppm, a Short-term Exposure

Limit (STEL) of 35 ppm, and an

Immediately Dangerous to Life and

Health (IDLH) value of 500 ppm.8

Chlorine gas is highly toxic.

Inhalation of chlorine gas at high

concentrations can cause pulmonary

edema, cardiac arrest, and inflammation

of the larynx. Exposure to

concentrations of chlorine below 5 ppm

can irritate mucous membranes, the

respiratory tract, and skin, and can

cause headaches, nausea, blister

formation, vomiting and reduced

pulmonary function. Toxicity Reference

Values that have been established for

chlorine gas include a PEL of 1 ppm, a

TLV of 0.5 ppm, a STEL of 1 ppm, and

an IDLH of 30 ppm. ASHRAE 34 has not

classified chlorine.

Chlorine is non-combustible in air,

but most combustible materials will

burn in chlorine as they do in oxygen.

ii. Long-Term Environmental Impacts

Ammonia is a naturally occurring

compound, and is a central compound

in the environmental cycling of

nitrogen. In surface water, groundwater,

or sediment, ammonia will undergo

sequential transformation by two
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32051

processes in the nitrogen cycle,

nitrification and denitrification,

eventually leading to the production of

elemental nitrogen.

Ammonia can also undergo

volatilization or ionization. If released

to surface water, ammonia may

volatilize to the atmosphere. The rate of

volatilization decreases as pH and

temperature decrease. The toxicity of

ammonia to aquatic organisms (fish are

especially vulnerable) also decreases

with pH. In addition to its direct effects,

ammonia can indirectly cause in-stream

toxicity through its contribution to

eutrophication and its effect on

biological oxygen demand.

Because chlorine used as a refrigerant

is typically recaptured or chemically

transformed rather than released, its

environmental fate will not be discussed

here.

Ammonia and chlorine have GWPs

of 0.

b. Current Practices and Controls

When refrigeration technology was

first developed, ammonia was one of the

first refrigerants to gain acceptance. It is

now used almost exclusively in

industrial process refrigeration systems

in the meat packing, dairy, frozen juice,

brewery, cold storage, and other food

industries. In these applications,

ammonia may come into contact with

workers, the general population, and the

environment. (Ammonia is also used

with water in small absorption

refrigeration units. However, while

ammonia could conceivably come into

contact with consumers in this

application, these exposures are likely

to be of little concern because the charge

is small and is mixed with water,

limiting release to the air.) Additional

exposures to ammonia may occur from

its use in non-refrigerant applications,

such as fertilizer and common

household cleaner, but these exposures

will not be discussed here except as a

context for refrigerant-related exposures.

Due to its high toxicity, chlorine has

not been submitted or approved for use

as a refrigerant except in industrial

processes involved in chlorine

manufacture. In this application,

chlorine could come into contact with

workers, the general population, and the

environment.

Analyses performed for both this rule

and the SNAP rule (RIA and Risk

Screen) indicate that regulatory

requirements and industry practices are

likely to keep the exposure of workers,

the general population, and the

environment to ammonia and chlorine

below levels of concern.

Occupational exposure to ammonia is

primarily controlled by OSHA

requirements and national and local

building and fire codes. As mentioned

above, OSHA has established a PEL for

ammonia of 50 ppm. This is an

enforceable standard that can be met

through containment, safe disposal,

ventilation, and/or use of personal

protective equipment. OSHA also has

requirements in place to prevent

catastrophic releases, including the

Hazardous Waste Operations and

Emergency Response Standard

(HAZWOPER), the Hazard

Communication Standard, and Process

Safety Management (PSM) regulations.

(PSM regulations cover systems

containing more than 10,000 pounds of

ammonia.) These standards require

employee training, emergency response

plans, and written standard operating

procedures.

ASHRAE 15 (and state and local

codes based on it) imposes strict

quantity limits for direct-type ammonia

refrigeration systems (which possess no

secondary, heat transfer fluid), and

prohibits the use of ammonia altogether

in direct-type comfort cooling systems.

Indirect type ammonia refrigeration and

air-conditioning systems (which possess

a secondary, heat transfer fluid) must be

housed in a separate mechanical

equipment room. This equipment room

must meet the requirements listed above

for HFC equipment rooms and must also

meet several fire-proofing requirements.

Releases of ammonia to the wider

environment are addressed by several

authorities. CERCLA and SARA require

reporting of accidental and intentional

releases of ammonia to the atmosphere.

(Under CERCLA section 103 and SARA

Title III Section 304, releases of more

than 100 pounds of ammonia must be

reported immediately, unless they are

‘‘Federally permitted’’ such as through

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES), State

Implementation Plans (SIPs), etc. In that

case, however, they are controlled under

the permitting authority.

The more common method of

ammonia disposal is to mix the

ammonia into water, which absorbs

about a pound of ammonia per gallon of

water, and then to dispose of the water/

ammonia solution. Releases of ammonia

to surface waters are governed by

permits issued by states (or, in some

cases, by EPA Regional Offices) to

publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs) under NPDES. NPDES permits

must include conditions necessary to

meet applicable technology-based

standards and water quality standards.

Water quality standards established by

states consist of a designated use for the

waters in question, water quality criteria

specifying the amount of various

pollutants that may be present in those

waters and still allow the waters to meet

the designated use, and anti-degradation

policies.

Entities that discharge to a POTW

(usually through a municipally-owned

sewer system) must themselves comply

with Clean Water Act pre-treatment

requirements, which may include

categorical pretreatment standards on an

industry-by-industry basis as well as

local limits designed to prevent

interference with the biological

processes of the treatment plant (or pass

through of pollutants). Notification and

approval requirements enable POTWs to

manage the treatment process, to avoid

ammonia overloading, and to protect the

treatment processes, collection systems,

and facility workers. The POTW

typically considers a number of factors

before granting discharge approval for

ammonia, including the POTW plant’s

treatment capacity, existing industry

discharge patterns, the impact on the

POTW’s biological treatment processes,

the effect on the sewage collection

systems (i.e., sewer lines), and the

possible hazards to workers at the plant

or in the field. The POTW also

considers the possibility that ammonia

disposed from refrigeration systems may

largely be converted to other forms of

nitrogen (e.g., nitrates) before arriving at

the POTW facility. In general, ammonia

from refrigerant uses makes up a small

percentage of the ammonia treated by

the POTW.

Ammonia is also listed as a regulated

substance for accidental release

prevention in the List of Substances and

Thresholds rule (59 FR 4478, January

31, 1994) promulgated under section

112(r) of the Act. This rule states that if

a stationary source handles more than

10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia

(or 20,000 pounds of 20% or greater

aqueous ammonia) in a process, it is

subject to chemical accident prevention

regulations promulgated under section

112(r). These regulations, which were

published on June 20, 1996 (61 FR

31668), require stationary sources to

develop and implement a risk

management program that includes a

hazard assessment, an accident

prevention program (including training

and the development of standard

operating procedures), and an

emergency response program. In

addition, section 112(r)(1) of the Act

states that companies have a general

duty to prevent accidental releases of

extremely hazardous substances,

including ammonia and chlorine.

Exposures to chlorine are controlled

through many of the same regulatory

mechanisms that control exposures to

ammonia, except enforceable
32052 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

concentration and release limits are

lower for chlorine than for ammonia.

For instance, the OSHA PEL for chlorine

is 1 ppm, compared to 50 ppm for

ammonia. Similarly, the reporting

threshold under CERCLA section 103

and SARA Title III for chlorine releases

is ten pounds, compared to 100 pounds

for ammonia; and the quantity of

chlorine that triggers requirements

under section 112(r) of the Clean Air

Act is 2,500 pounds per process.

In addition to these requirements,

chlorine is also subject to restrictions

under section 112(b) and 113 of the

Clean Air Act (CAA). Chlorine is listed

as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)

under section 112(b) of the CAA, and

under section 113 of the CAA, criminal

penalties can be assessed for negligently

releasing HAPs into the atmosphere.

EPA is currently investigating

whether there are any chlorine sources

that are ‘‘major sources’’ under CAA

section 112(a). A ‘‘major’’ source is one

that releases more than 10 tons per year

of any given HAP, or 25 tons per year

or more of any combination of HAPs.

Such sources would be regulated under

a National Emissions Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

Because chlorine emissions are

currently well controlled during

chlorine manufacture, no manufacturer

emits more than 10 tons per year of

chlorine.

Current industry practices and

engineering controls in chlorine

manufacture will be applied to the use

of chlorine as a refrigerant, minimizing

potential releases and exposures. These

practices and controls include use of

system alarms that activate at chlorine

concentrations of 1 ppm, use of selfcontained breathing apparatus during

servicing, isolation of liquid chlorine in

receivers during servicing, and use of a

caustic scrubber to neutralize gaseous

chlorine during servicing. The

anticipated charge sizes in the

refrigeration system are several hundred

times smaller than the quantity of

chlorine in the process stream and bulk

storage, and chlorine emissions from the

refrigeration system are likely to be

significantly smaller than those

emanating from the process and storage

systems, which are already well

controlled for safety and health reasons.

c. Conclusion

Because releases of ammonia and

chlorine from their currently approved

refrigeration applications are adequately

addressed by other authorities, EPA is

proposing to find that the release of

ammonia and chlorine refrigerants

during the servicing and disposal of

appliances in these applications does

not pose a threat to the environment

under section 608. EPA requests

comment on this proposed finding and

on the rationale behind it.

4. Hydrocarbons

a. Potential Environmental Impacts

i. Toxicity and Flammability

Hydrocarbons, including propane,

propylene, and butane, are classified as

A3 refrigerants by ASHRAE Standard

34, indicating that they have low

toxicity and high flammability. Like

CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs, they can

displace oxygen at high concentrations

and cause asphyxiation. Toxicity

reference values that have been

established for hydrocarbons include a

PEL for propane of 1,000 ppm, and

IDLHs of 20,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm

for propane and butane respectively.

ii. Long-Term Environmental Impacts

Hydrocarbons are volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) and therefore

contribute to ground-level ozone (smog)

formation. Because ozone is a

greenhouse gas, hydrocarbons

contribute slightly and indirectly to

global warming. They do not deplete

stratospheric ozone.

b. Current Practices and Controls

EPA has approved hydrocarbons

under the SNAP program only for use in

industrial process refrigeration systems

used for hydrocarbon manufacture. In

this application, hydrocarbons have the

potential to come into contact with

workers, the general population, and the

environment. However, analyses

performed for both this rule and the

SNAP rule indicate that existing

regulatory requirements and industry

practices adequately protect workers,

the general population, and the

environment from exposure to

hydrocarbon refrigerants.

As is the case for ammonia and

chlorine, occupational exposures to

hydrocarbons are primarily controlled

by OSHA requirements and national

and local building and fire codes. As

noted above, OSHA has established a

PEL for propane of 1,000 ppm, and

NIOSH has established IDLHs of 20,000

ppm and 50,000 ppm for propane and

butane respectively. The PEL is an

enforceable standard, and the IDLHs

trigger OSHA personal protective

equipment requirements. OSHA’s

Process Safety Management, confined

space entry, and HAZWOPER

requirements apply to all hydrocarbon

refrigerants. These requirements include

employee training, emergency response

plans, air monitoring, and written

standard operating procedures.

ASHRAE 15 prohibits the use of

hydrocarbon refrigerants except in

laboratory and industrial process

refrigeration applications. Refrigeration

machinery must be contained in a

separate mechanical equipment room

that complies with the requirements for

HFC equipment rooms and also

complies with several fire-proofing

requirements.

As is the case for ammonia and

chlorine, certain hydrocarbons

(including butane, cyclopropane,

ethane, isobutane, methane, and

propane) are listed as regulated

substances for accidental release

prevention under regulations

promulgated under section 112(r) of the

Clean Air Act. In addition,

hydrocarbons are considered VOCs, and

are therefore subject to state VOC

regulations implemented in accordance

with the Clean Air Act. The regulatory

status of new VOC sources is based on

area ground-level ozone classifications.

Although states and industry have

various options regarding the permitting

of new VOC sources, industry typically

must implement technologies that

provide lowest achievable emissions

rates, and must offset new VOC

contributions through reductions in

existing sources.

According to industry and OSHA

representatives, current industry service

practices for hydrocarbon refrigeration

equipment include monitoring efforts,

engineering controls, and operating

procedures. System alarms, flame

detectors, and fire sprinklers are used to

protect process and storage areas.

Fugitive emissions monitoring is

routinely conducted. If a leak is found,

repairs are attempted within five days.

If initial repair attempts are

unsuccessful, the system is shut down,

unless releases from a shutdown are

predicted to be greater than allowing a

continued leak. During servicing, OSHA

confined space requirements are

followed, including continuous

monitoring of explosive gas

concentrations and oxygen levels.

Hydrocarbon refrigerants may be

returned to the product stream or can be

released through a flare during

servicing. Due to fire and explosion

risks and the economic value of the

hydrocarbon, direct venting is not a

widely used procedure. In general,

hydrocarbon emissions from

refrigeration systems are likely to be

significantly smaller than those

emanating from the process and storage

systems, which are already wellcontrolled for safety reasons.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32053

9The Random House College Dictionary defines

‘‘refrigerate’’ as ‘‘to make or keep cold or cool, as

for preservation,’’ and ‘‘refrigerant’’ as ‘‘a substance

used as an agent in cooling or refrigeration.’’

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines

‘‘refrigerate’’ as ‘‘to make or keep cold or cool,’’ and

‘‘refrigerant’’ as ‘‘a substance used in refrigeration.’’

c. Conclusion

Because the release of hydrocarbons

from industrial process refrigeration

systems appears to be adequately

addressed by other authorities, EPA is

proposing to find that the release of

hydrocarbon refrigerants during the

servicing and disposal of such systems

does not pose a threat to the

environment under section 608. EPA

requests comment on this proposed

finding and on the rationale behind it.

5. Inert Atmospheric Constituents

EPA has approved CO2 under SNAP

as a replacement for CFC-13, R-13B1

and R-503 in very low temperature and

industrial process refrigeration

applications, and as a substitute for

CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in nonmechanical heat transfer applications.

CO2 is a well-known, nontoxic,

nonflammable gas. Its GWP is defined as

1, and all other GWPs are indexed to it.

EPA’s understanding is that CO2 is

readily available as a waste gas, and

therefore no additional quantity of the

chemical needs to be produced for

refrigeration applications. Thus, the use

of such commercially available CO2 as

a refrigerant does not contribute to

global warming, and release of such CO2

from appliances has no net contribution

to global warming. On this basis, EPA

proposes to find that release and

disposal of CO2 refrigerant during the

servicing and disposal of appliances

does not pose a threat to the

environment under section 608. EPA

requests comment on the factual basis

for this proposal.

EPA has approved direct nitrogen

expansion as an alternative technology

for many CFCs and HCFCs used in

vapor compression systems. Nitrogen is

a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable

gas that makes up 78% of Earth’s

atmosphere. Nitrogen contributes

neither to global warming nor to ozonedepletion. EPA therefore proposes to

find that the release and disposal of

elemental nitrogen during the servicing

and disposal of appliances does not

pose a threat to the environment.

EPA has approved evaporative

cooling as an alternative technology to

motor vehicle air conditioners using

CFC-12. Evaporative cooling operates

simply through the evaporation of water

to the atmosphere. Water released from

evaporative cooling is nontoxic and

contributes neither to ozone depletion

nor to global warming. EPA therefore

proposes to find that the release and

disposal of water during the servicing

and disposal of appliances does not

pose a threat to the environment.

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Appliance

EPA is proposing to amend the

current definition of ‘‘appliance’’ to

include air-conditioning and

refrigeration equipment that contains

substitutes for class I and class II

substances, as well as equipment that

contains class I and class II substances.

This amendment is consistent with the

definition of ‘‘appliance’’ in section

608(c)(2), which states, ‘‘[f]or purposes

of this paragraph, the term ’appliance’

includes any device which contains and

uses as a refrigerant a substitute

substance and which is used for

household or commercial purposes,

including any air conditioner,

refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.’’ EPA

proposes to continue to interpret

‘‘appliance’’ to include all airconditioning and refrigeration

equipment except that designed and

used exclusively for military

applications. Thus, the term

‘‘appliance’’ would include household

refrigerators and freezers (which may be

used outside the home), other

refrigeration appliances, residential and

light commercial air conditioning,

motor vehicle air conditioners, comfort

cooling in vehicles not covered under

section 609, and industrial process

refrigeration.

a. Inclusion of Heat Transfer Devices

in the Term ‘‘Appliance’’. A

manufacturer of PFCs has submitted

comments requesting that EPA exclude

non-mechanical heat transfer

applications from the definition of

appliance. The manufacturer

maintained that ‘‘heat transfer does not

involve the use of a refrigerant under

the accepted technical definitions of

this term,’’ and cited the technical

definition of refrigerant in the ASHRAE

handbook as ‘‘the working fluid in a

refrigeration cycle, absorbing heat from

a reservoir at low temperature and

rejecting heat at a higher temperature.’’

In addition, the manufacturer stated that

heat transfer applications are such a

small segment of the ODS replacement

market that they should be exempt from

regulation on de minimis grounds.

Citing the Alabama Power Co. v. Costle

decision (636 F.2d 323, DC Cir 1979),

the commenter argued that EPA may

make such exemptions ‘‘if it finds (1)

that Congress was not extraordinarily

rigid in drafting section 608, and (2) that

the burdens associated with regulating

the de minimis categories yield trivial

benefits.’’ Finally, the manufacturer

requested that if EPA does decide to

continue to consider heat transfer

applications appliances, EPA adopt a

unique approach to these systems, as

they differ physically from ‘‘traditional’’

air-conditioning and refrigeration

systems. (‘‘Issues Associated with

Extending Regulations Under Section

608 to ODS Substitutes Used in Heat

Transfer Applications,’’ Michael I.

Dougherty and Larry G. Headrick, 3M

Specialty Chemicals Division,

September 5, 1995).

In the past, EPA has considered nonmechanical heat transfer applications

that use the heat transfer fluid as the

primary refrigerant to be appliances. In

an applicability determination issued on

June 6, 1993, EPA determined that

electrical transformers containing CFC–

113 were appliances because the 113

‘‘acts to transport heat out of the

transformer.’’ The determination stated

further that ‘‘(t)he fact that the transport

of heat is accomplished without the use

of compressors or expansion valves does

not alter the role of the CFC–113 which

acts as a coolant.’’ Moreover, under the

Significant New Alternatives Program,

EPA has classified non-mechanical heat

transfer applications as part of the

refrigeration and air-conditioning major

industrial use sector.

EPA does not see any legal, technical,

or environmental justification for

reversing these findings, although EPA

is requesting comment on the option of

adopting unique requirements under

section 608 for non-mechanical heat

transfer applications. As noted above,

the fundamental cooling function of the

heat transfer fluid is not changed

because a compressor is not involved.

While one technical definition of

‘‘refrigerant’’ may refer only to moving

heat from low-to high-temperature

regions, commonly accepted dictionary

definitions of ‘‘refrigerant’’ and

‘‘refrigerate’’ refer generally to making

or keeping things cool.9 Neither the

statute nor its legislative history

indicate that Congress intended the term

to be more restrictive in the statute than

it is in common use.

Given that heat transfer applications

are appliances, EPA does not believe

that it would be appropriate to exempt

some or all of these applications from

recycling requirements because they

consume a small quantity of refrigerant

relative to other appliance types. The

commenter states that de minimis

exemptions are permissible where

Congress has not been ‘‘extraordinarily
32054 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

10This figure is based on the commenter’s

projection of PFC heat transfer fluid consumption

and EPA’s estimate of U.S. consumption of CFC and

HCFC refrigerants in 1992.

11Section 612(b)(3) directs EPA to ‘‘specify

initiatives * * * to promote the development and

use of safe substitutes for class I and class II

substances, including alternative chemicals,

product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing

processes’’ (emphasis added). Similarly, section

612(b)(4) requires EPA to ‘‘maintain a public

clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product

substitutes, and alternative manufacturing

processes’’ (emphasis added).

rigid,’’ and maintains that section 608

gives the Agency flexibility to exercise

its discretion in this area. In support of

this argument, the commenter cites the

explicit exemptions in section 608(c) for

(1) de minimis releases associated with

good faith attempts to recover and

recycle, and (2) releases of ODS

substitutes that do not pose a threat to

the environment.

However, the legislative history of

section 608 indicates that Congress

intended both of these exemptions to be

interpreted narrowly. As noted above,

the Senate managers of the CAA bill

specifically identified releases of

substitutes with high global warming

potential as a ‘‘threat to the

environment,’’ and PFCs have among

the highest global warming potentials of

any refrigerants. The Senate managers

also read the following statement into

the record regarding the explicit

exemption for de minimis releases:

Exceptions to this provision are included

for certain de minimis releases. As used in

this context, de minimis refers to extremely

small amounts. The fact that de minimis, in

other contexts under this Act, may be as

much as several tons is not relevant nor

controlling in this context. Most appliances

contain only a few ounces of class I or class

II refrigerant. Interpreting de minimis to

mean anything other than an extremely small

amount would render this provision a

nullity. The exception is included to account

for the fact that in the course of properly

using recapture and recycling equipment, it

may not be possible to prevent some small

amount of leakage (Cong. Rec. S 16948 (Oct.

27, 1990)).

Thus, both the statute and the legislative

history clearly limit the applicability of

the de minimis exemption to those

releases that unavoidably occur during

the course of recycling. The de minimis

exemption is not intended to exempt

any sector from recycling requirements;

indeed, the Senate managers specifically

proscribe a broad interpretation of de

minimis, noting that it would ‘‘render

(section 608(c)) a nullity.’’

Furthermore, Congress’ explicit

provision of a sharply limited

exemption from section 608(c) for de

minimis releases associated with good

faith efforts to recapture and recycle or

safely dispose of a substitute

undermines the argument that EPA has

an understood authority to grant a much

broader de minimis exemption under

Alabama Power Co. v. Costle. Congress

has specifically addressed the scope of

possible exemptions from section 608(c)

and declared this scope quite limited.

Consequently, EPA has included both

small appliances (which individually

have very small charge sizes) and very

high-pressure appliances (which

collectively consume only a small

percentage of refrigerants) in the scope

of the section 608 recycling

requirements.

Moreover, EPA does not believe that

the regulation of releases of PFCs used

as heat transfer fluids meets either of the

criteria established by the court in

Alabama Power for finding an implied

authority to allow a de minimis

exemption. De minimis authority may

be implied where ‘‘the burdens of

regulation yield a gain of trivial or no

value.’’ Alabama Power at 360–61. First,

EPA does not consider the benefits of

this proposed regulation to be ‘‘trivial.’’

The commenter estimates potential

annual consumption of PFC heat

transfer fluids to be 580,000 pounds, or

264 metric tons. If this consumption is

weighted by the average 100-year GWP

of the PFCs and compared to the

consumption of all other refrigerants

weighted by the 100-year GWP of HFC–

134a, it makes up 1.5 percent of total

refrigerant consumption in the U.S.10 If

the PFC consumption and other

refrigerant consumption are weighted by

their 500-year GWPs, the PFCs make up

7.2 percent of total U.S. refrigerant

consumption.

Second, the commenter does not

demonstrate that recycling PFC heat

transfer fluids would impose significant

burdens. While the unique

characteristics and applications of heat

transfer appliances may warrant

specialized recycling requirements, they

do not render recycling impracticable or

even extraordinarily difficult. Indeed,

the commenter notes that PFC heat

transfer fluids are already subject to use

restrictions under the SNAP program

that require recycling during the

servicing and disposal of equipment,

and observes that total losses from heat

transfer equipment are currently less

than 10 percent per year. Moreover, heat

transfer applications using CFCs and

HCFCs have clearly been subject to

section 608 requirements since the

applicability determination on electrical

transformers was issued in June, 1993.

Since EPA has not received any

information indicating that users of

these applications have been unable to

comply, and since PFCs were selected

as substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs in

these applications precisely because

they have similar physical

characteristics, there is no reason to

believe that recycling PFCs in these

applications will be difficult. Thus, EPA

is not proposing to exempt heat transfer

applications from the requirements of

this proposed rule.

b. Coverage of One-Time Expansion

Devices. Similarly, EPA believes that

one-time expansion devices are

appliances, and that the release of

refrigerants from one-time expansion

devices is prohibited by section

608(c)(2), unless EPA finds that the

release of these refrigerants does not

pose a threat to the environment. Onetime expansion devices, which include

‘‘self-chilling cans,’’ rely on the release

and associated expansion of a

compressed refrigerant to cool the

contents (e.g., a beverage) of a container.

EPA considers refrigerant release from

such devices to be prohibited by section

608(c). First, the refrigerant in these

devices acts as a not-in-kind substitute

for CFCs and HCFCs in household and

commercial refrigerators. Although the

refrigerant in a one-time expansion

device is not being used in the same

system as CFC–12 in a household or

commercial refrigerator, it is providing

the same effect of cooling the container.

EPA has previously considered not-inkind technologies, such as evaporative

cooling, to be substitutes under SNAP.

The SNAP regulation defines

‘‘substitute or alternative’’ as ‘‘any

chemical, product substitute, or

alternative manufacturing process,

whether existing or new, intended for

use as a replacement for a class I or II

compound.’’ This approach is consistent

with the language of section 612 of the

Clean Air Act, in which Congress

repeatedly identified ‘‘product

substitutes’’ as substitutes for class I and

class II substances. Section 612(a) states

the policy of the section: ‘‘To the

maximum extent practicable, class I and

class II substances shall be replaced by

chemicals, product substitutes, or

alternative manufacturing processes that

reduce overall risks to human health

and the environment’’ (emphasis

added). 11 As stated in the SNAP

regulation, EPA has interpreted the

phrase ‘‘substitute substances’’ in 612(c)

to incorporate the general definition of

substitute in 612(a) and 612(b) (3) and

(4) (59 FR 13050). As noted above, the

proposed definition of ‘‘substitute’’ in

today’s document is very similar to that

in the SNAP regulations, except the

proposed definition omits the proviso

that the substitute be intended for use as
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32055

12Large building air conditioners are commonly

called ‘‘chillers,’’ which is short for ‘‘water

chillers.’’ Most building air conditioners cool water

or brine that is then circulated throughout the

building.

13The 1997 ASHRAE Handbook, Fundamentals,

defines ‘‘secondary coolant’’ as ‘‘any liquid cooled

by the refrigerant and used to transfer heat without

changing state’’ (p. 20.1).

a replacement for a class I or class II

substance. Thus, under the proposed

definition in today’s document, and

consistent with the definition in the

SNAP regulations and section 612 of the

Act, EPA would consider the refrigerant

in a one-time expansion device to be a

‘‘substitute substance’’ under section

608(c)(2).

Second, one-time expansion devices,

which rely on the release of compressed

gases to cool the contents of containers,

are encompassed by the term

‘‘appliance.’’ A one-time expansion

device is a device that holds and uses

a substitute substance to make the

contents of the container cool for

individual consumption. Thus, it is a

‘‘device which contains or uses’’ a

‘‘refrigerant’’ ‘‘for household or

commercial purposes.’’ The operating

principle of a one-time expansion

device, vapor compression and

expansion, is the same as that of a

traditional refrigerator. The only

technological differences between a onetime expansion device and a traditional

refrigerator are that, with a one-time

expansion device, the compression part

of the vapor-compression/expansion

cycle takes place at the factory, and the

refrigerant escapes during expansion

instead of being cycled back to a

compressor to be recompressed.

Third, EPA believes that the opening

of a one-time expansion device

constitutes disposal of the device. This

interpretation is consistent with the

definition of ‘‘disposal’’ included in the

recycling regulations for CFCs and

HCFCs at § 82.152. ‘‘Disposal’’ is the

process leading to and including:

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping

or placing of any discarded appliance

into or on any land or water;

(2) The disassembly of any appliance

for discharge, deposit, dumping or

placing of its discarded component

parts into or on any land or water; or

(3) The disassembly of any appliance

for reuse of its component parts.

The act of opening a one-time

expansion device meets this definition

of disposal. Opening the device

irreversibly discharges the refrigerant

and thereby ends the useful life of the

cooling device. Cooling the container is

a one-time action that occurs

immediately prior to consuming or

using its contents, after which the

remaining component parts of the

appliance will be discarded. In addition,

with the irreversible discharge of the

critical portion of the cooling device,

the appliance has been partially

disassembled and one of its component

parts has been discharged. Thus, the act

of opening the device and cooling the

container is a process that leads quickly

and inevitably to the final disposal of

the appliance, and the act itself includes

the permanent disassembly of the

appliance and discharge of one of the

component parts. Finally, the act of

opening the device is a ‘‘knowing’’

release of refrigerant, as a person

opening the device could not fail to be

aware that his or her action is causing

release of a gas to the atmosphere.

Thus, the release occurs in the course

of ‘‘maintaining, servicing, repairing, or

disposing of an appliance’’ and is

subject to the venting prohibition. While

EPA is proposing to exempt some

substitute refrigerants in one-time

expansion applications from the section

608 requirements because their release

does not pose a threat to the

environment (see the discussion of CO2

above), EPA does not believe that it can

make this finding for the HFC

refrigerants that have been suggested for

use in one-time expansion devices due

to global warming concerns. EPA

recognizes that this has the effect of

prohibiting the use of HFCs (or other

refrigerants whose release EPA does not

find does not pose a threat to the

environment) in this application. As

discussed below, EPA is proposing to

use its authority under section 608(c)(2)

and section 301(a) to prohibit the

manufacture of one-time expansion

devices using refrigerants that EPA has

not exempted from the venting

prohibition.

c. Secondary Loops. Rather than

cooling things or people directly, many

refrigeration and air-conditioning

systems operate by cooling an

intermediate fluid, which is then

circulated to the things or people to be

cooled. This intermediate fluid (and the

structure for transporting it) is referred

to as a secondary loop. Secondary loops

are commonly used in air conditioners

in large buildings,12 in industrial

process refrigeration systems, and in

some specialty and commercial

refrigeration systems.

There are different types of secondary

loops. Interpreted in the broadest sense,

secondary loops include, on the one

hand, the lower temperature loops of

cascade systems, and on the other, the

ventilation systems that circulate air

that is cooled by an air-conditioner,

since both of these types of loops

circulate a fluid that is cooled by a

primary refrigerant loop. However, these

loops differ from each other in a number

of ways. The former move heat from

cooler to warmer areas, and there is a

change of state in the secondary fluid.

The latter move heat from warmer to

cooler areas (because they return air that

is warmed by the inhabitants and

equipment in the building), and there is

no change of state in the secondary

fluid. The type of loop that is most

commonly considered a secondary loop

falls between these two types, but

somewhat closer to air circulation

systems: it is a closed loop that

circulates a liquid that is cooled by a

primary refrigerant loop and that is used

to move heat from warmer to cooler

areas with no change of state.13

EPA is requesting comment regarding

what types of secondary loops should be

considered to be part of an ‘‘appliance.’’

The definition of ‘‘appliance’’ with

respect to secondary loops is somewhat

ambiguous under Act. Given this

ambiguity, Congress has delegated to

EPA the authority to interpret

‘‘appliance’’ consistent with the

language and purpose of section 608.

The purpose of section 608 is to reduce

emissions of ozone-depleting substances

and to ensure that the phaseout of

ozone-depleting refrigerants does not

result in new environmental problems

from emissions of their replacements.

In defining the boundaries of an

appliance, EPA believes that it is

appropriate to consider both the

proximity of the loop to the primary

cooling mechanism and the mode of

functioning of the loop (including the

direction of heat transfer and whether or

not a change of state is involved);

otherwise, it may be difficult to draw a

clear line between the appliance and its

surroundings. For example, a commonsense definition of appliance would

probably not include the ventilation

system used to circulate cooled air, but,

as noted above, such a ventilation

system could be considered a secondary

loop. In fact, because the transfer of heat

from warmer to cooler objects occurs

spontaneously, any fluid between the

primary loop of an appliance and the

things or people cooled could be

considered a secondary (or tertiary, etc.)

loop. In order to avoid an overly

expansive interpretation of ‘‘appliance,’’

EPA is proposing to interpret as part of

an ‘‘appliance’’ refrigerant loops that (1)

are primary or (2) move heat from cooler

to warmer areas or (3) involve a change

of state of the fluid. Under this

interpretation, secondary loops that

used water, brine, or other materials to

transport heat from warmer to cooler

areas without a change of state would
32056 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

14Zeotropic blends exert different pressures at the

same temperature, depending upon the percentage

of vapor vs. liquid in the container. For reasons

discussed below in section IV.B.1.a., EPA is

proposing to classify refrigerants according to their

liquid phase saturation pressures at 104 degrees F.

not be considered to be part of an

‘‘appliance.’’ On the other hand, cascade

system secondary loops that used fluids

to transport heat from cooler to warmer

areas with a change of state would be

considered to be part of an ‘‘appliance.’’

EPA believes that this interpretation

would cover those secondary loops that

are traditionally considered to be part of

the air conditioner or refrigerator, while

excluding those that are not. In

addition, the Agency believes that this

interpretation would capture the

majority of air-conditioning and

refrigerating components that have used

ozone-depleting substances in the past.

This interpretation is also consistent

with EPA’s decision not to list

secondary fluids under SNAP. In that

decision, published on March 10, 1997,

EPA expressed concern that listing

secondary fluids could discourage their

use and could be very burdensome to

the Agency and the regulated

community, as the number of secondary

fluids is quite large. In addition, the

Agency noted that there was little

information or data suggesting that the

use of these fluids in secondary loops

posed an environmental or safety risk

(52 FR 10700).

The Agency requests comment on its

interpretation of ‘‘appliance’’ as it

applies to secondary loops. Specifically,

EPA requests comment on whether

there are human health or

environmental risks that could be

significantly reduced by subjecting to

the venting prohibition secondary loops

that transport heat from warmer to

cooler areas without a change of state.

Based on information received to date,

the Agency believes that most secondary

fluids are either environmentally benign

or controlled under other authorities.

However, if some secondary fluids were

neither benign nor adequately

controlled under other authorities, EPA

could interpret ‘‘appliance’’ to include

secondary loops and individually

exempt fluids whose release did not

pose a threat to the environment. In this

way, EPA could subject to the venting

prohibition only those secondary fluids

whose release posed a threat. Given the

large number of secondary fluids,

however, the Agency is concerned that

it would be difficult to identify and list

all of the secondary fluids whose release

does not pose a threat.

EPA also requests comment on the

extent to which ozone depleting

substances such as HCFC–123 are used

in secondary loops that transport heat

from warmer to cooler areas. EPA

believes that such ozone-depleting

substances should be recovered, given

their environmental impact and the

availability of equipment and expertise

to recover and recycle them. However,

to require such recovery, EPA would not

necessarily need to define secondary

loops as part of an appliance and

thereby subject them to the section

608(c) venting prohibition. Instead, the

Agency could use its broad authority to

minimize emissions and maximize

recycling of class I and class II

substances under section 608(a). EPA

requests comment on this approach.

2. Full Charge

Compliance with the leak repair

requirements requires calculating both

the full charge of the appliance and the

leak rate. EPA has previously defined

full charge at § 82.152 as the amount of

refrigerant required for normal operating

characteristics and conditions of the

appliance as determined by using one or

a combination of the four methods

specified at § 82.152. Through this

action, EPA is proposing to eliminate

the phrase ‘‘for the purposes of § 156(i)’’

and the word ‘‘all’’ from paragraph (2)

in the definition of full charge at

§ 82.152. The definition refers to ‘‘other

relevant considerations.’’ The term ‘‘all’’

is implicit in that language. EPA

believes this change will improve the

readability of the provision by

eliminating redundancy.

3. High-pressure Appliance

As discussed below in section

IV.B.1.a, EPA is proposing to base

evacuation requirements for CFC, HCFC,

HFC, and PFC appliances on the

saturation pressure of the refrigerant. As

part of this approach, EPA is proposing

two changes to its definition of highpressure appliances. One of the changes

would modify the system for classifying

refrigerants by their saturation

pressures. Rather than classifying the

refrigerants according to their boiling

points at atmospheric pressure, EPA

would classify them according to their

saturation pressures at 104 degrees F.

The other change would split what are

currently defined as high-pressure

appliances into two groups. One group

would remain subject to the current

requirements for high-pressure CFC and

HCFC (except HCFC–22) appliances and

would continue to be called ‘‘highpressure appliances.’’ The other group

would be subject to the current

requirements for HCFC–22 appliances

and would be called ‘‘higher-pressure

appliances,’’ as described below.

The proposed revised definition of

‘‘high-pressure appliances’’ reads as

follows:

High-pressure appliance means an

appliance that uses a refrigerant with a

liquid phase 14 saturation pressure

between 45 psia and 220 psia at 104

degrees Fahrenheit. This definition

includes but is not limited to appliances

using R114, R12, R134a, R500, and

R401A, B, and C.

4. Higher-Pressure Appliance

As described above, EPA is proposing

to create a new category of ‘‘higherpressure appliances’’ whose refrigerants

have saturation pressures between 220

psia and 305 psia at 104 degrees F.

Appliances in this category would be

subject to the current requirements for

HCFC–22 appliances. The proposed

definition of ‘‘higher pressure

appliances’’ reads as follows:

Higher-pressure appliance means an

appliance that uses a refrigerant with a

liquid phase saturation pressure

between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104

degrees Fahrenheit. This definition

includes but is not limited to appliances

using R22, R502, R402A and B, and

R407A, B, and C.

5. Leak Rate

EPA has not previously promulgated

a formal definition for leak rate.

Through today’s action, EPA is

proposing to add a definition for leak

rate for the purposes of applying leak

repair requirements contained in

§ 82.156(i). Currently, § 82.156(i) refers

to applicable allowable annual leak

rates for different appliances. While

EPA believes that there is a general

understanding on how to calculate leak

rates, EPA is proposing to add a specific

definition in the regulations for clarity.

EPA believes this definition will

address some of the issues raised by the

Chemical Manufacturers’ Association

(CMA).

EPA and CMA jointly issued a

compliance guide for leak repair in

October 1995. That guide, known as the

Compliance Guidance For Industrial

Process Refrigeration Leak Repair

Regulations Under Section 608 of the

Clean Air Act (Compliance Guidance),

includes a section on calculating leak

rates. The Compliance Guidance states

that each time the owner or operator

adds refrigerant to an appliance

normally containing 50 pounds or more

of refrigerant, the owner or operator

should promptly calculate the leak rate

to ensure that the appliance is not

leaking at a rate that exceeds the

applicable allowable leak rate. If the

amount of refrigerant added indicates
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32057

15Suppose a previously leak-tight appliance

springs a leak. If the appliance owner is adding less

than the applicable allowable percentage of charge

and the time since the last recharge is less than one

year, the annualizing method will force the owner

to repair the leaks before the rolling average method

will. If an appliance owner is adding more than the

applicable allowable percentage of charge and the

time since the last recharge is more than one year,

the reverse holds true.

that the leak rate for the appliance is

above the applicable allowable leak rate,

the owner or operator must perform

corrective action by repairing leaks,

retrofitting the appliance, or retiring the

appliance in accordance with the

requirements of § 82.156(i). As noted

below, the applicable allowable leak

rate for commercial refrigeration and

industrial process refrigeration

equipment normally containing 50

pounds or more of refrigerant is

currently 35 percent, but EPA is

proposing to lower this for some types

of equipment. The applicable allowable

annual leak rate for all other appliances

normally containing 50 pounds or more

of refrigerant is currently 15 percent, but

again, EPA is proposing to lower this.

The Compliance Guidance

specifically mentions two methods for

calculating leak rates. One method for

calculating the leak rate is described in

the Compliance Guidance as follows:

(1) Take the number of pounds of

refrigerant added to the appliance to

return it to a full charge and divide it

by the number of pounds of refrigerant

the appliance normally contains at full

charge;

(2) Take the number of days that have

passed since the last day refrigerant was

added and divide by 365 days;

(3) Take the number calculated in step

(1) and divide it by the number

calculated in step (2); and

(4) Multiply the number calculated in

step (3) by 100 to calculate a percentage.

This method is summarized in the

following formula:

Leak rate (% per year) = pounds of refrigerant added

pounds of refrigerant in full charge

365 days/year

# days since refrigerant last added

× ×100%

Because this method takes the

quantity of refrigerant (percentage of

charge) lost between charges and scales

it up or down to calculate the quantity

that would be lost over a year-long

period, it will be referred to as the

‘‘annualizing method.’’

The second method mentioned in the

Compliance Guidance is to calculate the

‘‘rolling average.’’ The term ‘‘rolling

average’’ is not defined in the

Compliance Guidance, but EPA believes

it is commonly calculated by:

(1) Summing up the quantity of

refrigerant (e.g., pounds) added to the

appliance over the previous 365-day

period (or over the period that has

passed since leaks in the appliance were

last repaired, if that period is less than

one year),

(2) Dividing the result of step one by

the quantity (e.g., pounds) of refrigerant

the appliance normally contains at full

charge, and

(3) Multiplying the result of step two

by 100 to obtain a percentage.

This method is summarized in the

following formula:

Leak rate (% per year) =

pounds of refrigerant added over past 365 days

(or since leaks were last repaired)

pounds of refrigerant in full charge

×100%

EPA is considering four options for its

formal definition of ‘‘leak rate.’’ The

first option is to require appliance

owners to calculate leak rates using only

the ‘‘annualizing’’ method. The second

option is to require owners to calculate

leak rates using only the ‘‘rolling

average’’ method. The third option is to

require owners to calculate leak rates

using whichever of the two methods

yields the higher calculated leak rate,

and the fourth option is to permit

owners to calculate leak rates using

either method, so long as the same

method is always used for the same

appliance, facility, or firm.

EPA believes that there are advantages

and disadvantages to each approach.

The annualizing method is relatively

simple, catches some kinds of leaks

more quickly than the rolling average

method.15 and does not penalize owners

whose appliances leak slowly but show

no signs of leakage until a relatively

large percentage of the charge has been

lost. On the other hand, the annualizing

method permits owners whose

appliances spring a fast leak after a long

period of slow leakage to delay repair,

because it permits them to ‘‘dilute’’ the

true leak rate by averaging the

refrigerant loss over more than one year.

The rolling average method is

relatively simple and catches some

kinds of leaks (such as the sudden fast

leak described in the previous

paragraph) more quickly than the

annualizing method. On the other hand,

the rolling average method permits

owners to delay repair of certain types

of leaks longer than the annualizing

method, and it may force owners whose

appliances actually leak below the

applicable leak rate to undertake repair,

especially if these owners have no way

of recognizing that they have a leak

until a relatively large percentage of the

charge has been lost.

Requiring the use of whichever

method yields the highest calculated

leak rate is a more complicated

approach (both for compliance and

enforcement) than requiring the use of

either method alone, but ensures that

leaks are caught as quickly as possible.

However, because this approach

incorporates the rolling average method,

it shares that method’s potential to

penalize appliance owners whose

appliances leak below the applicable

leak rate but do not show signs of

leakage until they have lost a relatively

large percentage of charge.

Permitting appliance owners to use

the method of their choice to calculate

leak rates is somewhat more

complicated to enforce than requiring

either method alone, but could be easier

for owners to comply with if they have

more experience with one method than

the other. It might permit owners to

select the method that permits them to

perform leak repair less frequently, but

both the annualizing and rolling average

methods eventually catch all leaks

above the maximum allowable rate.

Because appliance owners using the

rolling average method would be doing

so at their discretion, this approach

neutralizes any equity concerns

associated with that method. However,

to implement this approach, EPA would

have to resolve two issues. First, the

Agency would have to implement some
32058 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

type of recordkeeping requirement (1) to

ensure that once appliance owners

chose a method for calculating leak

rates, they used the same method

consistently, and (2) to permit EPA

inspectors to understand and audit leak

repair records. Second, EPA would have

to determine whether the same method

for calculating leak rates should be used

for individual appliances, whole

facilities, or entire firms. EPA believes

that using different methods for

different appliances within the same

facility would be excessively confusing

and difficult to enforce; the Agency

would prefer the same method to be

used on a facility or firm basis.

EPA is proposing the third option,

requiring use of whichever method

yields the higher calculated leak rate, as

its lead option. Specifically, EPA is

proposing to define ‘‘leak rate,’’ as

follows:

Leak rate means the rate at which an

appliance is losing refrigerant, measured

between refrigerant charges or over 12

months, whichever is shorter. The leak

rate is expressed in terms of the

percentage of the appliance’s full charge

that would be lost over a 12-month

period if the current rate of loss were to

continue over that period. The rate is

calculated using the following method:

(1) Take the number of pounds of

refrigerant added to the appliance to

return it to a full charge and divide it

by the number of pounds of refrigerant

the appliance normally contains at full

charge;

(2) Take the shorter of (a) 365 days

and (b) the number of days that have

passed since the last day refrigerant was

added and divide that number by 365

days;

(3) Take the number calculated in step

(1) and divide it by the number

calculated in step (2); and

(4) Multiply the number calculated in

step (3) by 100 to calculate a percentage.

This method is summarized in the

following formula:

Leak rate (% per year) = pounds of refrigerant added

pounds of refrigerant in full charge

365 days/year

shorter of: # days since refrigerant last added and 365 days

× ×100%

Note that using this formula is

equivalent to using whichever of the

two formulas above yields the higher

calculated leak rate, since it reduces to

the formula for the annualizing method

if less than one year has passed since

refrigerant was last added, while it

reduces to the formula for the rolling

average method if more than one year

has passed since refrigerant was last

added.

The Agency believes that this

approach would require owners to

repair leaks quickly without being

unduly burdensome. EPA requests

comment on this approach and on the

other options presented here.

6. Low-pressure Appliance

EPA is proposing to revise the

definition of ‘‘low-pressure appliance’’

to refer to saturation pressures at 104

degrees F rather than boiling points. The

proposed revised definition reads: Low

pressure appliance means an appliance

that uses a refrigerant with a liquid

phase saturation pressure below 45 psia

at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. This

definition includes but is not limited to

appliances using R11, R123, and R113.

7. Opening

EPA is proposing to amend the

definition of ‘‘opening’’ to include

service, maintenance, or repair on an

appliance that would release class I,

class II, or substitute refrigerants unless

the refrigerant were recovered

previously from the appliance.

EPA is also requesting comment on

adding disposal to the definition of

‘‘opening;’’ see section IV.F. for a

discussion of this option.

8. Reclaim

EPA is proposing to amend the

definition of ‘‘reclaim’’ to reflect the

proposed update of the refrigerant

purity standards at appendix A from

standards based on ARI 700–1993 to

standards based on ARI 700–1995. In

addition, EPA is proposing to slightly

reword the definition of ‘‘reclaim’’ to

remove the reference to a ‘‘purity’’

standard and thereby make the

definition more consistent with the full

range of requirements provided in

appendix A. EPA has always interpreted

§ 82.154(g) and § 82.164 to require that

persons who ‘‘reclaim’’ refrigerant must

reprocess the refrigerant to all of the

specifications of appendix A that are

applicable to that refrigerant and to

verify that the refrigerant meets these

specifications using the analytical

methodology prescribed in appendix A.

9. Refrigerant

Although the regulations currently

use the term ‘‘refrigerant’’ in several

places, EPA has not previously defined

this term. EPA is proposing to add a

definition of ‘‘refrigerant’’ that would

include any class I or class II substance

used for heat transfer purposes, or any

substance used as a substitute for such

a class I or class II substance by any user

in a given end-use, except for the

following substitutes in the following

end-uses:

Ammonia in commercial or industrial

process refrigeration or in absorption

units

Hydrocarbons in industrial process

refrigeration (processing of

hydrocarbons)

Chlorine in industrial process

refrigeration (processing of chlorine

and chlorine compounds)

Carbon dioxide in any application

Nitrogen in any application

Water in any application

EPA is proposing this definition

primarily to simplify the rule. The

proposed definition would permit EPA

to refer to covered class I, class II, and

substitute refrigerants without having to

reiterate a list of either included or

excepted refrigerants each time. At the

same time, EPA believes that the

proposed definition would

appropriately define ‘‘refrigerant’’ for

purposes of section 608. The Agency

does not intend the definition either to

expand or diminish the scope of the

section 608 requirements, and believes

that the definition is consistent with

EPA’s past interpretations of the term

‘‘refrigerant.’’ In the past, EPA has

interpreted ‘‘refrigerants’’ to include the

fluids in traditional vapor-compression

systems, such as refrigerators, airconditioners, and heat pumps, as well

as the fluids in heat transfer systems

that lack compressors, such as electrical

transformers. EPA has adopted this

interpretation based on both technical

and common definitions of

‘‘refrigerant.’’ The Agency believes that

the proposed definition would cover the

fluids covered by the technical and

common definitions. The rationale for

the proposed exceptions is discussed

above in section III.B.

As discussed above, EPA is proposing

to interpret ‘‘appliance’’ to exclude

secondary loops that move heat from

warmer to cooler areas using a fluid that

does not change state. If EPA retains its

proposed interpretation of ‘‘appliance,’’
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32059

16EPA believes that both the statute and its

legislative history support this interpretation of ‘‘de

minimis releases associated with good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose

of any such substance.’’ Given the lack of specificity

in the statute, Congress clearly intended to give

EPA discretion to interpret the meaning of the

phrase. Moreover, EPA’s interpretation is consistent

with the legislative history on the provision. As

noted above, the Senate managers explained in their

report that the exception for de minimis releases

was ‘‘included to account for the fact that in the

course of properly using recapture and recycling

equipment, it may not be possible to prevent some

small amount of leakage’’ (Congressional Record

S16948, October 26, 1990). The Senate managers

clearly equated ‘‘properly using recapture and

recycling equipment’’ with ‘‘good faith attempts to

recapture’’ refrigerant. EPA believes that the Senate

managers’ term ‘‘properly using’’ implies at least

compliance with the requirements to evacuate

appliances to certain levels, to use certified

recovery equipment, and to become certified as a

technician.

the Agency could add a restriction to

the definition of ‘‘refrigerant’’ to the

same effect, ensuring consistency

between the interpretation of

‘‘appliance’’ and the definition of

‘‘refrigerant.’’ EPA requests comment on

this option, and on the proposed

definition.

10. Substitute

EPA is proposing to define

‘‘substitute’’ as any chemical or product

substitute, whether existing or new, that

is used by any person as a replacement

for a class I or II compound in a given

end-use. As discussed in section I.B.

above, this definition is similar to the

definition of ‘‘substitute’’ used in the

SNAP rule, but it omits the proviso that

a substitute be ‘‘intended for use as a

replacement for a class I or class II

substance.’’ Thus, it includes substances

that may not have been used to replace

class I or class II substances in a given

instance, but are used to replace class I

or class II substances in other instances

of that end-use.

11. Technician

EPA is amending the definition of

technician to include persons who

perform maintenance, service, repair, or

disposal that could be reasonably

expected to release class I, class II, or

substitute refrigerants from appliances

into the atmosphere.

12. Very-High-Pressure Appliance

EPA is proposing to revise the

definition of ‘‘very-high-pressure

appliance’’ to refer to saturation

pressures at 104 degrees Fahrenheit

rather than boiling points. Because 104

degrees F is above the critical

temperatures of many very-highpressure refrigerants, meaning that there

is no ‘‘saturation pressure’’ in the usual

sense for those refrigerants at that

temperature, EPA is also adding the

phrase ‘‘or with a critical temperature

below 104 degrees Fahrenheit’’ to the

definition. The proposed revised

definition reads as follows:

Very-high-pressure appliance means

an appliance that uses a refrigerant with

a critical temperature below 104 degrees

Fahrenheit or with a liquid phase

saturation pressure above 305 psia at

104 degrees Fahrenheit. This definition

includes but is not limited to appliances

using R410A and B, R13, R23, and R503.

B. Required Practices

EPA is proposing to require persons

servicing or disposing of airconditioning and refrigeration

equipment that contains HFCs and PFCs

to observe certain service practices that

minimize emissions of these

refrigerants. As noted above, these

service practices are very similar to

those required for the servicing or

disposal of CFC and HCFC equipment.

The most fundamental of these practices

is the requirement to recover HFC and

PFC refrigerants rather than vent them

to the atmosphere. As noted above, the

knowing venting of substitutes for class

I and class II refrigerants (except those

exempted by the Administrator) during

maintenance, service, repair or disposal

is expressly prohibited by section

608(c)(1) and (2) of the Act, as of

November 15, 1995. Section 608(c)(1)

exempts from the prohibition de

minimis releases associated with good

faith attempts to recapture and recycle

or safely dispose of these refrigerants.

The statutory language of section

608(c)(2) simply extends to substitute

refrigerants the section 608(c)(1)

prohibition on venting of class I and II

substances and its exemption for de

minimis releases associated with good

faith attempts to recapture and recycle

or safely dispose of refrigerant. For

releases of class I and II substances, EPA

has interpreted as ‘‘de minimis releases

associated with good faith attempts to

recapture and recycle or safely dispose’’

of refrigerants, releases that occur

despite compliance with EPA’s required

practices for recycling and recovery

under 40 CFR 82.156, including use of

recovery or recycling equipment

certified under 40 CFR 82.158.

Compliance with the regulations

represents ‘‘good faith attempts to

recapture and recycle or safely dispose’’

of refrigerant, and consequently releases

that occur despite such compliance

should be considered de minimis

releases under section 608(c).16 EPA

proposes to interpret the phrase ‘‘good

faith attempts to recapture and recycle

or safely dispose’’ similarly when it

applies to section 608(c)(2). Thus, ‘‘good

faith attempts to recapture and recycle

or safely dispose’’ of substitute

refrigerants are defined by the proposed

provisions concerning evacuation of

equipment, recycling and recovery, use

of certified equipment, and technician

certification. EPA believes that these

provisions appropriately define good

faith attempts to recapture and recycle

or safely dispose of substitute

refrigerants for the reasons discussed in

EPA’s justification of each provision.

Under this approach, emissions that

take place during servicing or disposal

when these provisions are not followed

would not be de minimis emissions.

To implement section 608(c)(2) more

effectively, EPA proposes not only to

define ‘‘good faith attempts to recapture

and recycle or safely dispose’’ according

to the proposed provisions, but also

more directly to require compliance

with the proposed provisions for

substitute refrigerants regarding

evacuation of equipment, use of

certified equipment, and technician

certification in any instance where a

person is opening (or otherwise

violating the refrigerant circuit) or

disposing of an appliance, as defined in

40 CFR 82.152. It is physically

impossible to open appliances (or

otherwise violate the refrigerant circuit)

or dispose of appliances without

emitting at least some refrigerant, even

if some effort is made to recapture the

refrigerant. Even after the appliance has

been evacuated, some refrigerant

remains, which is released to the

environment when the appliance is

opened or disposed of. Other activities

that fall short of opening but that

involve violation of the refrigerant

circuit also release refrigerant, albeit

very small quantities, because

connectors (e.g., between hoses or

gauges and the appliance) never join

together with no intervening space.

Even in the best case in which a good

seal is made between a hose and an

appliance before the valve between

them is opened, some refrigerant will

remain in the space between the valve

and the outer seal after the former is

closed. This refrigerant will be released

when the outer seal is broken. Thus,

whenever a person opens an appliance

(or otherwise violates the refrigerant

circuit) or disposes of an appliance, he

or she will necessarily violate the

venting prohibition unless the exception

for de minimis releases applies. Because

EPA is proposing to define the

exception such that it only applies

when the person complies with the

proposed provisions related to

recapture, recycling and disposal,

compliance with the section 608(c)(2)
32060 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

17The saturation pressure of a refrigerant is the

same as its vapor pressure, that is, the characteristic

pressure of the vapor in a vapor/liquid mixture of

that refrigerant at equilibrium at a given

temperature. A compression ratio ‘is the ratio of the

pressures of a gas on the discharge and suction

sides of the compressor.

venting prohibition would require

compliance with the proposed

provisions. EPA believes that given this

factual context, it has sufficient

authority under sections 608(c)(2) and

301(a) to implement section 608(c)(2) by

simply requiring compliance with the

proposed provisions, as a matter of law,

without in each instance first requiring

a demonstration that the person’s

activities have actually released

refrigerant.

1. Evacuation of Appliances

EPA is proposing that before HFC and

PFC appliances are opened for

maintenance, service, or repair, the

refrigerant in either the entire appliance

or the part to be serviced (if the latter

can be isolated) must be transferred to

a system receiver or to a certified

recycling or recovery machine. (As

discussed below in the equipment

certification discussion, EPA is

proposing to permit technicians to

recover HFCs or PFCs using equipment

certified for use with multiple CFC or

HCFC refrigerants of similar saturation

pressures.) The same requirements

would apply to equipment that is to be

disposed of, except for small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances,

whose disposal is covered under section

c. below. EPA is proposing that HFC

and PFC appliances be evacuated to

established levels that are the same as

those for CFCs and HCFCs with similar

saturation pressures. At the same time,

in order to implement an approach

based solely on saturation pressures,

EPA is proposing minor changes to the

current system for classifying CFC and

HCFC appliances. As for CFCs and

HCFCs, evacuation levels for HFCs and

PFCs would also depend upon the size

of the appliance and the date of

manufacture of the recycling and

recovery equipment.

Technicians repairing MVAC-like

appliances are not subject to the

evacuation requirements below, but are

subject to a requirement to ‘‘properly

use’’ (as defined at 40 CFR 82.32(e))

recycling and recovery equipment

approved pursuant to § 82.36(a).

a. Evacuation Requirements for

Appliances Other Than Small

Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

Appliances. Table I lists the proposed

levels of evacuation for air-conditioning

and refrigeration equipment other than

small appliances, MVACs, and MVAClike appliances. These levels would

apply to equipment containing CFCs

and HCFCs as well as HFCs and PFCs.

The Agency has considered a number of

factors in developing these levels,

including the technical capabilities,

ease of use, and costs of recycling and

recovery equipment, the

thermodynamic characteristics of the

HFC and PFC refrigerants, the need for

a relatively simple and consistent

regulatory scheme for all refrigerants,

the servicing times that would be

necessary to achieve different vacuums,

and the amounts of refrigerant that

would be released under different

evacuation requirements and their

impact on the environment.

TABLE 1.—REQUIRED LEVELS OF EVACUATION FOR APPLIANCES

[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]

Type of appliance

Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard atmospheric pressure of 29.9

inches Hg)

Using recovery or recycling equipment manufactured or

imported before Nov. 15,

1993

Using recovery or recycling equipment manufactured or

imported on

or after Nov.

15, 1993

Very high-pressure appliance ..................................................................................................................................... 0 ................... 0.

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds

of refrigerant.

0 ................... 0.

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of

refrigerant.

4 ................... 10.

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of

refrigerant.

4 ................... 10.

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of

refrigerant.

4 ................... 15.

Low-pressure appliance .............................................................................................................................................. 25 ................. 25 mm Hg

absolute.

As noted above, the evacuation

requirements in Table 1 are very similar

to those currently in place for CFC and

HCFC appliances. The current

evacuation requirements for CFC and

HCFC appliances are based largely, but

not entirely, on their saturation

pressures. (Refrigerants are actually

classified according to their boiling

points at atmospheric pressure, which

are generally inversely related to their

saturation pressures at higher

temperatures.) The current regulation

has three saturation pressure categories

for appliances: low pressure, highpressure, and very-high-pressure.

Successively deeper vacuums are

required for lower pressure appliances.

EPA adopted this approach because

the saturation pressure of a refrigerant is

directly related both to the percentage of

refrigerant that is recovered at a given

vacuum level and to the compression

ratio that is necessary to achieve that

vacuum.17 A comparison between R502,

which has a saturation pressure of 245

psia at 104°F, and R11, which has a

saturation pressure of 25.3 psia at 104°F,

makes this clear. At an evacuation level

of 10 inches of mercury vacuum and an

ambient temperature of 104°F, 96
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32061

18EPA established a 10-inch vacuum level for

equipment containing less than 200 lbs of highpressure refrigerant in consideration of the fact that

this evacuation requirement would apply not only

to large R12 appliances, but to smaller R12

appliances and to appliances containing somewhat

higher pressure refrigerants (e.g., R502). Very deep

evacuation requirements were not justified for the

last two. In addition, many appliances are likely

serviced at higher temperatures than the 70° used

in EPA’s model, making attainment of deep

vacuums more difficult.

19Calculated optimal vacuums depend upon

labor costs, the estimated social cost of releasing the

refrigerant, the displacement of the recovery device

compressor, and the clearance of the recovery

device compressor. The 8-inch optimal vacuum is

based on relatively low compressor displacement,

relatively high compressor clearance, and the

assumption that the release of one kilogram of

R134a would cause about 60 cents worth of

environmental damage; the 17–inch optimal

vacuum is based upon relatively high compressor

displacement, relatively low compressor clearance,

and the assumption that the release of one kilogram

of R134a would cause about six dollars worth of

environmental damage. If the R134a is assumed to

cause no damage (which, for the reasons discussed

in section III.B.2, is an extremely unlikely

assumption), the lower-bound optimal vacuum

rounds to seven inches.

20Zeotropic blends exert different pressures at the

same temperature, depending upon the percentage

of vapor vs. liquid in the container. For instance,

a container of R407C vapor has a saturation

pressure of 223.8 psia at 104 degrees, while a

container of R407C liquid has a saturation pressure

of 254.5 psia at 104 degrees. EPA is proposing to

classify refrigerants according to their liquid

saturation pressures at 104 degrees F. This is

because the vacuum that can be drawn on an

appliance is determined by the discharge pressure

against which the recovery compressor must pump

near the conclusion of the recovery process, and

this discharge pressure is that of a recovery tank

that is likely to be nearly filled with liquid.

percent of R502 refrigerant vapor has

been recovered, but only 61 percent of

R11 refrigerant vapor has been

recovered. For R502, the compression

ratio necessary to achieve this vacuum

is about 25 to 1, but for R11 the

compression ratio necessary is only

about one tenth of that, 2.6 to 1. Most

recovery compressors have a

compression ratio limit of between 20

and 30 to 1, meaning that it is difficult

to achieve an evacuation level much

lower than 10 inches of vacuum for

R502, but that it is easy to achieve a

lower evacuation level for R11. Thus, a

refrigerant’s saturation pressure directly

affects both the technical feasibility and

the environmental impact of a given

evacuation level.

However, saturation pressure is not

the only factor affecting the feasibility

and cost-effectiveness of various

evacuation levels for appliances. Other

considerations include the discharge

temperature of the refrigerant (the

temperature of the refrigerant as it

emerges from the compressor) and the

social value of the refrigerant (which

includes both its price and the

environmental damage avoided by

containing it). Due to these

considerations, EPA established a

special set of evacuation requirements

for R–22 appliances, which would

otherwise have been treated as highpressure appliances. EPA established

somewhat less stringent requirements

for R22 appliances because (1) R–22 has

both a relatively high saturation

pressure and a relatively high discharge

temperature among high-pressure

refrigerants, making it relatively

difficult to evacuate deeply, and (2) R–

22 has a low ODP compared to R12,

R500, and R502, all of which contain

CFCs (58 FR 28674).

When EPA began its evaluation of

possible evacuation levels for HFC

appliances, the Agency believed that it

might be appropriate to establish less

stringent levels for these refrigerants

than for CFCs of similar saturation

pressure, following the precedent

established with R22. On a pound-forpound basis, EPA estimates that HFCs

generally cause less environmental

harm than the CFCs they replace.

However, when EPA performed its

analysis of the costs and benefits of

attaining various vacuum levels, it

found that the social cost of releasing

the HFCs and PFCs (which, again, is a

combination of the lost private value of

the refrigerant and the environmental

damage that results from its release)

justified reaching vacuum levels only

slightly less deep than those for the

CFCs being replaced. For instance, EPA

found that the socially optimal level of

evacuation for R12 appliances

containing 50 pounds of refrigerant was

15 to 22 inches of vacuum 18, while the

socially optimal level of evacuation for

R134a appliances containing the same

quantity was 8 to 17 inches of

vacuum.19 Based on these results, the

most important factor in determining

appropriate evacuation levels for any

particular charge size appears to be the

saturation pressure of the refrigerant.

Moreover, standards set by saturation

pressure would be easier for technicians

to remember and implement than

standards that varied both by saturation

pressure and type of refrigerant. The

current CFC and HCFC regulations

contain 12 categories of evacuation

requirements, a number that could

conceivably be doubled if EPA

established new categories for HFCs.

EPA believes that the limited benefit

that might be gained by such ‘‘finetuning’’ is outweighed by the confusion

and non-compliance that could result

from the proliferation of different

requirements. Many participants at the

March 10, 1995, industry meeting on

substitutes recycling expressed a belief

that establishing consistent

requirements for CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs,

and PFCs would enhance compliance

with the recovery requirements for all of

these refrigerants.

EPA is proposing two changes to the

current system for classifying

appliances in order to implement an

approach based solely upon saturation

pressure. The first proposed change is to

classify refrigerants according to their

saturation pressures at 104 degrees F

rather than their boiling points. The

second proposed change is to eliminate

the special category for R22 and to

replace it with a new saturation

pressure category that includes the

‘‘high-pressure’’ refrigerants with the

highest saturation pressures.

EPA is proposing to classify

refrigerants according to their saturation

pressures at 104 degrees F 20 because

many of the refrigerants that have

entered the market over the past few

years pose two difficulties for the

existing system based on boiling points.

First, many of the new HFC and HCFC

blends do not have precise boiling

points. Instead, these refrigerants

exhibit ‘‘glide,’’ boiling and condensing

over a range of temperatures at a given

pressure. Second, refrigerants’ boiling

points have served as a surrogate for

their saturation pressures at higher

temperatures, but the relationship

between boiling point and saturation

pressure is not as consistent for the new

refrigerants as it is for traditional CFCs

and HCFCs. For instance, a lower

boiling point has generally indicated a

higher saturation pressure at a given

temperature. However, R402B, with a

boiling point of ¥53.2 degrees F,

actually has a lower saturation pressure

at 104 degrees F than R407A, with a

boiling point of¥49.9 degrees. The new

approach avoids these difficulties

because it links evacuation

requirements directly to the refrigerant

saturation pressure at a temperature

similar to those where recovery

typically takes place.

EPA has attempted to select

bracketing saturation pressures for

appliance categories so as to maintain as

much consistency as possible with the

current categories based on boiling

points. For instance, because the current

definition of ‘‘high-pressure appliances’’

includes R114 appliances at the lowpressure end, and the saturation

pressure of R114 at 104 degrees F is

slightly above 45 psia, EPA is proposing

to use a saturation pressure of 45 psia

as the lower-bound saturation pressure

for high-pressure appliances.

One issue raised by the proposed

approach is how to classify appliances

using very high pressure refrigerants

such as R13, R23, and R503. These
32062 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

refrigerants do not have a saturation

pressure in the traditional sense at 104

degrees F because this temperature is

above their critical temperatures. (As

noted above, the saturation pressure of

a refrigerant is the pressure of the vapor

in a vapor/liquid mixture, but

refrigerants above their critical

temperatures cannot exist in a liquid

state regardless of the pressure.) To

address this concern, EPA is proposing

to modify the definition of very high

pressure appliances to add the phrase

‘‘or whose critical temperatures fall

below 104 degrees F.’’

EPA requests comment on its

proposed use of refrigerants’ saturation

pressures at 104 degrees F rather than

boiling points to classify them. An

alternative might be to retain the current

system based on boiling points, making

allowances for temperature glide. For

example, in cases where glide caused a

refrigerant to straddle the line between

two pressure categories, EPA could

place the ‘‘straddling’’ refrigerant into

the category suggested by the lower end

of the boiling range (the ‘‘bubble

point’’). This point is the one typically

listed in pressure-temperature charts,

and EPA believes that it is the point that

would determine the maximum

evacuation level (minimum pressure)

that is physically possible for the

refrigerant.

Some custom refrigerant blends

exhibit very large glides (e.g., over 60

degrees Celsius). For such refrigerants,

the appropriate evacuation level may be

difficult to predict based on either

saturation pressure or a single ‘‘bubble’’

or ‘‘dew’’ point. EPA has worked and

will continue to work with the

manufacturers of these refrigerants to

determine appropriate evacuation levels

on a case-by-case basis.

The second change that EPA is

proposing to the current classification

scheme is to eliminate the special

category for R22 and to replace it with

a new saturation pressure category that

includes the ‘‘high-pressure’’

refrigerants with the highest saturation

pressures (those with boiling points

approximately between ¥40 and ¥50

degrees C and saturation pressures

between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104

degrees F). EPA would designate this as

the ‘‘higher-pressure’’ refrigerants

category. This would enable EPA to

tailor requirements to refrigerants with

relatively high saturation pressures

without increasing the overall number

of categories. The new category would

include appliances containing R22,

R502, R404C, and R407 A, B, and C, and

would be subject to the same

requirements as R22 appliances. For

several of these refrigerants, the

combination of a relatively high

saturation pressure and high discharge

temperature makes recovery into a deep

vacuum difficult. On the other hand,

these refrigerants have significantly

lower saturation pressures than still

higher pressure refrigerants, such as

R410A and B (with saturation pressures

near 350 psia) and R13 and R503 (whose

critical temperatures fall below 104

degrees F).

EPA requests comment on the

establishment of the ‘‘higher-pressure’’

saturation pressure category. EPA

specifically requests comment on the

proposed use of 305 psia as the upper

bound saturation pressure for this

category. The pressures to which R22

appliances must be evacuated (and

therefore to which ‘‘higher-pressure’’

appliances would have to be evacuated)

are 0 inches of vacuum, or atmospheric

pressure, for appliances containing less

than 200 pounds of refrigerant, and 10

inches of vacuum, or 9.8 psia, for

appliances containing more than 200

pounds of refrigerant. Drawing a 10-inch

vacuum on an appliance containing a

refrigerant with a saturation pressure of

305 psia would require recovery

equipment to attain a compression ratio

of 30 to 1. EPA’s current understanding

is that this is very close to the maximum

achievable compression ratio for most

recovery compressors, and may even be

beyond the abilities of some models.

(However, the compression ratio

necessary to achieve this vacuum may

be lowered by cooling the condenser of

the recovery equipment.) Thus, it may

be appropriate to establish a different

upper-bound saturation pressure for this

category, such as 265 psia.

EPA also requests comment on

whether it is appropriate to include

R502 (which has a relatively low

discharge temperature) in this category,

or whether the possibility of drawing a

deeper vacuum on this refrigerant

merits its inclusion in a lower-pressure

category despite the confusion that

might result.

One concern raised at the March 10,

1995, meeting was whether the energy

consumption associated with lengthy

operation of recovery equipment might

result in the emission of more global

warming gases (CO2) than would be

contained through continuing the

refrigerant recovery process, removing

the justification for deep recovery. To

investigate this concern, EPA and a

laboratory that tests recovery and

recycling equipment compared the rates

of power consumption (and resultant

emissions of CO2) and refrigerant

recovery for both high- and lowpressure recovery equipment. Both the

CO2 emissions rate and the refrigerant

recovery rate were weighted by the

GWPs of the gases being emitted or

captured. (Both the EPA and laboratory

analyses are included in the docket for

this rulemaking.) The conclusion of

both EPA and the laboratory was that

the rate of CO2 emission resulting from

use of recovery equipment was dwarfed

by the rate of refrigerant recovery even

at the latest (and therefore slowest)

stages of recovery. Specifically, the

minimum rate of refrigerant recovery for

high-pressure recovery equipment was

greater than the maximum rate of CO2

emissions attributable to recovery by

more than a factor of 2000, and the

minimum rate of recovery for lowpressure equipment out paced the rate

of CO2 emissions by a factor of over

1000. These large differences are in part

attributable to the high global warming

potential of most HFC refrigerants

compared to CO2.

b. Evacuation Levels for Small

Appliances. EPA is proposing to

establish the same evacuation

requirements for servicing small

appliances charged with HFCs as it has

for small appliances charged with CFCs

and HCFCs. Technicians opening small

appliances for service, maintenance, or

repair would be required to use

equipment certified either under

Appendix B, ARI 740–1993, or under

Appendix C, Method for Testing

Recovery Devices for Use with Small

Appliances, to recover the refrigerant.

Technicians using equipment

certified under Appendix C would have

to capture 90 percent of the refrigerant

in the appliance if the compressor were

operating, and 80 percent of the

refrigerant if the compressor were not

operating. Because the percentage of

refrigerant mass recovered is very

difficult to measure on any given job,

technicians would have to adhere to the

servicing procedure certified for that

recovery system under Appendix C to

ensure that they achieve the required

recovery efficiencies.

Technicians using equipment

certified under Appendix B would have

to pull a four-inch vacuum on the small

appliance being evacuated.

c. Evacuation Levels for Disposed

MVACs, MVAC-like Appliances, and

Small Appliances. EPA is proposing to

establish the same evacuation

requirements for disposing of small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

appliances that are charged with HFCs

as it has for these types of appliances

charged with CFCs and HCFCs. MVACs

and MVAC-like appliances would have

to be evacuated to 102 mm

(approximately four inches) of mercury

vacuum, and small appliances would

have to have 80 or 90 percent of the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32063

refrigerant in them recovered

(depending on whether or not the

compressor was operating) or be

evacuated to four inches of mercury

vacuum.

d. Request for Comment on

Establishing Special Evacuation

Requirements for Heat Transfer

Appliances. As noted in section

IV.A.1.a. above, EPA received comments

from a manufacturer of PFCs that stated

that special evacuation requirements

may be appropriate for certain types of

heat transfer appliances containing

PFCs, such as some types of electrical

transformers. The commenter

specifically noted that evacuating some

types of heat transfer systems may result

in damage to those systems, that in

many cases, parts to be repaired may be

isolated from the refrigerant charge, and

that many repairs may be performed

quickly, releasing little refrigerant even

if the system is not evacuated.

EPA does not currently believe that

special evacuation requirements for heat

transfer appliances are necessary, for

two reasons. First, EPA has not heard

from users or servicers of heat transfer

appliances that the current requirements

regarding the recovery of CFCs and

HCFCs from such appliances (which are

the same as those for similarly sized

appliances containing refrigerants of

similar pressure) are difficult to

implement. Because PFCs have physical

characteristics similar to those of the

CFCs that they replace in heat transfer

appliances, EPA believes that any

potential problems associated with

implementing the proposed evacuation

requirements for PFCs would have

already surfaced with CFCs and HCFCs.

Second, the current evacuation

provisions appear to adequately address

most of the situations that the

commenter has identified. Specifically,

the current regulations establish an

exception to the evacuation

requirements for non-major repairs and

permit isolation of parts to be repaired.

Before non-major repairs, technicians

need only evacuate (or pressurize, in the

case of low-pressure appliances)

appliances to atmospheric pressure. If a

part can be isolated from the refrigerant

charge, technicians may repair the part

without recovering the refrigerant into

an external container.

EPA requests comment on the need

for special evacuation requirements for

heat transfer appliances in light of the

arguments presented here.

e. Proposed Clarifications of

Evacuation Requirements. EPA has

received a request for two clarifications

of the evacuation requirements for

appliances. The first request for

clarification concerns whether a part of

the appliance that is not a separate tank

may be considered a ‘‘system receiver,’’

in which the system charge may be

isolated while another, isolated part of

the appliance is opened for repairs. The

second request for clarification concerns

whether an isolated portion of an

appliance that already meets the

required level of evacuation due to

normal operating characteristics may be

opened for repairs without further

evacuation. In addition to proposing a

minor change to the regulatory language

to respond to the first request, EPA is

proposing to add language to § 82.156(a)

to clarify that, except in the case of nonmajor repairs to low-pressure

appliances, liquid refrigerant must be

removed from appliances (or from the

isolated parts to be serviced) before they

are opened to the atmosphere.

Regarding the first request for

clarification, EPA is today clarifying

that, for purposes of complying with

§ 82.156(a), EPA interprets the term

‘‘system receiver’’ to include a part of

the appliance that is not a separate tank,

if that portion of the appliance can be

isolated from the portion of the

appliance that is opened for repairs.

From an environmental perspective,

EPA believes that the critical

consideration is whether the part of the

appliance to be opened to the

atmosphere for repair has had the

refrigerant removed and isolated from it,

not the configuration of the remaining

appliance parts within which the

refrigerant is isolated. To clarify this

point, EPA is proposing to amend

§ 82.156(a) by adding the following

examples after the term ‘‘system

receiver’’: ‘‘(e.g., the remaining portions

of the appliance, or a specific vessel

within the appliance)’’. EPA requests

comment on this proposed change.

In addition to clarifying its

interpretation of ‘‘system receiver,’’ EPA

is proposing to add language to

§ 82.156(a) to ensure that the regulations

clearly preclude a possible

misinterpretation of these requirements.

EPA has always interpreted § 82.156(a)

to require that, except in the case of

non-major repairs to low-pressure

appliances, liquid refrigerant must be

removed from appliances (or from the

isolated parts to be serviced) before they

are opened to the atmosphere.

Currently, § 82.156(a) reads (in part) ‘‘all

persons disposing of appliances * * *

must evacuate the refrigerant in the

entire unit to a recovery or recycling

machine certified pursuant to § 82.158.

All persons opening appliances * * *

must evacuate the refrigerant in either

the entire unit or the part to be serviced

(if the latter can be isolated) to a system

receiver or a recovery or recycling

machine certified pursuant to § 82.158.’’

Sections 82.156(a)(1) through (5) specify

pressures to which the appliances must

be evacuated.

It has come to EPA’s attention that it

may be possible in some cases to briefly

attain the required evacuation levels

specified in §§ 82.156(a)(1) through (5)

while there is still liquid refrigerant in

the appliance or in the isolated part to

be serviced. In general, if vapor is

removed from a mixture of liquid and

vapor refrigerant at equilibrium,

reducing the vapor pressure, the liquid

will boil until the equilibrium between

the vapor and liquid states is restored,

returning the vapor pressure to the

saturation pressure of the refrigerant.

However, heat must flow into the

system from the environment for this to

occur, and such heat flow takes time.

Thus, if an individual quickly recovers

vapor from an appliance, permitting no

time for the liquid to boil to return the

vapor pressure to the equilibrium value,

the pressure specified in § 82.156(a)

may be attained, albeit only temporarily.

If the individual opens the appliance at

this point, a great deal of refrigerant will

be released to the environment. This is

because the density of liquid refrigerant

is typically one to two orders of

magnitude greater than that of vapor

refrigerant, meaning that a large mass of

refrigerant may be concentrated in a

relatively small volume of liquid, and

the liquid will continue to boil off into

the atmosphere as long as the appliance

is opened.

EPA believes that the use of the

phrase ‘‘evacuate the refrigerant’’ in

§ 82.156(a), as well as the language in

§ 82.154(a) (the prohibition on venting)

already clearly indicate that liquid

refrigerant must be removed from the

appliance or isolated part before it is

opened for servicing. Otherwise, a

significant portion of the refrigerant will

not be evacuated to a recovery device,

a good faith effort to recover and recycle

refrigerant will not be made, and

releases to the environment will be

considerably more than de minimis.

Nevertheless, to eliminate any possible

ambiguity on this point, the Agency is

proposing to add the phrase, ‘‘including

all liquid refrigerant,’’ after the phrase,

‘‘the refrigerant,’’ in both places where

it occurs in § 82.156(a). To ensure that

the modified language does not

implicitly override § 82.156(a)(2)(i)(B),

which provides that recovery of liquid

is not required in cases of non-major

repairs to low-pressure appliances, EPA

is proposing to add the parenthetical

phrase ‘‘(except as provided at

§ 82.156(a)(2)(i)(B))’’ to the second

occurrence of ‘‘including all liquid
32064 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

21 In finalizing the purity requirements for HFCs

and PFCs, EPA will consider comments received on

both on the February 29, 1996, document (and on

any subsequent document related to purity

standards for refrigerant) and on this document.

refrigerant.’’ EPA requests comment on

this proposed change.

In response to the second request for

clarification, EPA believes that if a part

of an appliance already meets the

required level of evacuation due to

normal operating characteristics, it may

be isolated and opened for repairs

without further evacuation, so long as

liquid refrigerant is not present in the

isolated part. Again, the purpose of the

requirement to evacuate under

§ 82.156(a) is to minimize refrigerant

emissions from the part. If the required

level of evacuation has been met, and no

liquid is present in the isolated part,

only de minimis quantities of refrigerant

will be released when the part is opened

to the atmosphere. Therefore, this

situation meets the requirements to

evacuate under § 82.156(a).

2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant

EPA is proposing to establish purity

requirements for HFCs and PFCs very

similar to those for CFCs and HCFCs. In

addition, the Agency is proposing to

update its purity requirements for all

refrigerants to reflect the most recent

industry standard, ARI 700–1995,

Specifications for Fluorocarbon and

Other Refrigerants, and is requesting

comment on adopting a generic

standard of purity for those refrigerants

that are not covered by ARI 700–1995.

a. Background. Currently, before

being sold for use as a refrigerant, used

CFCs and HCFCs must be reclaimed by

a certified reclaimer to the ARI 700–

1993 Standard of purity, which is

codified as Appendix A to subpart F. In

a separate rulemaking, EPA has

proposed to add more flexibility to the

purity standards for CFC and HCFC

refrigerants, permitting contractors to

transfer refrigerant from one customer’s

to another customer’s equipment, so

long as (1) the refrigerant remains

within the contractor’s constant custody

and control, (2) the refrigerant is

returned to the ARI 700 Standard of

purity, and (3) this purity is verified

through submission of a representative

sample to an analytical laboratory

certified by an EPA-approved laboratory

certification program. That proposal

would also require third party

certification of reclaimers. See 61 FR

7858 (February 29, 1996).

b. Extending Purity Requirements to

HFC and PFC Refrigerants. EPA is not

today soliciting comment on which

refrigerant purity regime is preferable

for all refrigerants. Instead, EPA

requests comment on whether the purity

of HFCs and PFCs should be maintained

through a different regulatory approach

than the purity of CFCs and HCFCs, and

if so, why.

EPA believes that the rationale for

promulgating purity standards for CFCs

and HCFCs also applies to HFCs and

PFCs 21. EPA discussed the rationale for

covering CFCs and HCFCs at length in

the May 14, 1993 final rule (58 FR

28678–28679), the March 17, 1995, and

February 29, 1996 direct final rules, and

the December 27, 1996 final rule

extending the reclamation requirement

(60 FR 14608, 61 FR 7724, and 61 FR

68506). In summary, the purity

requirements are intended to prevent

refrigerant releases that would result

from refrigerant contamination,

particularly releases linked to damage to

equipment caused by use of

contaminated refrigerant. This damage,

including sludging of high-viscosity oils

in low temperature systems, freezing of

moisture in capillary tubes, corrosion

from acids, and high head-pressures

from noncondensables and refrigerant

mixtures, could be caused by

contaminated HFCs and PFCs (and their

lubricants) as well as by contaminated

CFCs and HCFCs. Equipment damage

from contaminated refrigerant would

result in costs to equipment owners and

releases of refrigerant from damaged

equipment though increased leakage,

servicing, and replacement. In addition,

such damage would ultimately lead to a

reduction in consumer confidence in

the quality of used refrigerant.

Given these potential effects, EPA

believes that promulgating purity

requirements for HFCs and PFCs is vital

to implementation and enforcement of

section 608(c)(2). Any reduction in

consumer confidence in the quality of

used refrigerant would undermine a

fundamental incentive to comply with

the section 608(c)(2) prohibition on

venting substitute refrigerants. Without

a market for the used refrigerant, there

is no economic incentive to recover it;

indeed, the costs of recovery and

destruction create a significant

economic incentive simply to release

the substance, in violation of the

venting prohibition. Moreover, the

removal of economic incentives to

comply with the prohibition is

particularly deleterious to compliance

because direct enforcement of the

prohibition is difficult. The prohibition

applies to numerous small entities,

including over one million technicians,

and EPA lacks the resources to monitor

their refrigerant-related activities on an

individual basis. Under these

circumstances, establishing economic

incentives for compliance, or at least

neutralizing economic disincentives to

compliance, is particularly critical to

implementing the statutory prohibition

on venting.

The proliferation of refrigerants and

lubricants on the market has made

efforts to protect refrigerant purity more

important than ever. The increasing

number of refrigerants increases the

probability of refrigerant mixture,

particularly if equipment that has been

retrofitted with new refrigerant is not

properly identified, leading to mixture

of a CFC with the HCFC or HFC that

replaced it. Requirements to analyze

refrigerant before sale to a new owner

can prevent mixed refrigerants from

being placed into equipment or from

contaminating a larger batch of

refrigerant.

Moreover, EPA believes that purity

standards must apply to all refrigerants

in similar applications in order to

ensure purity for any subset of these

refrigerants. As noted above, several

persons attending the March 10, 1995

public meeting stated that failure to

apply standards to HFCs could erode

compliance with the standards for CFCs

and HCFCs, because technicians would

become either confused or skeptical

regarding standards that were applied

inconsistently. Such standards would

also be difficult to enforce. For instance,

without purity standards, contractors

could sell dirty HFCs on the open

market, and it would be relatively easy

to hide commerce in dirty CFCs or

HCFCs within commerce in dirty HFCs

(e.g., through deliberate mislabelling, a

tactic that has been used to import CFCs

illegally). Thus, purity standards for

HFCs are important to prevent damage

to CFC and HCFC equipment and

subsequent emissions of these

refrigerants as well. As a consequence,

EPA believes that purity standards for

HFCs and PFCs are important to

implement the section 608(a)(2)

requirement to reduce emissions of

CFCs and HCFCs to the lowest

achievable level.

EPA is proposing to extend the purity

requirements to HFCs and PFCs by

revising prohibitions 82.154(g) and (h)

to refer simply to ‘‘refrigerant’’ rather

than to ‘‘class I and class II substances.’’

In addition, EPA is proposing to include

purity standards and analytical

protocols for HFC refrigerants in

Appendix A.

c. Updating the Purity Standard. EPA

is proposing to adopt the most recent

version of the industry purity standard

and analytical protocol for refrigerants,

ARI 700–1995. ARI 700–1995 includes

standards for a number of refrigerants

that are not addressed by the currently
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32065

codified standard, ARI 700–1993. These

refrigerants include R404A, R405A,

R406A, R407A, B, and C, R408A,

R409A, R410A and B, R411A and B,

R412A, R507, R508 and R509. In

addition, the Appendix C to ARI

Standard 700–95 has updated some of

the procedures for the analysis of

refrigerants in Appendix 93 to ARI 700–

1993, which is incorporated by

reference into subpart F. First, methods

have been added for determining the

composition of the zeotropic refrigerant

blend families R404, R407, R408, R409,

and R410, and of the azeotropic

refrigerant blends R507 and R508. These

methods will enable laboratories to

verify that the blends contain the

appropriate percentages of their

component materials. Second, a

gravimetric test has been added as an

alternate method for determining highboiling residues. The gravimetric test is

actually considered to be more accurate

than the current volumetric method,

and its addition will permit laboratories

with the appropriate facilities and

expertise to perform more precise

measurements of high-boiling residues

than are permitted by the volumetric

method. (The volumetric method is

retained as an alternate in ARI 700–95

because it is adequately precise for most

applications, and is less expensive to

perform than the gravimetric method.)

Finally, several typographic and

wording changes have been made to

improve the clarity of the standard. EPA

believes that these changes will make

the reclamation requirements more

enforceable while decreasing the burden

of industry to prove conformance.

ARI is currently revising ARI

Standard 700–95 to reflect further

advances in refrigerant analysis and

changes in the refrigerant market.

Because the next version of the

Standard may be completed between the

publication of this proposed rule and

the final rule, and because EPA believes

it is appropriate to adopt the most

recent version of the Standard possible,

EPA is requesting comment on the

changes to the Standard that EPA

understands are being considered.

These changes include (1) the adoption

of a single analysis (for each blend) for

determining both the composition of

each refrigerant blend and its level of

contamination by organic impurities,

and (2) the standardization of the

presently wide range of equipment,

techniques, and calculations used in the

current methods for determining the

composition of refrigerant blends.

Currently, there are no analytical

methods for determining blends’ levels

of contamination by organic impurities,

and the adoption of a standardized and

consolidated composition/impurity

analysis will therefore make the

standard more enforceable without

significantly increasing the burden on

laboratories. These changes are

discussed in more detail in a report

developed by Integral Sciences

Incorporated for the Air-Conditioning

and Refrigeration Technology Institute

(ARTI). This report is entitled Methods

Development for Organic Contaminant

Determination in Fluorocarbon

Refrigerant Azeotropes and Blends and

is included in the docket for this

rulemaking.

d. Generic Standard of Purity. Despite

EPA’s proposed adoption of the latest

industry standard, the Agency’s purity

standards are likely to be rendered

incomplete shortly after their

promulgation by the rapid development

and introduction of new refrigerants

into the market. In general, there is

likely to be a delay between the

introduction of new refrigerants and the

adoption of specific purity standards for

them by ARI and EPA. Although EPA

plans to consider purity requirements

along with recycling requirements for

each new refrigerant as it undergoes

SNAP review, the Agency is requesting

comment on establishing a generic

purity standard for refrigerants for

which specific purity standards have

not yet been codified. The ARI 700

standard includes specifications for

boiling points, boiling ranges, isomer

contents, noncondensables, water, highboiling residue, particulates/solids,

acidity, and chlorides. Except for

boiling points, boiling ranges, and high

boiling residues, the specifications for

all CFC, HCFC, and HFC refrigerants are

identical or vary systematically

according to the saturation pressure of

the refrigerant. EPA is requesting

comment on whether HFCs for which

specific standards have not been

codified should be subject to the

following maximum contaminant levels,

which are based on those of ARI 700:

GENERIC MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS

Contaminant Reporting units Low pressure

refrigs. Other refrigs.

Non-condensables ................................................................................................................. % by volume @

25°C.

N/A ............... 1.5.

Water ..................................................................................................................................... ppm by weight ........ 20 ................. 10.

High boiling residue ............................................................................................................... % by volume ........... 0.01 .............. 0.01.

Particulates/solids .................................................................................................................. Visually clean to

pass.

pass ............. pass.

Acidity .................................................................................................................................... ppm by weight ........ 1.0 ................ 1.0.

Chlorides ................................................................................................................................ No visible turbidity .. pass ............. pass

EPA requests comment on the specific

contaminant levels presented here.

Since reclamation requires not only

that refrigerant be cleaned to a certain

level, but also that it be analyzed to

verify that it meets that level, a generic

standard of purity should be matched by

a generic analytical protocol. General

analytical procedures exist to determine

the levels of acidity, water, high-boiling

residue, chloride, and non-condensable

gases in refrigerants; these procedures

are detailed in parts 1 through 5 of

Appendix C to ARI 700–95. However,

individual gas chromatography

procedures are required for each

refrigerant in order to determine the

overall purity of that refrigerant. This is

because each refrigerant has its own gas

chromatogram (profile) and

characteristic impurities (other than

acid, water, high-boiling residue,

chloride, and noncondensable gases).

EPA understands that the need to

develop gas chromatography procedures

is what frequently slows the adoption of

reclamation procedures for new

refrigerants. Thus, EPA requests

comment on whether it would be useful

to have generic standards of purity for

new refrigerants and analytical

protocols for acid, water, high-boiling

residues, chloride, and noncondensable

gases for these refrigerants in the

absence of specific gas chromatography

procedures to determine the overall

purity of these refrigerants.

e. Possible Application of Standard of

Purity to New Refrigerants. EPA believes
32066 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

22EPA is not aware of any manufacturers of new

appliances who are still using CFCs. However, in

the event that such appliances were manufactured,

they would be subject to the new leak repair

requirements.

that the vast majority of new refrigerant

sold meets the ARI 700 standard.

However, the Agency understands that

on occasion, used or otherwise

contaminated refrigerant has been sold

as ‘‘new.’’ In order to ensure that the

Agency can prevent the sale of

contaminated refrigerant that is labeled

as ‘‘new,’’ EPA is requesting comment

on whether it should require new

refrigerant to meet the ARI 700–1995

specifications. EPA also requests

comment on whether producers or

sellers of new refrigerant should be

required to analyze the refrigerant

before its sale, using the protocol set

forth in ARI 700–1995.

3. Leak Repair

EPA is proposing to lower the

permissible leak rates for some airconditioning and refrigeration

equipment containing more than 50

pounds of CFC22 and HCFC refrigerant.

EPA is also proposing to extend the leak

repair requirements (as they would be

amended) to air-conditioning and

refrigeration equipment containing more

than 50 pounds of HFC and PFC

refrigerant. Specifically, EPA is

proposing to lower the permissible

annual leak rate for new commercial

refrigeration equipment to 10 percent of

the charge per year, the permissible

annual leak rate for older commercial

refrigeration equipment to 15 percent

per year, the permissible annual leak

rate for some industrial process

refrigeration equipment to 20 percent of

the charge per year, the permissible

annual leak rate for other new

appliances (e.g., comfort cooling

chillers) to five percent of the charge per

year, and the permissible annual leak

rate for other existing appliances to 10

percent of the charge per year. The

proposed changes would become

effective thirty days after publication of

the final rule except for the provisions

affecting industrial process refrigeration,

which would become effective three

years after publication of the final rule.

The other aspects of the current leak

repair provisions, such as time lines for

repair or retrofit, would remain the

same.

The current permissible annual leak

rates for commercial and industrial

process refrigeration and for other

appliances are 35 percent per year and

15 percent per year respectively. These

limits were set based on information

that EPA gathered regarding typical leak

rates for these types of equipment in

1991 and 1992. In several recent

meetings and conversations with EPA,

industry representatives have indicated

that air-conditioning and refrigeration

equipment manufactured over the past

few years has been designed to leak at

lower rates than air-conditioning and

refrigeration equipment manufactured

earlier, and that existing appliances

have often been modified with new

devices, such as high-efficiency purge

devices for low-pressure chillers, that

have significantly lowered their leak

rates. Manufacturers have made these

design changes, and owners have

invested in them, in response to

growing environmental and economic

concerns associated with refrigerant

emissions.

a. Comfort Cooling Chillers. EPA’s

research indicates that the reduction in

leak rates has been most dramatic in

comfort cooling chillers, where leak

rates have been lowered from between

10 and 15 percent per year to less than

five percent per year in many cases.

Design changes that have contributed to

this reduction include the installation of

high-efficiency purge devices on lowpressure chillers, the installation of

microprocessor-based monitoring

systems that can alert system operators

to warning signs of leakage (such as

excessive purge run time), the use of

leak-tight brazed rather than leak-prone

flared connections, and the use of

isolation valves, which permit

technicians to make repairs without

evacuating and opening the entire

refrigerant circuit. The first two

conservation measures can be

implemented for existing as well as new

equipment; the last two apply primarily

to new equipment.

Manufacturers, servicers, and users of

chillers state that, as a result of these

modifications, new chillers (those built

since 1992) typically leak less than five

percent per year, with many new

chillers leaking around two percent per

year, and some leaking less than one

percent. Only one type of new

equipment has been reported to have a

leak rate above five percent; that is highpressure chillers with open-drive

compressors, which have been found to

have leak rates ranging from four to

seven percent. Older chillers that have

been modified with emissions-reduction

technologies are reported to leak

between one and 10 percent per year.

Where industry sources have not

distinguished between modified and

unmodified older equipment, leak rates

have been reported to average four

percent per year, indicating that most of

the chiller fleet has either been modified

to leak less or is significantly better

maintained than it was five years ago.

EPA believes that the reported

performance of today’s chiller fleet

argues for lowering the maximum

permissible leak rate from 15% per year.

The leak repair requirement was

promulgated under section 608(a)(2),

which requires EPA to promulgate

regulations regarding the use and

disposal of class I and class II

substances, including refrigerants, that

reduce the use and emission of such

substances to the lowest achievable

level. EPA believes that the evidence

discussed above demonstrates that the

current 15-percent-per-year permissible

rate is considerably above the ‘‘lowest

achievable level of emissions,’’

especially for new equipment. (In fact,

EPA acknowledged in the May 14, 1993

rule that the 15-percent-per-year leak

rate probably was not the lowest

achievable level for at least some

comfort cooling equipment, but the

Agency did not have sufficient

information at that time to develop

stricter or more refined standards.)

While section 608(a)(2) does not

require EPA to perform a cost-benefit

analysis to determine what leak rate(s)

would constitute the ‘‘lowest achievable

level of emissions,’’ such cost-benefit

analyses support establishing lower leak

rates. One such analysis simply deduces

from achieved leak rates that a lower

permissible leak rate would be publicly

cost-effective. The leak rates reported

above, which generally fall well below

the current regulatory maximum, are

clearly being achieved in response to

private incentives alone. If maintaining

these leak rates is privately costeffective, it must be publicly costeffective, because the public cost of

emissions, which includes both the

private value of the refrigerant and the

environmental damage it causes,

exceeds the private cost of emissions,

which includes only the private value of

the refrigerant.

In another analysis, EPA directly

examined the public cost-effectiveness

of certain types of leak repair and

equipment modification. First, EPA

estimated the public benefits of

avoiding emissions of refrigerant on a

per kilogram basis. Second, EPA

calculated the leak reductions that

would have to be achieved through

repairs and modifications to produce

benefits to offset their costs. In general,

EPA found that reductions in leak rates

on the order of two to 10 percent of the

charge per year had to be achieved to

justify the cost of the leak repair or

equipment modification. These

reductions are comparable to those that

have already been achieved over the last

four years through the implementation

of leak repair and equipment
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32067

modification, providing additional

evidence that leak rates below the

current 15 percent permissible rate can

be cost-effectively achieved.

Because EPA’s data indicates that new

chillers leak less than existing chillers,

and because some leak reduction

modifications can be applied to new,

but not to existing, equipment, EPA is

proposing a more stringent standard for

new chillers than for older chillers. For

chillers built in 1993 or later, EPA is

proposing a maximum permissible leak

rate of five percent per year. With one

exception, the reported leak rates for

new chillers all fall below this rate, and

the exception, the open-drive type of

high pressure chiller, has leak rates

between four and seven percent. EPA

believes that with careful maintenance,

even these chillers can maintain a leak

rate below five percent. However, if they

cannot, EPA requests comment on

whether EPA should establish a larger

maximum leak rate for this type of

chiller. EPA is currently disinclined to

establish a special, larger rate, because

EPA believes that, if necessary, chiller

designs with lower inherent leak rates

can be substituted for the high-pressure,

open-drive type at little or no additional

cost.

For chillers built in 1992 or earlier,

EPA is proposing a maximum

permissible leak rate of 10 percent per

year. This rate is consistent with the

data provided to EPA for fleets that

include modified equipment. While

EPA considered setting the leak rate for

older equipment equal to that for new

equipment, information gathered to date

indicates that it may be difficult to

reduce the emissions of some older

equipment to much below 10 percent of

the charge per year without undertaking

the wholesale replacement of existing

joints and seals, which would prove

prohibitively expensive. EPA requests

comment on the proposed leak rates for

both new and existing equipment.

Finally, EPA requests comment on

whether there are any appliances that

would be classified as ‘‘Appliances

other than commercial or industrial

process refrigeration’’ that are not

comfort cooling chillers and that could

not attain the five and 10 percent per

year maximum permissible leak rates

that are being proposed for new and

existing appliances of this type. EPA

currently believes that the vast majority,

if not all, of the appliances classified as

‘‘Appliances other than commercial or

industrial process refrigeration’’ are

comfort cooling chillers and can attain

the proposed rates.

b. Commercial Refrigeration. In

general, leak rates are higher in the

commercial refrigeration sector than in

the chiller sector. In large part, this is

attributable to the facts that (1)

equipment in the commercial

refrigeration sector is largely assembled

in the field (in the grocery store or food

storage warehouse) rather than in the

factory and (2) commercial refrigeration

equipment generally uses a long single

refrigerant loop for cooling rather than

a short primary refrigerant loop with a

secondary loop containing water or

brine. The first fact makes it more

difficult for original equipment

manufacturers to systematically

implement leak reduction technologies

for commercial refrigeration equipment

than for chillers (in fact, in a sense, each

of the hundreds of contractors who

install the equipment nationwide is a

‘‘manufacturer’’), and the second tends

to raise average leak rates, particularly

when the refrigerant loop flows through

inaccessible spaces, such as underneath

floors. In addition to these

considerations, the need to operate

commercial refrigeration equipment

continuously to keep products from

spoiling makes leak repair more

difficult.

Nevertheless, data from

manufacturers and owners of

commercial refrigeration equipment

indicates that leak rates considerably

lower than 35 percent per year can be

achieved cost effectively with this

equipment. A study sponsored by EPA’s

Office of Research and Development

analyzed two detailed bodies of data on

leakage from commercial refrigeration

equipment, one collected by a

Midwestern chain of 110 stores and the

other gathered by the South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD), which requires monitoring

and reporting of leak rates from large

refrigeration systems. The Midwestern

chain achieved an average leak rate of

15 percent by establishing written

procedures for equipment installation

(including a requirement that expansion

valves be brazed or ‘‘sweated’’), a

refrigerant monitoring system, and an

equipment inspection protocol. This

rate was achieved in 1992, before EPA’s

leak repair requirements were even in

effect. The data collected by SCAQMD

was based 440 recharging and leak

testing events from 56 different stores

representing 20 different businesses.

The average leak rate achieved by the

stores was eight percent of total charge.

The ORD report also investigated the

cost-effectiveness of different strategies

and technologies for reducing leak rates,

finding that many of these approaches

could lower leak rates significantly and

thereby pay for themselves. Using a

combination of these approaches, a

number of chains had significantly

reduced both overall refrigerant

consumption and leakage from

equipment over the previous two to

eight years. Some of the most effective

approaches included vibration

elimination devices, use of high-quality

brazed rather than mechanical

connections, low emission condensers,

stationary leakage monitors, refrigerant

tracking and improved preventive

maintenance. A few of the approaches,

such as installation of low-emission

condensers, were more applicable to

new than to existing equipment;

however, many of the approaches, such

as refrigerant monitors, refrigerant

tracking systems, and improved

preventive maintenance, were

applicable to both existing and new

equipment. These approaches were

individually expected to reduce leak

rates from equipment by between five

and forty percent of the charge per year.

In light of this information, EPA is

proposing to establish lower permissible

leak rates for commercial refrigeration

equipment. Although neither the

Midwestern chain nor SCAQMD

distinguished between new and old

equipment in measuring leak rates,

equipment manufacturers (ARI) have

stated that leak rates in new equipment

are likely to be lower than leak rates in

old equipment. This statement, along

with the fact that some leak reduction

technologies are applicable to new but

not to older equipment, indicates that it

would be appropriate to establish

different permissible leak rates for new

and old commercial refrigeration

equipment. EPA is therefore proposing

that the maximum permissible leak rate

for new commercial refrigeration

equipment (commissioned after 1992)

be lowered to 10 percent per year, and

that the maximum rate for old

commercial refrigeration equipment

(commissioned before or during 1992)

be lowered to 15 percent per year. EPA

believes that these rates are appropriate

in view of the average leak rates

achieved in the South Coast Air Quality

Management District and in the

Midwestern chain and in view of the

availability of effective leak reduction

approaches.

EPA requests comment on these

proposed rates. First, EPA requests

comment on whether the relatively low

leak rates observed in new equipment

are likely to persist throughout its

lifetime, or whether those rates are

likely to rise over its lifetime to

approach the current leak rates of older

equipment. In other words, does new

equipment leak less simply because it

has endured less wear and tear than

older equipment, or is new equipment

now manufactured and installed in a
32068 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

way that will minimize leakage over its

entire life? Second, EPA requests

comment on whether higher or lower

rates might be appropriate for different

types of commercial refrigeration

equipment, given that compressor rack

systems, single compressor systems, and

self-contained units may have

significantly different average leak rates.

For instance, because compressor rack

systems may include miles of piping

and numerous connections that provide

many opportunities for leakage, one

might expect them to leak a greater

percentage of their charge than selfcontained units that include only a few

feet of piping. Third, EPA requests

comment on whether significant

percentages (e.g., 10 percent or more) of

the various types of commercial

refrigeration equipment might not be

able to comply with leak rates of 10 or

15 percent without being totally

replaced, and, if this is the case,

whether permissible leak rates of 15 and

20 percent might be more achievable.

c. Industrial Process Refrigeration. As

is the case for commercial refrigeration

equipment, leak rates in industrial

process refrigeration equipment have

been falling, but the rates and

consistency of decline across equipment

types have been lower than for comfort

cooling chillers. While some industrial

process refrigeration equipment has

attained leak rates between five and 10

percent per year, other equipment has

continued to leak near the 35-percentper-year maximum permissible rate

despite the growing price of refrigerants

over the past five years. The conditions

that contribute to a wide range of leak

rates in the commercial refrigeration

sector apply even more to the industrial

process refrigeration sector. Equipment

in the industrial process refrigeration

sector is not only assembled on site, but

is often custom-designed for a wide

spectrum of processes and plants, giving

the sector an extraordinarily broad range

of equipment configurations and

designs. Equipment may be high- or

low-pressure; may possess hermetic,

semi-hermetic, or open-drive

compressors; may use one (primary) or

two (primary and secondary) refrigerant

loops; may be brand new or decades

old; and may range in charge size from

a few hundred to over 100,000 pounds

of refrigerant. All of these factors are

important in determining leak rates,

leading to the observed range mentioned

above.

Specifically, as is true for chillers,

and, to some extent, for retail food

refrigeration equipment, industrial

process refrigeration equipment built

more recently has generally been

designed to leak less than equipment

built earlier. Similarly, equipment

containing hermetic compressors tends

to leak less than equipment containing

open-drive compressors, because the

latter possess openings for their drive

shafts, compromising the integrity of the

system. Single loop, direct expansion

systems tend to leak more than systems

possessing a secondary water or brine

loop because the former tend to have

longer refrigerant loops than the latter,

increasing opportunities for leakage.

Large equipment may leak more than

small equipment for two reasons. First,

large equipment tends to be custombuilt rather than built on an assembly

line in a factory, making it more

difficult to regulate manufacturing

techniques (joint construction, etc.) that

affect leakage. Second, large equipment

tends to have more piping and joints

than small equipment, increasing the

number of potential leak sites.

EPA believes that it is appropriate to

consider the date of manufacture,

compressor configuration, and

possession (or lack) of a secondary loop

in determining maximum allowable leak

rates for industrial process refrigeration

equipment. However, the Agency is

reluctant to permit higher leak rates for

equipment with very large charge sizes.

This is because a given leak rate in large

equipment causes more environmental

harm than the same leak rate in small

equipment. For example, a 20% per year

leak rate in equipment with a 10,000

pound charge would result in the

release of 2,000 pounds of refrigerant

per year, while a 20% per leak rate in

equipment with a 1,000 pound charge

would result in the release of 200

pounds of refrigerant per year. Thus,

although it may be more difficult or

expensive to achieve a given leak rate in

large equipment than in small

equipment, EPA believes that these

additional efforts are warranted by the

larger environmental impact of leaks

from large equipment.

In view of these considerations, EPA

is proposing different maximum

permissible leak rates based on the

equipment’s date of manufacture,

compressor configuration, and number

of refrigerant loops (primary only vs.

primary and secondary). EPA thereby

expects to increase environmental

protection (by lowering the permissible

rate where it can be lowered) without

imposing undue costs (by

accommodating types of equipment for

which the rate cannot be lowered). At

the same time, however, the Agency

wishes to minimize the confusion that

might be associated with having

multiple permissible rates that are

keyed to different combinations of the

above criteria. EPA is therefore is

proposing a two-rate system for the

industrial process sector. As is the case

for the comfort cooling and commercial

refrigeration sectors, EPA believes that

these changes are necessary to carry out

section 608(a)(2) of the Act.

Under the proposed approach,

industrial process refrigeration

equipment would be subject to a 20

percent per year maximum permissible

leak rate unless it met all four of the

following criteria:

(1) The refrigeration system is custombuilt;

(2) The refrigeration system has an

open-drive compressor;

(3) The refrigeration system was built

in 1992 or before; and

(4) The system is direct-expansion

(contains a single, primary refrigerant

loop).

Systems that met conditions 1, 2, 3,

and 4 would continue to be subject to

the 35-percent-per-year maximum

permissible leak rate.

The Agency requests comment on the

approach, both on the criteria used to

sort equipment between the 20% and

35% per year rates, and on the rates

themselves. EPA specifically requests

comment on whether it might be

appropriate to permit a higher leak rate

for equipment with a charge size above

10,000 lbs. As noted above, EPA is

reluctant to permit higher leak rates for

large equipment due to the greater

environmental impact of a given leak

rate from large equipment; however, if

it is demonstrably impossible to reduce

the leak rate of such equipment without

undertaking a massive overhaul, EPA

could consider permitting a higher leak

rate for large equipment built before

1992. The Agency believes that large

equipment built more recently should

be able to maintain a leak rate of 20%

per year. The Agency also requests

comment on whether it would be

appropriate to use a measure other than

charge size to characterize sprawling,

inherently leaky equipment. The

Agency is concerned that the proposed

characterization might inappropriately

permit high leak rates for some large

equipment that does not possess an

inherently leaky configuration. One

alternative would be to use pipe length

rather than charge size to characterize

equipment as having a leaky

configuration.

In addition, EPA requests comment

on the interchangeability of leaky and

non-leaky equipment designs. That is,

are there compelling reasons why users

of industrial process refrigeration must

use open-drive compressors or direct

expansion systems rather than hermetic

compressors and secondary loops? The

Agency understands that it may be
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32069

difficult to transform an existing direct

expansion system into a system with a

secondary loop. However, persons

installing new systems might be

expected to have more flexibility.

Other possible approaches to leak

repair in industrial process refrigeration

equipment could be either more or less

complex than the one proposed. A

simple approach would lower the

current permissible leak rate for all

industrial process equipment to a single

new rate, perhaps to 25 percent per

year. While this approach would be

administratively simple, however, it

could be costly if a significant fraction

of existing equipment was not able to

meet the new rate without massive

overhaul or replacement. Based on its

discussions with users of industrial

process refrigeration equipment, EPA

believes that this is indeed the case. A

more complex approach would establish

three or more permissible rates for

different classes of equipment based on

the above criteria. However, although

this approach would better tailor

permissible leak rates to the inherent

leak rates of different types of

equipment, the Agency believes that any

environmental or economic gains that

might be achieved through such an

approach would not justify its

complexity and associated difficulty of

implementation. EPA requests comment

on these potential alternative

approaches.

EPA is proposing to make the new

leak rates effective for industrial process

refrigeration equipment three years after

promulgation of this rule. EPA is

proposing this delayed effective date for

industrial process refrigeration

equipment for several reasons. First, the

current leak repair requirements for

industrial process refrigeration

equipment only became effective in

September 1995, over two years later

than the leak repair requirements for

other equipment. Owners and servicers

of industrial process refrigeration

equipment have therefore had

considerably less time than owners and

servicers of other types of equipment to

learn and implement the existing

maximum permissible rates. Thus,

promulgating new maximum

permissible rates with immediate

effective dates would lead to

considerable confusion and disruption

in this sector, while, inversely,

promulgating new rates with delayed

effective dates would permit this sector

to make an orderly transition between

the old and new rates. Second, because

it is custom-built, industrial process

refrigeration equipment takes longer

than other types of equipment to build

and to repair. The proposed lead time

between promulgation and effective

date would permit equipment users

sufficient time to order replacement

parts or systems that might be necessary

to meet the new rates. Finally, industrial

processes must be shut down, at

considerable expense, before large

repairs can be made to their

refrigeration systems or before such

systems can be replaced. According to

industry sources, shutdowns are usually

only scheduled to occur every two to

five years. Again, this argues for

permitting significant lead time between

the promulgation and effective date of

the new leak rate. EPA requests

comment on its proposed three-year

delay.

d. Cross-sector Issues. EPA is also

requesting comment on four issues that

affect all three sectors covered by the

leak repair requirements. First, EPA

requests comment on its proposal to

distinguish between old and new

equipment in establishing maximum

allowable leak rates. In general, the

Agency believes that equipment

manufactured after 1992 is, by a

significant margin, inherently more

leak-tight than equipment manufactured

before that date. This means that

significantly lower leak rates can be

maintained in new equipment than in

old equipment for about the same cost.

If EPA were to set a single allowable

leak rate for old and new equipment,

this rate would probably be either

difficult to attain in old equipment,

forcing the expensive retrofit or

replacement of the equipment, or above

the rate achievable by new equipment,

permitting emissions significantly above

the lowest achievable level. However,

EPA recognizes that implementing two

leak rates for each type of equipment

would be more administratively

complex than implementing a single

leak rate for each type of equipment. To

implement two leak rates, equipment

owners, operators, and technicians

would have to remember both rates, and

they would have to be able to

distinguish old from new equipment.

Based on current information, EPA does

not believe this would constitute an

unreasonable burden or lead to

excessive confusion. However, the

Agency requests comment on whether

the environmental and economic

benefits of having two leak rates justify

the increase in administrative

complexity that results from this

approach.

Second, if the final regulations

distinguish among appliances based on

their dates of manufacture, EPA requests

comment on whether the date of

‘‘manufacture’’ should be defined as the

date that appliance leaves the factory or

the date that it is installed. The Agency

believes that it may be appropriate to

define ‘‘manufacture’’ differently for

different types of appliances.

Appliances that are relatively compact

and complete when they leave the

factory, such as chillers, could be

considered ‘‘manufactured’’ when they

leave the factory, while appliances that

are assembled in the field from

numerous components, such as

commercial and industrial process

refrigeration equipment, could be

considered ‘‘manufactured’’ (or

‘‘commissioned’’) when their

installation is complete.

Third, EPA requests comment on the

proposed use of the year 1992 as the

dividing line between more and less

strictly regulated equipment. EPA’s

research indicates that by the end of that

year, most equipment was being

manufactured to leak significantly less

than equipment built earlier. However,

if a significant fraction of equipment

manufactured since 1992 still cannot

attain the proposed maximum leak rate,

it may be appropriate to make the

stricter requirements effective for

equipment built after 1999 (or whatever

year follows the year of publication of

the final rule). This would permit

equipment purchasers to consider the

leakiness of certain types of equipment

in their purchasing decisions from now

on, allowing for the lag time between

equipment ordering and manufacture.

Fourth, EPA requests comment on

whether it is possible to distinguish

between slow leakage, servicing

emissions, and catastrophic emissions

in establishing and complying with leak

rate limits. This question becomes

important with a lower permissible leak

rate because the percentage of charge

lost through servicing and catastrophic

emissions may be a significant fraction

of the lower rate. The goal of the leak

repair provisions has primarily been to

reduce emissions from slow leakage,

because servicing emissions are

addressed by the rule’s recycling

requirements and catastrophic

emissions (such as those resulting from

the triggering of a pressure relief valve)

are often beyond the control of

equipment owners. Thus, if possible,

EPA would like to establish a leak rate

based on slow leaks alone. Even if it is

not possible to isolate slow leaks from

all other types of emissions, EPA would

like to avoid establishing a relatively

high permissible leak rate based in part

on servicing or catastrophic emissions if

it is possible to distinguish either one of

these types of emissions from slow

leaks. On the other hand, the Agency

would like to avoid establishing an

overly stringent leak rate based on
32070 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

hypothetical emissions from slow leaks

if in practice these cannot be

distinguished from other types of

emissions.

Based on information gathered to

date, EPA believes that servicing

emissions and slow leakage may be

difficult to separate, since the precise

amount of refrigerant lost from

equipment may not be known until the

equipment is recharged after servicing.

However, EPA believes that it should be

possible to distinguish between

catastrophic and slow emissions.

Catastrophic losses will generally come

to the attention of equipment owners

very quickly after they occur and will be

large (for the piece of equipment that

experiences a catastrophic loss)

compared to losses from slow

emissions. Moreover, because correcting

the conditions that led to the

catastrophic release (e.g., correcting the

conditions that led to an over-pressure

situation) would be considered to repair

the ‘‘leak,’’ catastrophic losses would

not be expected to compromise

compliance with the permissible leak

rate. Based on discussions with persons

who maintain chillers, EPA believes

that catastrophic losses are greater than

servicing losses for these appliances.

EPA has less information on the

relationship between catastrophic losses

and servicing emissions for commercial

and industrial process refrigeration

equipment.

EPA requests comment on whether its

understanding of the separability and

relative significance of the various types

of emissions is correct. EPA also

requests that, to the extent possible,

commenters distinguish between

servicing emissions, catastrophic losses,

and losses from slow leaks in their

comments on what leak rates are

achievable.

e. Coverage of HFC and PFC

Appliances. EPA believes that

establishing consistent leak repair

requirements for CFC, HCFC, HFC, and

PFC appliances is necessary to

minimize emissions of all four types of

refrigerants. As noted above, industry

representatives emphasized that

exempting HFC and PFC refrigerants

from conservation requirements could

lead to confusion and skepticism

regarding similar requirements for CFCs

and HCFCs, which would undermine

implementation of the statutory

directives to reduce emissions of these

substances to the lowest achievable

level and to maximize their recapture

and recycling. For instance, if owners or

operators of refrigeration systems could

permit HFC systems to leak, they might

fail to establish or maintain leak repair

procedures or systems for any of their

refrigeration equipment, including CFC

or HCFC systems (particularly if these

were in the minority at a given site),

forgetting or never realizing that the

latter were subject to repair

requirements. Moreover, in any given

application, there is no technological

difference between CFC, HCFC and HFC

appliances that makes leaks easier to

control for one type of refrigerant than

the other. Technology and techniques

developed to reduce CFC and HCFC

emissions can be easily applied to

reducing HFC and PFC emissions.

Finally, the release of all four types of

refrigerants could pose a threat to the

environment. EPA is therefore

proposing requirements for CFC, HCFC,

HFC, and PFC appliances that recognize

the design and maintenance advances of

the last few years.

f. Clarification of Current

Requirements. i. Compliance Scenarios

The initial final rule (May 14, 1993,

58 FR 28660) required owners and

operators to ‘‘have all leaks repaired’’

where an appliance subject to the leak

repair requirements was leaking above

the applicable allowable annual leak

rate (58 FR 28716). In a subsequent

rulemaking regarding leak repair

requirements published August 8, 1995

(60 FR 40420), EPA amended that

language to state that ‘‘repairs must

bring the annual leak rate to below 35

percent of the total charge during a 12-

month period’’ (60 FR 40440) or where

appropriate, to below 15 percent. This

change in the rule recognizes that

appliances without hermetically sealed

refrigerant circuits should not be

expected to have a ‘‘zero’’ leak rate.

Moreover, EPA also believes that it is

practical to require the owners or

operators to maintain a leak rate that is

at or below the applicable allowable

annual rate, and where this leak rate has

been exceeded, to make the necessary

repairs to return the appliance’s leak

rate to or below the applicable allowable

leak rate or to retrofit/retire the

appliance. Leaving leaks unrepaired

does not necessarily equate to noncompliance; however, maintaining a

leak rate above the maximum leak rate

of either 15 or 35 percent is noncompliance.

For industrial process refrigeration

equipment and for federally-owned

commercial refrigeration equipment and

federally-owned comfort cooling

appliances located in areas subject to

radiological contamination, EPA

requires owners and operators to

perform verification tests to establish

that repairs were successful. EPA

recognizes that verification tests

indicate the success or failure of the

repair effort for a given leak or set of

leaks, not the leak rate of an appliance.

In the August 8, 1995 rulemaking, EPA

stated that it was not the Agency’s

‘‘intention to imply that the verification

test shows what the leak rate is.

However, EPA believes that where the

verification test shows that the repairs

have been successful, in most cases this

will mean that there has been a

reduction in the leak rate’’ (60 FR

40430). EPA recognizes that knowing a

leak has been repaired does not

necessarily mean that the owner or

operator knows what the current leak

rate is. EPA further stated that ‘‘if more

than one leak exists, it is possible that

the leak rate could remain above

acceptable levels. In such cases the

owners or operators would be expected

to take reasonable actions’’ (60 FR

40430). EPA believes that where owners

or operators employ sound professional

judgement in responding to a leak rate

above the applicable allowable annual

leak rate they will reduce the

appliance’s leak rate to below the

applicable allowable annual leak rate.

Section 82.156(i) requires owners or

operators to conduct repair efforts to

lower an appliance’s leak rate to below

the applicable allowable annual leak

rate. EPA is describing the following

scenarios to assist the owners or

operators in determining what actions

must be taken when an appliance is

leaking above the applicable allowable

annual leak rate. EPA believes that by

describing four likely scenarios, EPA

can further clarify for the regulated

community how the leak rate and

verification tests relate to the repair

and/or retrofit/retire provisions

promulgated at § 82.156(i).

In the first scenario, the owner or

operator discovers that the appliance is

leaking above the applicable allowable

annual rate. The owner or operator fixes

all leaks and verifies that the leaks have

been repaired consistent with

§ 82.156(i). Therefore, where sound

professional judgement has been

successfully executed, the appliance

will have a leak rate below the

applicable allowable annual rate. If a

leak rate above the applicable allowable

annual rate is again suspected a short

time after the repairs were completed

(perhaps only a few weeks) and leaks

are discovered at a new location, these

leaks would be considered new leaks.

The owner or operator must comply

with all applicable requirements

promulgated at § 82.156(i) for these new

leaks.

In the second scenario, the owner or

operator discovers that the appliance is

leaking above the applicable allowable

annual leak rate. The owner or operator

fixes the leaks and verifies that they
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32071

have been repaired consistent with

§ 82.156(i). Therefore, the owner or

operator believes the appliance is not

leaking above the applicable allowable

annual leak rate. The next time leaks are

suspected, the owner or operator finds

leaks have occurred at the same

location. Since the initial leaks were

repaired and properly verified

consistent with the regulation, leaks at

the same location would be considered

new leaks. If the leak rate is again above

the applicable allowable annual leak

rate, the owner or operator must repair

the leaks and, where appropriate,

perform verification tests, retrofit the

appliance, or retire the appliance

consistent with the requirements

promulgated at § 82.156(i). However, if

repeated leaks continue to occur at the

same location, this ongoing problem

may be an indication that appropriate

repairs have not actually been

conducted. For example, the particular

leak point may involve the connection

of two parts that appears to have

loosened. Rather than repeatedly

tightening the connection, the parts may

need to be replaced. EPA believes that

where leaks at the same location

continue to occur, the owner or operator

may not have used sound professional

judgement in determining what repair

efforts are necessary to reduce the leak

rate to below the applicable allowable

annual leak rate. Thus, the owner or

operator would have violated with the

requirements in § 82.156(i).

In the third scenario, the owner or

operator discovers that the appliance is

leaking above the applicable allowable

annual rate and identifies ten different

leak sources that are contributing to the

high leak rate. The owner or operator

determines that repairing six leaks will

bring the appliance into compliance by

lowering the leak rate to below the

applicable allowable annual rate. The

owner or operator believes that leaving

four leaks unrepaired still will result in

a leak rate below the applicable

allowable annual rate. The owner or

operator fixes and verifies that these six

leaks have been repaired consistent with

the requirements promulgated at

§ 82.156(i). The appliance continues to

leak, but below the applicable allowable

annual rate. In this scenario the owner

or operator of the appliance complied

with the requirements by actually

reducing and maintaining a leak rate

that is below the applicable allowable

annual rate.

In the fourth scenario, the owner or

operator discovers that the appliance is

leaking above the applicable allowable

annual rate. The owner or operator

identifies ten different leak sources that

are contributing to the leak rate. The

owner or operator decides that repairing

six leaks will bring the appliance into

compliance by lowering the leak rate to

below the applicable allowable annual

rate. The owner or operator fixes and

verifies that these leaks have been

repaired consistent with the

requirements promulgated at § 82.156(i).

Upon later inspection, it is discovered

that the appliance continued leaking

above the applicable allowable annual

rate and there are no newly identified

leak sources. In this scenario the owner

or operator never brought the leak rate

below the applicable allowable leak

rate, and hence violated § 82.156(i),

regardless of whether the owner or

operator exercised sound professional

judgement in deciding upon the leaks to

be repaired.

EPA views the above scenarios as

consistent with the current regulatory

requirements. Therefore, today’s action

does not propose any regulatory changes

associated with these scenarios.

Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on

the guidance presented for these four

scenarios.

ii. Recordkeeping for leak repair. EPA

received information from CMA

indicating that the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements promulgated at

§ 82.166(n) may be confusing for those

subject to the requirements. EPA notes

that the structure of these provisions did

change between the proposed and final

notices (January 19, 1995, 60 FR 3992,

and August 8, 1995, 60 FR 40420) to

ensure that the format was consistent

with the requirements established by

the Office of the Federal Register. The

August 8, 1995 final rule requires the

same information to be maintained or

submitted as EPA proposed in the

January 19, 1995, except as discussed in

the preamble to the August 8, 1995 final

rule.

CMA and its members requested that

EPA consider whether these provisions

could be redrafted for clarity. EPA

agrees that the readability of these

provisions can be improved. Therefore,

EPA is proposing to modify the

presentation of the requirements to

more clearly indicate what records must

be kept and what information must be

reported. EPA is not proposing any

changes in the substance of the

requirements. EPA requests comment on

these proposed changes and whether

they improve readability of the

provisions.

iii. Replacement refrigerants. EPA is

proposing to amend § 82.156(i)(6) to

incorporate a requirement that was

discussed in the preamble to the May

14, 1993 initial final rule (58 FR 28680)

but that was inadvertently excluded

from the regulatory text. In the

preamble, EPA indicated that if the

owners or operators elect to retrofit an

appliance rather than repair leaks that

are above the applicable allowable

annual rate, the owners or operators

must use a refrigerant with a lower

ozone-depleting potential (ODP) than

the original refrigerant. Owners and

operators would still retain the options

of either retiring the appliance or

repairing the existing leaks in

accordance with the existing

requirements. EPA refers readers to the

preamble discussion in the May 14,

1993 rule for additional information.

EPA believes this proposed change is

important to minimize the use of

refrigerants that are potentially more

harmful to stratospheric ozone. It would

be environmentally unsound to exempt

owners or operators from repairing leaks

on the grounds that they will retrofit or

replace the leaky appliance if the

replacement refrigerant would pose an

equivalent or even greater threat to the

stratospheric ozone. Therefore, EPA is

today proposing to modify the

regulatory text to ensure that only a

substitute refrigerant with a lower ODP

is used. EPA requests comment on this

proposed regulatory change.

iv. Minor Clarifications. EPA is

proposing to modify the text throughout

§ 82.156(i) and § 82.166(n) and (o) to

substitute the word ‘‘retire’’ for the word

‘‘replace’’ and to add ‘‘operators’’ where

the regulation inadvertently refers solely

to owners. EPA believes these changes

are necessary because the term ‘‘retire’’

better describes the activities that are

discussed and because the requirements

are applicable to both owners and

operators.

EPA is also proposing to modify

§ 82.156(i)(3), which requires owners

and operators to exercise sound

professional judgement and to perform

verification tests, to clarify that it

applies to all owners and operators of

industrial process refrigeration

equipment and not just to those who are

granted additional time under paragraph

(i)(2). At the same time, EPA is

proposing to clarify that the paragraph

applies to owners and operators of

federally-owned commercial

refrigeration equipment and of

federally-owned comfort cooling

appliances who are granted additional

time under paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(5).

In the preamble to the August 8, 1995

rule, EPA stated that initial and followup verification tests must be performed

even where the repairs are completed

within 30 days (60 FR 40430). EPA

inadvertently neglected to make the

corresponding change to the regulatory

text. Therefore, EPA is proposing to

change the first sentence in the
32072 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

23Note that persons servicing MVACs are subject

to the section 608 vending prohibition regardless of

whether they are compensated for their work.

paragraph to the following: ‘‘Owners or

operators of federally-owned

commercial refrigeration equipment or

of federally-owned comfort cooling

appliances who are granted additional

time under paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(5) of

this section, and owners or operators of

industrial process refrigeration

equipment, must have repairs

performed in a manner that sound

professional judgment indicates will

bring the leak rate below the applicable

allowable leak rate.’’

In addition, EPA is proposing to

amend § 82.156(i)(3)(ii) and (i)(6)(i) to

provide owners and operators 30 days to

prepare and 1 year to execute a retrofit/

retirement plan, where the owners or

operators have unsuccessfully

attempted to repair the appliance and

therefore are switching to a retrofit/

retirement mode. Section 82.156(i)(3)(ii)

permits owners and operators who are

unable to verify that repairs have been

successful to switch to a retrofit/

retirement mode. EPA is proposing to

delete from this paragraph the phrase

‘‘* * * of this section within one year

after the failure to verify that repairs had

been successfully completed.’’ This

phrase starts the one-year retrofit/

retirement implementation clock based

on the date of the failed verification test.

EPA provided this provision because

the Agency believes it is appropriate to

permit the owner or operator of

industrial process refrigeration

equipment that fails a follow-up

verification test to complete a retrofit

within approximately one year of that

failed test in situations where the owner

or operator made good faith efforts to

repair an appliance before deciding to

switch to a retrofit or retirement mode.

However, in establishing this

provision, EPA was concerned with the

potential to abuse such a safeguard.

Owners and operators who realize that

a retrofit or retirement is necessary

could attempt to repair the appliance

while knowing such efforts were

useless, merely to extend the date by

which a retrofit or retirement must be

completed. In an effort to limit abuse in

this situation, the current regulations

provide that the one-year time frame to

complete a retrofit or retirement is

triggered by the date of the failure to

verify successful repairs. However,

concerns have been raised regarding

whether this limited time frame

inadvertently increases the burden for

those that made good faith efforts to

repair the appliances, by lessening the

retrofit/retirement clock by up to 30

days. In addition, those who

intentionally violate the spirit of this

good faith provision still could seek

some extra time by pursuing useless

repairs, albeit 30 days less than what is

potentially available under the current

regulations.

While EPA does not believe this 30-

day difference imposes a significant

burden under the current regulations,

EPA recognizes the need to provide the

owners or operators with sufficient time

to develop and implement retrofit or

retirement plans. Therefore, EPA is

proposing to eliminate the reference to

the date of the failure to verify that

repairs have been successfully

completed. By deleting this reference,

owners or operators would have 30 days

from the failure to verify that the repairs

were successful to develop a retrofit/

retirement plan, and one year from the

plan’s date to complete the retrofit or

retirement, or such longer time periods

as may apply under 82.156(i)(7) and

(i)(8). EPA requests comment on these

proposed changes.

EPA is proposing to make several

other minor clarifying changes to the

regulatory text. EPA is proposing

changes at §§ 82.156(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3)(i),

(i)(5), (i)(6)(i) and 82.166(o)(10)(i) and

(ii). At §§ 82.156(i)(1), 82.156(i)(2) and

82.156(i)(5) EPA is proposing to express

maximum allowable leak rates in terms

of the proposed defined term, ‘‘leak

rate.’’ EPA believes that these changes

would make the regulatory text more

easily understood. In various sections of

the regulations, EPA is proposing a

number of minor non-substantive

wording changes to make the regulatory

text clearer and easier to read. None of

these additional modifications should

affect the meaning of the regulatory text.

EPA requests comments on these

proposed changes regarding whether the

changes will improve the clarity and

readability of the regulatory text.

4. Proposed Changes for Servicing of

MVAC-like Appliances

a. Background. MVAC-like appliances

are open-drive compressor appliances

used to cool the driver’s or passenger’s

compartment of non-road motor

vehicles, such as agricultural or

construction vehicles. MVAC-like

appliances are essentially identical to

motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs),

which are subject to regulations

promulgated under section 609 of the

Act. However, because MVAC-like

appliances are contained in non-road

vehicles, they are subject to regulations

promulgated under section 608 of the

Act.

Due to the similarities between

MVACs and MVAC-like appliances in

design and servicing patterns, EPA has

established requirements regarding the

servicing of MVAC-like appliances that

are very similar to those for MVACs (58

FR 28686). In fact, many of the section

608 requirements for MVAC-like

appliances that are published at subpart

F simply refer to the section 609

requirements for MVACs that are

published at subpart B. For instance,

§ 82.156(a)(5) states that persons who

open MVAC-like appliances for

maintenance, service, or repair may do

so only while ‘‘properly using,’’ as

defined at § 82.32(e), recycling or

recovery equipment certified pursuant

to § 82.158(f) or (g) as applicable. The

definition of ‘‘properly using’’ appears

in the regulations published at subpart

B, and the reference therefore subjects

MVAC-like appliances to the evacuation

and refrigerant purity requirements of

subpart B. Similarly, the equipment and

technician certification provisions

applicable to MVAC-like appliances in

subpart F (§§ 82.158(f) and 82.161(a)(5))

refer to the equipment and technician

certification provisions applicable to

MVACs in subpart B (§§ 82.36(a) and

82.40).

The section 609 and 608 regulations

treat MVACs and MVAC-like appliances

(and persons servicing them) slightly

differently in four areas. First, persons

who service MVACs are subject to the

section 609 equipment and technician

certification requirements only if they

perform ‘‘service for consideration,’’

while persons who service MVAC-like

appliances are subject to the section 608

equipment and technician certification

requirements regardless of whether they

are compensated for their work.23

Second, persons who service MVACs

must have a piece of recovery and

recycling equipment available at their

place of business, even if they never

open the refrigeration circuit of the

MVACs (e.g., if they only perform topoffs). In contrast, persons who service

MVAC-like appliances are required to

have a piece of recovery and recycling

equipment available at their place of

business only if they open the

appliances (i.e., perform work that

would release refrigerant to the

environment unless the refrigerant were

recovered previously). Third, recycling

and recovery equipment that is intended

for use with MVACs and that was

manufactured before the effective date

of the section 609 equipment

certification provisions must be

demonstrated to be ‘‘substantially

identical’’ to certified recycling

equipment, while recycling and

recovery equipment that is intended for

use with MVAC-like appliances and that

was manufactured before the effective
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32073

date of the section 608 equipment

certification provisions must simply be

able to pull a 4-inch vacuum. Finally,

persons servicing MVAC-like appliances

have the option of becoming certified as

Type II technicians instead of becoming

certified as MVAC technicians under

subpart B. The first three differences

arise from differences between the

statutory requirements of sections 608

and 609; the last is intended to give

persons who service MVAC-like

appliances flexibility in choosing the

type of training and testing most

appropriate to their work.

b. Recent Amendments to Subpart B.

In a final rule published on December

30, 1997 (62 FR 68025), EPA made

several changes to the provisions

governing servicing of MVACs and

MVAC-like appliances (as they are

currently defined) at subpart B. First,

EPA extended the regulations to MVACs

containing substitutes for CFC and

HCFC refrigerants. Second, EPA

explicitly allowed mobile servicing of

MVACs and MVAC-like appliances.

That is, technicians are permitted to

transport their recovery or recycling

equipment from their place of business

in order to recover refrigerant from an

MVAC or MVAC-like appliance before

servicing it. Third, EPA permitted

refrigerant recovered from disposed

MVACs or MVAC-like appliances to be

reused in MVACS or MVAC-like

appliances, as long as the refrigerant

was processed through approved

refrigerant recycling equipment before

being charged into the MVAC to be

serviced.

Fourth, EPA adopted new standards

for recycling and recovery equipment

intended for use with MVACs. These

new standards address HFC-134a

recover/recycle equipment, HFC-134a

recover-only equipment, service

procedures for HFC-134a containment,

purity of recycled HFC-134a, recover/

recycle equipment intended for use with

both CFC-12 and HFC-134a, and

recover-only equipment designed to be

used with any motor vehicle refrigerants

other than CFC-12 and HFC-134a. Please

refer to the December 30, 1997, final

rule for a detailed explanation and

justification of these changes for

MVACs.

As noted above, these regulations

apply both to MVACS containing all

types of refrigerant and to MVAC-like

appliances containing class I and class

II substances. As is discussed at length

in the final amendment to subpart B,

EPA believes that it is appropriate to

cover both MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances under the subpart B

regulations, although EPA is relying on

section 608 authority to cover MVAClike appliances. In brief, the rationale

for this approach is that (1) MVACs and

MVAC-like appliance are very similar,

and the requirements for MVAC-like

appliances under the subpart F

regulations have historically referred

back to the requirements for MVACs

under subpart B, and (2) MVACs and

MVAC-like appliances are often

serviced by the same group of people,

and therefore publishing the

requirements for both MVACs and

MVAC-like appliances in the same place

will minimize confusion within this

group. Under this approach, most of the

provisions governing MVAC-like

appliances have been reproduced in the

regulations at subpart B and will be

removed from the regulations at subpart

F; an important exception is the

definition of MVAC-like appliance,

which will remain in the regulations at

subpart F. Thus, the final subpart B rule

covers MVAC-like appliances as they

are currently defined in the subpart F

regulations, which means MVAC-like

appliances containing CFCs or HCFCs.

(However, the subpart B amendment

does not affect the four differences

between the treatment of MVACs and

MVAC-like appliances identified

above.)

c. Today’s Proposal. In this document,

EPA is proposing to change the

definitions of ‘‘appliance,’’ ‘‘MVAC-like

appliance’’ (which is based on the

definition of ‘‘appliance’’), and

‘‘opening’’ in subpart F to include

substitute refrigerants. This would

effectively apply the major requirements

of the amended subpart B regulations

(when this rule was finalized) to MVAClike appliances containing substitutes

for CFCs and HCFCs. EPA is also

proposing editorial changes to eliminate

redundancy between the subpart B and

subpart F rules in their treatment of

MVAC-like appliances.

EPA believes that in order to

implement the venting prohibition, it is

necessary to apply the major subpart B

requirements (including the

requirements to properly use recycling

and recovery equipment and to certify

recycling and recovery equipment and

technicians) to MVAC-like appliances

containing substitute refrigerants. The

basic rationale for applying the subpart

B requirements to MVAC-like

appliances containing substitute

refrigerants is the same as that for

applying the equivalent subpart F

requirements to other appliances

containing substitute refrigerants; this

reasoning is presented throughout this

document. In the case of MVAC-like

appliances, however, the similarities in

design and servicing patterns between

MVACs and MVAC-like appliances

make it appropriate to subject MVAClike appliances to the required practices

and certification programs established

for MVACS in subpart B rather than to

the required practices and certification

programs established for stationary

appliances in subpart F. (As noted

above, the argument for parallel

coverage of MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances was discussed at length in

the May 14, 1993 rule at 58 FR 28686.)

EPA requests comment on the

regulatory approach and rationale

presented here.

C. Equipment Certification

The final rule published on May 14,

1993 requires that refrigerant recycling

and recovery equipment manufactured

after November 15, 1993, and used to

service appliances containing CFCs or

HCFCs be tested by an EPA-approved

laboratory to ensure that it meets certain

performance standards. These standards

vary among equipment used to service

MVAC-like appliances, small

appliances, and other appliances. EPA

is proposing to require that equipment

used to service appliances containing

HFCs and PFCs be tested by an EPAapproved laboratory to the same

standards as apply to equipment used to

service appliances containing class I

and class II refrigerants, as applicable.

Because EPA is simultaneously

proposing to permit the use of

representative refrigerants in equipment

testing (as opposed to requiring testing

with every refrigerant), equipment

models already certified for use with

CFCs and HCFCs might not always need

additional testing in order to be certified

for use with HFCs and PFCs. In

addition, as discussed below, EPA is

proposing to grandfather existing

recovery and recycling equipment that

is certified for use with at least two

CFCs and HCFCs for use with HFCs and

PFCs of similar saturation pressure.

1. Certification of Recovery and

Recycling Equipment Intended for Use

with Appliances Except Small

Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

Appliances

a. Background. For recovery

equipment used with appliances other

than small appliances, MVACs and

MVAC-like appliances, the laboratory

must verify that the equipment is

capable of achieving applicable required

evacuation levels and that the

equipment releases no more than 3% of

the quantity of refrigerant being

recycled through noncondensables

purging. In addition, the laboratory

must measure the vapor and liquid

recovery rates of the equipment. To

perform all of these measurements, the
32074 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

laboratory must use the test procedure

set forth in ARI 740–93, an industry test

protocol for recycling and recovery

equipment that EPA included in the

final rule as Appendix B.

A proposed rule published on

February 29, 1996 requested comment

on amending the certification

requirements to include a new, more

representative method for measuring the

equipment’s refrigerant recovery rate;

requirements to measure the

equipment’s recovery rate and final

vacuum at high temperatures; a limit on

the total quantity of refrigerant that may

be released from equipment from

noncondensables purging, oil draining,

and equipment clearing; a requirement

to measure the quantity of refrigerant

left in the condenser of equipment after

clearing has occurred; standards for

external hose permeability; and a

requirement that equipment be tested

with recovery cylinders that are

representative of those used with the

equipment in the field. In addition, EPA

proposed to require that equipment that

is advertised as ‘‘recycling equipment’’

be capable of cleaning up refrigerants to

the contamination levels (except that for

‘‘Other Refrigerants’’) set forth in the

IRG–2 table of Maximum Contaminant

Levels of Recycled Refrigerants in Same

Owner’s Equipment.

b. Certification of Recovery/recycling

Equipment Used With HFCs and PFCs.

EPA is today proposing equipment

certification requirements for recovery

and recycling equipment used with

HFCs and PFCs that are very similar to

the requirements for recovery and

recycling equipment used with CFCs

and HCFCs, as they were proposed to be

amended in the February 29, 1996

document. The evacuation requirements

would depend upon the saturation

pressure of the refrigerant, the size of

the appliance in which it is used, and

the date of manufacture of the recovery

equipment. These standards, which are

described in Table 1 and Table 2, are

consistent with the proposed evacuation

requirements discussed in section

IV.B.1.a. above.

TABLE 1.—LEVELS OF EVACUATION WHICH MUST BE ACHIEVED BY RECOVERY OR RECYCLING EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR

USE WITH APPLIANCES 1 MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1993

Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used.

Inches of vacuum (relative

to standard atmospheric

pressure of

29.9 inches of

Hg)

Very high-pressure appliance .............................................................................................................................................................. 0

Higher-pressure appliance or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant ..... 0

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant ...... 10

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant ....... 10

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant ......... 15

Low-pressure appliance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 25

1Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.

2 mm Hg absolute.

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

inches of Hg absolute.

TABLE 2.—LEVELS OF EVACUATION WHICH MUST BE ACHIEVED BY RECOVERY OR RECYCLING EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR

USE WITH APPLIANCES 1 MANUFACTURED BEFORE NOVEMBER 15, 1993

Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used.

Inches of vacuum (relative

to standard atmospheric

pressure of

29.9 inches of

Hg)

Very high-pressure appliance .............................................................................................................................................................. 0

Higher-pressure appliance or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant ..... 0

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant ...... 4

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant ....... 4

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant ......... 4

Low-pressure appliance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 225

1Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.

2 mm Hg absolute.

The other certification requirements,

including the requirement to use the

more representative method for

measuring the equipment’s refrigerant

recovery rate, the requirement for hightemperature testing, and limits on

refrigerant emissions from air purging,

oil draining, equipment clearing, and

hoses, would be identical to those

proposed for CFC and HCFC recovery

and recycling equipment in the

February 29, 1996 document.

EPA believes that certification of

recovery and recycling equipment used

with HFCs and PFCs is necessary to

implement and enforce both section

608(c)(2) and section 608(a). In order to

comply with the prohibition on venting

of substitute refrigerants by making

good faith efforts to recover them,

technicians must recover the

refrigerants using equipment that

minimizes refrigerant emissions and

mixture, and they must complete the

recovery process. Certification of HFC

and PFC recovery equipment would

permit technicians to achieve all of

these goals. First, certification would

provide reliable information on the

ability of equipment to minimize

emissions, measuring and/or

establishing standards for recovery

efficiency (vacuum level) and emissions

from air purging, oil draining,

equipment clearing, and hose permeation.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32075

Second, certification would

provide reliable information on the

equipment’s ability to clear itself when

it was switched between refrigerants.

Without sufficient clearing capability,

equipment may retain residual

refrigerant in its condenser, which will

be mixed with the next batch of a

different refrigerant recovered by the

equipment. Because it is frequently

impossible to reclaim and expensive to

destroy, such mixed refrigerant is much

more likely than unmixed refrigerant to

be vented to the atmosphere. Third,

certification would provide reliable

information on the equipment’s

recovery speed, without which

technicians may purchase equipment

that recovers too slowly, tempting them

to interrupt recovery before it is

complete. As discussed in the May 14,

1993, final rule, EPA believes that the

information on equipment performance

provided by a disinterested third-party

testing organization is more reliable

than that provided by other sources,

such as equipment manufacturers (58

FR 28686–28687).

Certification of recovery equipment

used with HFCs and PFCs would also

maximize recycling and minimize

emissions of CFCs and HCFCs. As

discussed below, there is no physical

difference between ozone-depleting

refrigerants and their fluorocarbon

substitutes that would prevent a

technician from purchasing and using

HFC recovery equipment on CFCs or

HCFCs. At the same time, uncertified

recovery and recycling equipment is

likely to be less expensive than certified

equipment, which must meet standards

and undergo testing. Thus, if uncertified

HFC or PFC equipment is available on

the market, technicians may well decide

to purchase and use it with CFCs and

HCFCs instead of or in addition to HFCs

and PFCs. In this way, failure to require

certification for recovery equipment

used with HFCs and PFCs would

undermine the current certification

program for equipment used with CFCs

and HCFCs, leading to greater emissions

of the latter. These emissions could

occur through any of the routes

identified above; that is, directly from

leaky or inefficient equipment, or

indirectly through refrigerant mixture or

incomplete recovery.

c. Use of Representative Refrigerants

In Equipment Testing. Currently,

equipment certification organizations

test recovery and recycling equipment

with each of the refrigerants for which

the equipment is to be rated. Given the

proliferation of new refrigerants and the

associated cost of testing equipment

with each one, EPA is proposing to

permit equipment to be tested with only

one or two representative refrigerants

from each saturation pressure category

for which it is to be rated. At least one

of the representative refrigerants would

be one that was among the most difficult

to recover in its category, that is, a

refrigerant whose relatively high

saturation pressure and/or discharge

temperature made attainment of deep

vacuums relatively difficult. This would

ensure that equipment that could attain

the required vacuums with the

representative refrigerant could attain

these vacuums with all of the other

refrigerants in that category. Other

factors that could be considered in the

selection of representative refrigerants

include moisture affinity, which affects

the ease with which refrigerants may be

cleaned, materials compatibility, likely

popularity, and availability for testing

purposes. Different refrigerants might be

selected for different testing purposes;

for instance, a refrigerant with a high

saturation pressure might be selected to

test a piece of equipment’s ability to

draw a vacuum, while a refrigerant with

a high moisture affinity might be

selected to test the equipment’s ability

to remove contaminants.

The Agency believes that the

saturation pressure (and to some extent,

discharge temperature and moisture

affinity) of the refrigerant are more

important factors in recovery equipment

performance than the chemical identity

of the refrigerant; in general, equipment

that passes the certification test for CFCs

and HCFCs is likely to pass the test for

HFCs and PFCs of similar (or lower)

saturation pressure, as long as the

materials used in the recovery

equipment are compatible with all of

these refrigerants. The equipment

certification programs operated by both

UL and ARI have been testing recovery

and recycling equipment with HFC-134a

for the past few years, and equipment

performance (final vacuum) with HFC134a appears to be comparable to that

with R-12. EPA requests comment on

whether there are factors other than

saturation pressure, discharge

temperature, moisture affinity, materials

compatibility, popularity, and

availability that should be considered in

selecting a representative refrigerant or

in determining the set of refrigerants for

which equipment should be certified.

The latest version of ARI 740, ARI

740–1995, already includes a test that is

performed with one representative

refrigerant. That is high-temperature

testing, which is performed with R-22.

As discussed in the proposed rule to

adopt ARI 740–1995, R-22 was selected

because it has a relatively high

saturation pressure and discharge

temperature, making it harder to recover

than many other high-pressure

refrigerants (61 FR 7867). Although EPA

is proposing to place R22 in a separate

saturation pressure category from R134a

and R12, EPA believes that it may be

appropriate to retain R22 as a

representative refrigerant for both

pressure categories. EPA requests

comment on this issue. EPA also

requests comment on whether recovery

equipment that is to be certified for use

with refrigerants whose saturation

pressures are higher than that of R22

should have high-temperature testing

performed with R22, or with a higherpressure refrigerant. Because many new

refrigerants have significantly higher

saturation pressures than R22 (for

instance, R407B has a saturation

pressure of 281.7 psia at 104 degrees F,

while R22 has a saturation pressure of

222.4 psia at that temperature), EPA

believes that equipment that is rated for

use with these refrigerants should have

high-temperature testing performed

with a refrigerant whose saturation

pressure is closer to theirs.

In its efforts to revise and update the

ARI 740 standard, ARI is currently

considering an approach that divides

refrigerants into six saturation pressure

categories and selects one or two

refrigerants for each one. The planned

ARI groupings and representative

refrigerants for each one are reprinted in

Table 3 below.

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED ARI GROUPING OF REFRIGERANTS

Designated group refrigerant Group No. Refrigerant No. PSIA at 104°F,

liquid Bubble point, °F Critical temp.,°F

R-123 ................................................................................... I LOW PRESSURE

R-11 ..................................................................................... R-113 18 117.6 417.4

R-123 22.4 82.1 362.6
32076 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED ARI GROUPING OF REFRIGERANTS—Continued

Designated group refrigerant Group No. Refrigerant No. PSIA at 104°F,

liquid Bubble point, °F Critical temp.,°F

R-11 25.3 74.9 388.4

R-114 ................................................................................... II MEDIUM PRESSURE—LOW MOISTURE

R-114 48.6 38.8 294.3

R-134a ................................................................................. III MEDIUM PRESSURE

R-12 139.7 ¥21.6 233.2

R-134a 147.4 ¥14.9 213.9

R-401C 151.9 ¥19.0 234.9

R-406A 161.4 ¥26.2 238.1

R-500 163.7 ¥28.3 221.9

R-407C ................................................................................. IV MEDIUM HIGH PRESSURE

R-22 ..................................................................................... R-401A 174.9 ¥27.5 226.4

R-409A 178.6 ¥29.6 224.6

R-401B 183.5 ¥30.4 223.0

R-412A 191.8 ¥37.3 220.6

R-411A 210.8 ¥37.5 209.5

R-407D 217.8 ¥39.1 216.3

R-22 222.4 ¥41.4 205.1

R-411B 225.5 ¥42.9 205.7

R-502 244.8 ¥49.7 180.0

R-407C 254.5 ¥46.4 189.1

R-402B 255 ¥53.2 180.7

R-408A 255 ¥46.3 182.3

R-509 256.5 ¥52.8 188.3

R-410A ................................................................................. V HIGH PRESSURE

R-407A 267.6 ¥49.9 181.0

R-404A 269.9 ¥51.6 161.7

R-402A 270.6 ¥46.5 167.9

R-507 275.5 ¥52.1 159.6

R-407B 281.7 ¥53.1 168.4

R-410A 352.8 ¥62.9 162.5

R-508A ................................................................................. VI VERY HIGH PRESSURE—HIGH MOISTURE

R-13 supercritical ¥114.5 83.8

R-23 supercritical ¥115.8 78.1

R-508A supercritical ¥122.2 73.5

R-503 supercritical ¥126.0 67.1

R-508B supercritical ¥126.9 57.2

ARI’s saturation pressure categories

are similar, but not identical, to the

saturation pressure categories that EPA

is proposing to use as the basis for its

evacuation requirements. For instance,

both EPA and ARI propose to classify

R113, R123, and R11 as low-pressure

refrigerants, and R13, R23, R508A,

R503, and R508B as very-high pressure

refrigerants. However, while EPA is

proposing to classify R114, R134a, and

R401A as high-pressure refrigerants,

ARI is proposing to place these

refrigerants into three separate

saturation pressure categories.

Moreover, EPA’s proposed dividing line

between high and higher-pressure

refrigerants would split ARI’s ‘‘medium

high-pressure’’ category in half, falling

between R407D and R22.

EPA does not believe that using

different saturation pressure categories

for selecting representative refrigerants

and for determining evacuation

requirements would be a problem if the

categories for selecting representative

refrigerants fell entirely within the

categories for determining evacuation

requirements. Thus, EPA believes it

would be quite reasonable to separate

EPA’s high-pressure category into three

categories for purposes of selecting

representative refrigerants; this would

simply mean that recovery and

recycling equipment would be tested

with more refrigerants. However, if a

category for selecting representative

refrigerants were split into different

categories for determining evacuation

requirements, confusion and

inefficiency could result. For instance,

ARI is considering R22 and R407C as

representative refrigerants for its

‘‘medium high-pressure’’ category. If

EPA were to promulgate the categories

for evacuation requirements proposed

today, recovery/recycling equipment

that was being certified for use with any

refrigerant in the ‘‘medium highpressure’’ category would have to pull

these refrigerants to the relatively deep

vacuums required for R12 and R134a,

because EPA is proposing to place these

refrigerants in the same evacuation

category as many of the refrigerants in

ARI’s ‘‘medium high-pressure category.’’

This may be an unnecessarily strict

approach, as R22 itself would not need

to be drawn to these vacuums in the

field. EPA requests comment on this

issue.

Because the current regulations

establish less stringent evacuation

requirements for R22 appliances than

for appliances containing refrigerants

with lower saturation pressures, and

because EPA wishes to retain as much

consistency as possible between the

proposed and the existing evacuation

requirements, EPA is reluctant to

eliminate or move its dividing line

between the proposed high-pressure and

higher pressure evacuation requirement

categories. (Again, the proposed

dividing line falls between R407D and

R22.) In consideration of this issue and

the issues discussed above, the Agency

requests comment on whether it should

adopt the proposed ARI groupings as is

or with some changes. If the latter, the

Agency requests comment on what

changes would be appropriate.

ARI selected the proposed

representative refrigerants considering
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32077

the saturation pressure, discharge

temperature, moisture affinity, materials

compatibility, and likely popularity of

the refrigerants. ARI is considering

using both R11 and R123 as

representative refrigerants for the lowpressure category because some

equipment uses materials that are

compatible with R11 but not with R123,

and a requirement for performance

testing with R123 may reduce the

incidence of equipment failure and

refrigerant leakage in the field. ARI is

considering a separate grouping for

R114 because this refrigerant has a

saturation pressure that is significantly

higher than lower-pressure refrigerants

and significantly lower than higher

pressure refrigerants. Although R134a is

not the refrigerant with the highest

saturation pressure in the next,

‘‘medium pressure’’ category, ARI is

considering it as the representative

refrigerant because it is likely to be used

widely and the refrigerants with higher

saturation pressures (R401C, R406A,

R500) are not. R134a also has a

relatively high moisture affinity.

ARI is considering using both R22 and

R407C as representative refrigerants in

the ‘‘medium high-pressure’’ category

because of their popularity, the high

discharge temperature of R22, and the

high saturation pressure of R407C at 104

F. (R407C has a saturation pressure of

254.5 psia at that temperature, while the

highest pressure refrigerant in the

category, R509, has a saturation pressure

only 2 psi higher, 256.5) R410A is being

considered as the representative

refrigerant for the next category because

its saturation pressure of 3.8 psia is the

highest in its category, and because it

has a high moisture affinity. ARI’s

tentative choice as the representative

refrigerant for the very high pressure

category is R508A, which is

supercritical at 104 degrees F. R508A’s

critical temperature of 73.5 is 16 degrees

higher than that of the highest-pressure

refrigerant in the group, R508B, but 10

degrees lower than that of the lowestpressure refrigerant in the group, R13.

EPA believes that ARI’s tentative

choices for representative refrigerants

would probably appropriately represent

their categories, as those categories are

currently defined. However, EPA is

requesting comment on a few issues.

First, EPA requests comment on

whether R134a is an appropriate

representative refrigerant for the

‘‘medium pressure’’ group, given that its

saturation pressure is 16 psi lower than

the saturation pressure of the highestpressure refrigerant in the category,

R500. Should the likely popularity of

R134a relative to R401C, R406A, and

R500 overrule its relatively low

saturation pressure? Is equipment that

successfully recovers R134a in testing

likely to fail to recover refrigerant with

a saturation pressure 16 psi higher? EPA

requests comment on the same issue as

it applies to the use of R508A as the

representative refrigerant for ‘‘very high

pressure’’ refrigerants. Finally, EPA

requests comment on what refrigerant

should be chosen to represent the

category of refrigerants whose saturation

pressures fall between those of R401A

and R407D, in case this category is split

off from the current ‘‘medium high

pressure’’ category, and what refrigerant

should be chosen to represent ‘‘high

pressure refrigerants,’’ in case R410A is

split off from this category. EPA believes

that R407D and B, which would become

the highest pressure refrigerants in these

categories, would be appropriate

choices, but recognizes that

considerations of moisture affinity and/

or refrigerant availability may argue for

choices with slightly lower saturation

pressures.

While the proper selection of

representative refrigerants would ensure

that recovery equipment could achieve

the required vacuum for all the

refrigerants in a category, some

information would be lost. Specifically,

the vapor and liquid recovery rates of

equipment with each of the refrigerants

in a category would no longer be

available. However, technicians and

contractors would still be able to

compare recovery rates across different

makes and models for the representative

refrigerant. EPA requests comment on

whether the information gained through

measuring recovery rates for each

refrigerant justifies retaining testing

with each refrigerant.

EPA would include representative

refrigerants in the equipment testing

program by amending Appendix B, the

test protocol based on ARI 740–1993. If

EPA completes the rulemaking adopting

the latest version of ARI 740, ARI 740–

1995, before this rule is finalized, EPA

would amend that protocol rather than

the protocol based on ARI 740–1993.

Since the use of representative

refrigerants amounts to a relaxation of

testing requirements, EPA does not

anticipate any problems from adopting

this approach only shortly after

adopting an earlier set of amendments

to the testing requirements.

d. Additional Refrigerants. Industry

experts have suggested that a few

additional refrigerants could be usefully

added to Table 3. These include R124,

R125, R403A, R405A, R409B, R410B,

and R413B. R124, R125, and R410B are

ASHRAE-recognized refrigerants that

are included in ARI Standard 700. In

addition, R124 and R410B have been

determined to be ‘‘acceptable’’ for

several end-uses under the SNAP

program, and R125 is a component of

several refrigerant blends that have been

determined to be ‘‘acceptable.’’ Thus, it

appears appropriate to include these in

the equipment certification program.

Although R403A and R413A have not

been submitted for review under SNAP

and are not used in the U.S., they are

in use overseas. Industry experts believe

that certification for these refrigerants

could benefit manufacturers who intend

to export refrigerant recovery/recycling

equipment to Europe and elsewhere.

EPA believes that the same logic may

apply to R405A, although it has been

found to be ‘‘unacceptable’’ in the U.S.

under SNAP due to its high PFC

content. R409B does not yet appear in

ARI Standard 700, but R409A, whose

composition differs from that of R409B

by less than five percent, does. Thus, it

also seems reasonable to accommodate

this fluid in the equipment certification

program. EPA requests comment on

these possible additions to the

equipment certification program.

REFRIGERANTS RECOMMENDED FOR ADDITION TO TABLE 3

Refrigerant Group No. PSIA at

104 °F

Bubble

point, °F

Critical

point, °F

R-124 .................................................................................................................................. II 86.0 10.3 252.4

R-413A ................................................................................................................................ III 167.2 ¥31.0 198.5

R-405A ................................................................................................................................ IV 177.3 ¥25.2 223.0

R-409B ................................................................................................................................ IV 186.6 ¥31.4 221.0

R-403A ................................................................................................................................ IV 244.5 ¥58.0 199.9

R-125 .................................................................................................................................. V 290.9 ¥54.7 151.3

R-410B ................................................................................................................................ V 350.3 ¥60.3 159.9
32078 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

EPA is also requesting comment on

how R124 would be integrated into

Table 3. The working pressure of R-124

differs sufficiently from R-114 that some

equipment may not operate correctly

with both fluids. For this reason,

industry experts recommend that R124

be listed as an additional refrigerant for

group II, subject to the following

guidelines:

(a) Equipment that is certified for use

in group I may also be certified for

group II by testing with R-124. The test

for R-114 may be waived as the

equipment would be shown to operate

correctly for both higher and lower

pressure fluids.

(b) Equipment that is certified for use

in group III may also be certified for

group II by testing with R-114. The test

for R-124 may be waived as the

equipment would be shown to operate

correctly for both higher and lower

pressure fluids.

(c) Equipment that is not certified in

either group I or group III must be tested

using both R-114 and R-124 in order to

obtain certification for group II.

(d) Equipment that is not certified in

either group I or group III may be

certified for a single refrigerant from

group II through successful testing with

the appropriate refrigerant. EPA

requests comment on this approach.

e. Materials Compatibility. Although

EPA’s preliminary information indicates

that recovery and recycling equipment

designed for use with CFCs and HCFCs

can be used with HFCs and PFCs, some

industry experts have raised concerns

that lubricants, elastomers, filter driers,

and/or motor materials used in recovery

and recycling equipment may not be

compatible with the full range of

halocarbon (CFC, HCFC, HFC, and PFC)

refrigerants coming into use. Use of

incompatible lubricants may lead to

compressor wear and ultimately to

compressor failure; use of incompatible

filter driers may lead to declining

performance in refrigerant blends; use of

incompatible elastomers may lead to the

failure of seals and subsequently to

refrigerant leakage from the equipment;

and use of incompatible motor materials

may lead to motor failure.

Some industry representatives

expressed the concern that many

models of recycling and recovery

equipment have been built and sold

with mineral oil, which is not

compatible with HFCs. EPA believes

that this concern may be addressed by

informing equipment manufacturers and

users of the need to replace the mineral

oil with ester oil if the equipment is

used with HFCs, and possibly by

requiring equipment manufacturers to

use ester lubricants in equipment

certified for use with HFCs. EPA

understands that ester lubricants work

well with all halocarbon refrigerants,

and that changing out the oil in

recycling and recovery equipment is

usually a simple and routine procedure.

HCFCs, which dissolve easily into ester

oil, may thin it out, necessitating the use

of higher viscosity oils, but recycling

and recovery equipment manufacturers

may address this problem simply by

using (or specifying use of) a higher

viscosity lubricant. EPA requests

comment on whether sufficient

mechanisms exist within the industry to

ensure that the need and method for

changing out lubricants is transmitted to

manufacturers and users of recycling

and recovery equipment, and whether

EPA should require that equipment

certified for use with HFCs be sold with

ester lubricants.

In addition, industry sources

expressed the concern that filter driers,

particularly those containing activated

carbon, may react undesirably to certain

refrigerant blends. Undesirable reactions

might include the selective uptake of

refrigerant components, changing the

composition of the blend, or extreme

heating when a filter drier containing

activated carbon is used with blends

containing hydrocarbon refrigerants.

EPA understands that some types of

filter driers absorb some blend

components more than others, but that

this absorption is usually not

sufficiently pronounced to significantly

change the performance of the blend.

EPA further understands that some

heating is inevitable when activated

carbon is used, but that this heating may

not be very great, and that it is

counteracted by the refrigerant’s

tendency to carry heat away from the

drier. EPA requests comment on these

issues. If some types of filter driers are

incompatible with some types of blends,

EPA requests comment on whether the

Agency should require the use of other

types of filter driers that are compatible

with all refrigerants, or whether the

Agency should require equipment

manufacturers to demonstrate, through

testing, that the filter driers used in their

equipment are compatible with all of

the refrigerants for which the equipment

is to be certified.

Industry experts also expressed the

concern that compressor and motor

materials may not be compatible with

new refrigerant and lubricant

combinations. EPA understands that

most recycling and recovery

compressors and motors that are

intended for use with high-pressure

refrigerants are designed to work with

R502 and mineral oil. Because the

combination of R22 (a component of

R502) and mineral oil is a relatively

aggressive one (i.e., is likely to

chemically attack compressor

components), EPA believes that

compressors and motors that are

designed to handle this combination are

likely to tolerate other refrigerant/

lubricant combinations, such as HFCs

and ester oils. However, EPA requests

comment on this issue. EPA also

requests comment on whether

compressors and motors that are

designed to handle refrigerant/lubricant

combinations other than R502 and

mineral oil (e.g., R11 and mineral oil)

may pose compatibility concerns.

Finally, some industry sources stated

that the elastomers used in O-rings and

other types of seals may not be

compatible with all types of refrigerants

and lubricants. Some of the potential

effects of incompatibility include the

swelling of O-rings, which would make

it difficult to make and break

connections without leakage, and the

high-temperature hardening or

‘‘compression set’’ of shaft seals on

open-drive compressors, which would

lead to failure of the seal. EPA

understands that no single material is

likely to work equally well with all

combinations of refrigerants and

lubricants, and that similar materials

(e.g., two types of neoprene) may not be

equally compatible with the same

refrigerant/lubricant combinations.

Thus, rather than specifying the use of

any single material or set of materials,

the Agency is considering requiring

manufacturers of recovery and recycling

equipment to use materials that have

been shown to be compatible with the

refrigerants for which the equipment is

to be rated or certified. The method for

demonstrating compatibility might be

sealed tube testing under the conditions

of ASHRAE 97 or some other standard;

manufacturers could use the results of

industry-wide testing (e.g., MCLR/ARTI

testing) if such testing had been

performed for the materials, refrigerants,

and lubricants of concern. Another

possible means of addressing

compatibility concerns would be to

require manufacturers to test recovery

and recycling equipment with all the

major refrigerant groups (CFCs, HCFCs,

and HFCs and their associated

lubricants); but the duration of

equipment testing may not be sufficient

to reveal compatibility problems, raising

the question of whether the additional

testing would be useful or justified. EPA

requests comment on the elastomer

compatibility issue and on the above

approaches for addressing it.

f. Fractionation. For a number of

reasons, some industry experts have

expressed concern that recycling and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32079

24 Kenneth W. Manz, Robinair Division, SPX

Corporation, ‘‘Recycling Alternate Refrigerants R404a, R–410a, and R507,’’ and R.W. Yost, ICI Klea,

‘‘Practical Aspects of Zeotrope Fractionation in

Recovery and Recycling,’’ both presented at the

1996 ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia,

February 19, 1996. Copies of the presentations are

available for inspection in the public docket for this

rulemaking. A yet-to-be-published study performed

by EPA’s Office of Research and Development

yielded similar results.

recovery equipment, and to some extent,

the process of recovery itself, may

change the composition of refrigerant

blends, affecting their performance.

Ways in which recycling and recovery

equipment might conceivably change

the composition of blends include the

selective absorption of certain

components by filter driers (discussed

above), selective removal of components

with higher solubility in oil through oil

separation, selective release of certain

components during noncondensables

purging, and possibly selective diffusion

of certain components (those with lower

molecular weights) through hoses.

EPA is aware of two studies that have

been performed to ascertain how

recovery and recycling may affect the

composition of blends 24. One study,

performed by ICI Klea, modeled blend

behavior during recovery and recycling

based on the thermophysical properties

of the refrigerants. The other study,

performed by Robinair, examined how

blend composition changed during and

after repeated recycling using actual

recycling equipment. Both studies

showed recycling had little impact on

blend composition, if the complete

charge was removed from the system

and recharged back into it at the

conclusion of service. However, because

different models of recovery and

recycling equipment may have different

impacts on blend composition, and

because few models were actually tested

in the studies, EPA is requesting

comment on whether the certification

program for recycling and recovery

equipment should be expanded to test

equipment’s tendency to change blend

composition.

g. Flammability. Some refrigerants

that have entered the market over the

past few years, such as R406A, may be

flammable under some conditions (e.g.,

after fractionation). EPA requests

comment on whether the equipment

certification program should test

whether equipment that is to be

certified for ‘‘flammable’’ refrigerants

may be used with them safely, and if so,

how ‘‘flammable’’ refrigerants should be

defined for purposes of equipment

testing. ARI is currently considering

certifying equipment for use with

refrigerants classified under ASHRAE

Standard 34 as ‘‘lower flammability’’

(Class 2); no ‘‘higher flammability’’

(Class 3) refrigerants are included in

Table 3. EPA requests comment on

whether the recovery and recycling

process could lead to refrigerant ignition

for the Class 2 refrigerants in Table 3.

Could these refrigerants (or a subset of

them) be ignited by high motor

temperatures or by sparking of switches

or other equipment components during

recovery and recycling? If so, what

kinds of tests would be appropriate to

determine whether a model of recovery

and recycling equipment could be used

with these refrigerants safely? Should

the ASHRAE 34 classification system be

used for purposes of determining

flammability for recovery and recycling

equipment certification, or would some

other system (e.g., one based on autoignition temperature) be more

appropriate?

If equipment’s ability to safely process

flammable refrigerants should be tested,

EPA requests comment on how

representative ‘‘flammable’’ refrigerants

might be chosen. One possible approach

would be to establish a separate

category for ‘‘flammable’’ refrigerants in

Table 3, and to test the most flammable

among them (using whatever criterion

for flammability is ultimately chosen)

with the recovery and recycling

equipment.

2. Certification of Recovery and

Recycling Equipment Intended for Use

With Small Appliances

Recovery equipment intended for use

with small appliances containing CFCs

or HCFCs must currently be tested by an

EPA-approved testing organization to

verify that it meets at least one of two

sets of standards. The equipment must

either (1) recover 90% of the refrigerant

in the small appliance when the

compressor is operating and 80% of the

refrigerant in the small appliance when

the compressor is not operating, when

tested according to Appendix C, or (2)

be able to pull a four-inch vacuum when

tested according to Appendix B.

Equipment manufactured before

November 15, 1993, is grandfathered if

it can recover at least 80% of the

refrigerant in the small appliance

whether or not the compressor is

operating. EPA is proposing to extend

these requirements to recovery

equipment that is intended for use with

small appliances containing HFCs or

PFCs.

Appendix C currently requires that

recovery equipment be tested using

CFC-12. EPA requests comment on

whether appendix C should be amended

to require testing with substitute

refrigerants in addition to or in place of

CFC-12. The substitute refrigerant(s)

chosen would be one used in small

appliances. As discussed above, EPA is

proposing to amend Appendix B to

permit testing of equipment with a

single representative refrigerant from

each saturation pressure and moisture

affinity category, and a similar approach

may be appropriate for Appendix C.

One factor in addition to saturation

pressure that has an impact on recovery

efficiencies from small appliances is the

miscibility of the refrigerant in the

system lubricant. This is especially

important in small appliances because

there is often as much lubricant in a

small appliance as there is refrigerant,

and a large percentage of the refrigerant

may therefore remain entrained in the

lubricant even if the system pressure is

relatively low. EPA requests comment

on whether its certification

requirements for recovery equipment

used with small appliances should be

amended to account for differences in

the miscibilities of CFC-12 and the

HFCs in their associated lubricants.

3. Approval of Equipment Testing

Organizations To Test Recovery

Equipment With HFC and PFC

Refrigerants

EPA has approved two equipment

testing organizations, the Air

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute

and Underwriters Laboratories, to

certify equipment under the current

standards at § 82.158(b) and Appendix

B. EPA anticipates that both

organizations will apply to certify

equipment under the standards based

on ARI 740–95 when these are

promulgated in the near future. EPA is

proposing to require that approved

equipment testing organizations would

also have to apply to EPA to become

approved to certify equipment under the

standards described above, once these

are promulgated. However, these

organizations would not need to

resubmit the information on their test

facilities, equipment testing expertise,

long-term performance verification

programs, knowledge of the standards,

and objectivity that they submitted to

become approved to certify under

§ 82.158(b) and Appendix B, or under

the new standards based on ARI 740–95.

Instead, they would have to submit

information only in those areas where

their certification programs under the

standards described above differed from

their previously approved programs.

Because the standards described above

do not require any testing equipment

that differs from that required for the

standards based on ARI 740–95, EPA

expects submissions to focus on the

organizations’ knowledge of how the

new standards differ from the old. EPA
32080 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

25EPA does not anticipate that many

homeowners or other consumers would elect to

perform their own repairs on household

refrigerators and air conditioners. However, based

believes that a one- to two-page letter

would suffice.

4. Use of Existing CFC/HCFC Recovery

Equipment With HFC and PFC

Refrigerants

EPA is proposing to permit

technicians to use equipment that is

certified for use with at least two CFCs

and HCFCs to recover HFCs and PFCs

of similar saturation pressure. Based on

discussions with equipment

manufacturers and testing organizations,

EPA believes that most recovery and

recycling equipment designed for use

with multiple CFC or HCFC refrigerants

(e.g., R12, R22, R500, and R502) can be

adapted for use with HFC and PFC

refrigerants with similar saturation

pressures, usually by changing the

lubricant to POE lubricant. This

equipment would have to meet the

standards presented in Table 1 and

Table 2. In addition, if it was

manufactured on or after November 15,

1993, it would have to have been

certified by an EPA-approved thirdparty certification program (ARI or UL)

for at least two refrigerants with

saturation pressures similar to the

saturation pressure of the refrigerant(s)

with which the equipment is to be used.

EPA requests comment on this proposal.

EPA specifically requests comment on

whether and how the Agency should

integrate into its grandfathering policy

the considerations enumerated above in

the discussion of certification of new

equipment, including materials

compatibility, flammability, and blend

fractionation. EPA also requests

comment on whether it should permit

equipment that was originally designed

for use with a single refrigerant to be

used with multiple refrigerants. EPA is

concerned that equipment designed for

use with a single refrigerant may not be

equipped with a clearing mechanism to

prevent cross-contamination when it is

used with a different refrigerant.

D. Technician Certification

Any person doing work that ‘‘could

reasonably be expected’’ to release

refrigerant from CFC and HCFC

appliances is required to become

certified. In addition, sales of CFCs and

HCFCs are restricted to certified

technicians. Technicians become

certified by passing a test drawn from a

question bank developed jointly by EPA

and industry educational organizations.

The test includes questions on the role

of CFCs and HCFCs in ozone depletion,

the requirements of the refrigerant

recycling rule, and proper techniques

for recycling and conserving refrigerant.

EPA makes the question bank available

to certifying organizations that

demonstrate that they can properly

generate, track, and grade tests, issue

certificates, and keep records.

EPA is proposing to extend the

certification requirements for

technicians who work with CFC and

HCFC refrigerants to technicians who

work with HFCs and PFCs. Technicians

who have been certified to work with

CFCs and HCFCs would not have to be

retested to work with HFCs or PFCs, but

new technicians entering the field

would have to pass the test to work with

CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and/or PFCs.

EPA believes that requiring

certification of technicians who work

with HFCs and PFCs is necessary to

implement and enforce both section

608(c) and section 608(a)(2) effectively.

As discussed above, section 608(c)

prohibits the knowing release of

substitute refrigerants during the

service, maintenance, repair or disposal

of appliances, except for de minimis

releases associated with ‘‘good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or

safely dispose’’ of the refrigerants. It is

reasonable to interpret ‘‘good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or

safely dispose’’ as requiring that service,

maintenance, repair, or disposal that

could release substitute refrigerant be

performed by a certified technician.

This interpretation is also consistent

with EPA’s interpretation of the same

statutory language as it applies to ozonedepleting refrigerants. For the reasons

discussed below, persons who are not

certified technicians are far more likely

to intentionally or inadvertently release

refrigerant contrary to the venting

prohibition. In addition, consistent

application of technician certification

requirements and a sales restriction to

class I and II refrigerants and their

substitutes is necessary to implement

the section 608(a) directive to reduce

releases and maximize recapture and

recycling of class I and II refrigerants.

Technician certification requirements

for work with substitute refrigerants

would directly reduce some releases of

class I and II refrigerants. It would also

protect against refrigerant mixture,

which otherwise is likely to cause more

substantial releases of class I and II

refrigerants.

EPA believes that having a certified

technician perform the work on an

appliance is an important component of

good faith recapture and recycling.

Certified technicians are much more

likely to understand how and why to

recover and recycle refrigerants and to

have the means to do so. First,

technician certification ensures that

technicians are trained in refrigerant

recovery requirements and techniques.

Until recently, technicians in many

sectors were not recycling refrigerants at

all, and technicians who did recycle

were not necessarily minimizing

emissions as much as possible. Thus,

many technicians lacked expertise that

they would need to comply with the

recycling and recovery provisions and

hence needed training to acquire that

expertise. However, while some

vocational schools and training

programs addressed refrigerant

recovery, participation in such programs

was low. Given this situation, EPA was

concerned that without a testing or

training requirement, recovery and

recycling often would not occur at all or

would occur improperly, leading not

only to refrigerant release, but to

refrigerant contamination, safety

concerns, productivity losses, and

equipment damage. EPA discussed at

length the benefits of training and

certification in the final rule published

on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28691–28694)

and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis

performed for that rule (6–34 through 6–

39). The importance of a certification

requirement was confirmed when

participation in training programs rose

in response to reports that certification

would be required, and then fell sharply

in response to reports that it would not

be required. This indicated that service

practice requirements were not, by

themselves, likely to drive technicians

to acquire training in how to comply

with such requirements.

Second, in addition to possessing

training in refrigerant recovery, certified

individuals are more likely than

uncertified individuals to have access to

recovery equipment. This is because

uncertified individuals, particularly

those who work only on their own

appliances (e.g., on their own car air

conditioners), are unlikely to find it

cost-effective to purchase their own

recovery equipment. Thus, they are able

neither to recover the refrigerant from

the appliance before it is serviced nor to

recover the ‘‘heel’’ of residual refrigerant

from the refrigerant container before it

is disposed of. Both the refrigerant in

the appliance and that in the refrigerant

container are therefore released. (The

‘‘heel’’ is ultimately released to the

atmosphere when the container is

crushed or corroded.)

EPA anticipates that for the next

decade, the majority of technicians

subject to section 608 requirements will

continue to work with and purchase

CFCs and HCFCs and will therefore be

certified under the current program.25
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32081

on the past ‘‘Do-It-Yourself’’ (DIY) market for

MVAC refrigerant, EPA expects that many car

owners would elect to perform their own repairs on

MVACs, if they could obtain refrigerant to do so.

Thus, as discussed below, any sales restriction on

HFCs would affect both uncertified 608 technicians

and the MVACs DIY population.

26Based on pressure-temperature graphs

provided to Debbie Ottinger of the Stratospheric

Protection Division, EPA, by Dave Bateman of the

DuPont Company, April 29, 1996.

However, EPA is concerned that a

significant minority could emerge that

would work primarily with HFCs,

particularly if a lack of certification

requirements for work with substitutes

created an incentive for doing so. In this

case, large numbers of technicians who

worked with HFCs might not receive

proper training in refrigerant recycling

or recovery, leading to release of HFCs.

For example, an uncertified person

could vent refrigerant before repairing

an appliance containing an HFC

refrigerant, thereby violating the venting

prohibition. Thus, requiring

certification for technicians who work

with substitute refrigerants is necessary

to implement the section 608(c)

prohibition.

Requiring certification for technicians

who work with substitute refrigerants is

also necessary to comply with the

section 608(a) requirements for EPA to

promulgate regulations that reduce

emissions of class I and II refrigerants to

the lowest achievable levels and

maximize recapture and recycling of

such substances. Failure to require

technician certification is likely to lead

to increased emissions and reduced

recycling of ozone-depleting substances

under several scenarios. As discussed

above, the lack of a technician

certification requirement would

encourage the emergence of a class of

uncertified technicians working

primarily with HFCs. However, once

such persons were working as

professional refrigeration and cooling

technicians, there would be strong

economic incentives for them to

overlook the restrictions on their ability

to work with ozone-depleting

refrigerants as well. In fact, because of

the absence of a certification

requirement and their consequent lack

of adequate training, they might be

unaware of the existence or scope of the

restrictions. Thus, they might fail to

recycle class I and class II refrigerants

properly, and might not recycle them at

all. Uncertified technicians would also

be likely to perform retrofits using

HFCs, which they would be legally

entitled to purchase. However, the

appliance that they would be retrofitting

would contain ozone-depleting

substances. Such uncertified

technicians would be likely to vent the

ozone-depleting substance prior to

retrofitting, given their probable lack of

training and the fact that return of the

substance to a reclaimer would reveal

that they were handling it illegally.

Failure to require technician

certification to work with HFCs is also

likely to encourage the inappropriate

mixture of HFC and ozone-depleting

refrigerants. In this scenario, refrigerant

mixture could occur because uncertified

technicians might wish to service CFC

or HCFC equipment, but would have

access only to HFCs because sales of

CFCs and HCFCs are limited to certified

technicians. Lacking training, these

technicians would probably have a poor

understanding of the consequences of

mixing refrigerants, and would therefore

be more likely than certified technicians

to add HFCs to CFC or HCFC systems.

The consequences of such

inappropriate mixture include

significant losses in performance and

energy efficiency in equipment serviced

with mixed refrigerants, damage to

equipment, the lost value of the mixed

refrigerant (which is at best difficult,

and often impossible, to separate), and

costs for destroying mixed refrigerants.

Refrigerant mixture also leads both

directly and indirectly to refrigerant

release. Mixture leads directly to release

because mixtures of certain refrigerants,

such as R12 and R134a, have higher

pressures than either component alone.

Thus, pressure-sensitive components

such as air purge devices on recycling

machines and relief devices on

appliances may be activated by these

mixtures, venting the refrigerant to the

atmosphere. Purge devices in particular

are often set to open when the pressure

of the recovery cylinder’s contents rises

more than 5–10 psi above the expected

saturation pressure for the refrigerant;

this margin is exceeded by R12/R134a

mixtures containing more than ten

percent of the contaminating

refrigerant.26 Refrigerant mixture also

reduces recycling and leads indirectly to

release. First, mixed refrigerants not

only lose their value but cost money to

reclaim or destroy, encouraging venting.

Second, the direct releases and

equipment breakdowns caused by

contamination lead to increased

equipment servicing, which itself leads

to unavoidable releases of refrigerant.

Thus, whether the refrigerant were

vented or mixed, failure to impose a

certification requirement on persons

working with HFCs would increase the

probability of both HFCs and ozonedepleting refrigerants being emitted to

the atmosphere.

Evidence collected by EPA indicates

that without certification requirements

for technicians who work with

substitute refrigerants, the emergence of

a class of uncertified individuals who

are liable to mix refrigerants is likely.

Advertisements for one alternative have

highlighted the fact that technicians

need not be certified to purchase it.

These advertisements have also implied,

incorrectly, that the substitute may be

mixed with R12 without consequence.

These advertisements indicate that there

is a market for alternatives that can be

purchased without certification and that

can be used to service CFC and HCFC

equipment. At the same time, the

advertisements indicate that some parts

of the market are transmitting incorrect

information that is likely to lead to the

inappropriate mixture of the alternatives

with CFCs and HCFCs. EPA believes

that technicians who have not received

training in the need to avoid mixing

refrigerants are far more likely to fall

prey to such false advertising than

certified technicians, who have received

training.

Experience from the sales restriction

on small containers, which was

mandated under section 609 of the Act

before the sales restriction under 608

became effective, also strongly supports

EPA’s concern that inconsistent

imposition of technician certification

requirements or sales restrictions will

lead to refrigerant mixture. Some

industry representatives have reported

that when sales of small containers of

R12 were restricted to only certified

technicians, containers of R22, which

could still be sold to the general public,

began appearing in stores catering to the

automotive DIY consumer. This implies

that R22 was being used to service R12

equipment. Statistics collected by the

Mobile Air Conditioning Society

(MACs) indicate that approximately

three percent of motor vehicle air

conditioners now being serviced are

contaminated by mixed refrigerants.

In addition to concerns related to

refrigerant mixture and release, industry

representatives at the March 10, 1995

meeting cited the need for fairness and

consistency in applying rule provisions

to all potentially environmentally

damaging refrigerants. The two

contractors present voiced the opinion

that the imposition of less stringent

recovery or certification requirements

for HFCs could undermine compliance

with recycling requirements for both

HFCs and ozone-depleting refrigerants

by confusing technicians and

encouraging a ‘‘cavalier’’ attitude

toward refrigerant recovery. Other

industry representatives noted that due

to similar concerns, their organizations
32082 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

27EPA published a final rule under section 609

on December 30, 1997 that requires technicians

servicing MVACs containing substitute refrigerants

to become certified. However, while section 609

restricts the sale of small containers of class I or

class II refrigerants, it does not restrict the sale of

HFC or PFC refrigerants. Thus, any sales restriction

on these refrigerants must be promulgated under

the authority of section 608.

already required certification for

technicians working with HFCs.

For these reasons, EPA currently

believes that it is necessary to impose a

technician certification requirement in

order to implement sections 608(a) and

608(c), and that EPA has authority

under these sections to promulgate a

technician certification requirement.

EPA requests comment on the

likelihood that failure to impose a

technician certification requirement on

persons working with HFCs and PFCs

would lead to release and mixture of

both ozone-depleting refrigerants and

substitutes.

As noted above, EPA is not proposing

to require that technicians who have

been certified to work with CFCs and

HCFCs undertake additional training

and testing to work with HFCs and

PFCs. The techniques and requirements

for recycling HFCs and PFCs are very

similar to those for CFCs and HCFCs;

where there are differences (such as

compatibility with different lubricants),

these differences have been highlighted

by the certification program for CFCs

and HCFCs. In addition, based on

statements made by industry and

educational representatives at the March

10, 1995 industry meeting, EPA believes

that more recent information on proper

handling of HFCs and PFCs will be

disseminated to certified technicians

through refrigerant and equipment

manufacturers, industry associations,

and the trade press. Thus, the benefits

of any recertification requirement would

probably be small, and would likely be

outweighed by the costs of such

recertification. Instead, as part of its

regular update of the technician

certification question bank, EPA is

planning to include more questions on

handling HFC and PFC refrigerants and

on the potential impacts of global

warming. EPA requests comment on this

approach for already certified

technicians.

E. Sales Restriction

Under the current regulations

promulgated under sections 608 and

609, only certified technicians may

purchase CFC and HCFC refrigerants.

EPA is proposing to extend this sales

restriction to HFC and PFC refrigerants.

The sales restriction would apply to

HFC and PFC refrigerants sold in all

sizes of containers for use in all types

of appliances, including motor vehicle

air conditioners. EPA considers the

sales restriction to be necessary to

enforce the technician certification

requirements of both the refrigerant

recycling regulations promulgated

under section 608 and those

promulgated under section 609 27 and

ultimately, to implement the

requirements of sections 608(a) and

608(c)(2).

In the absence of a sales restriction,

the size and mobility of the population

that is subject to the technician

certification requirements would make

compliance monitoring extremely

difficult. Approximately 1.4 million

technicians are employed in the

stationary and mobile air-conditioning

and refrigeration sectors. Many of these

technicians, particularly those in the

stationary sector, may work out of vans

rather than having any fixed place of

business. The sales restriction ensures

that these technicians are certified by

placing monitors on their supply lines.

Because inspections can be performed at

a relatively small number of centralized

retailer and wholesaler locations, the

sales restriction itself is relatively easy

to enforce.

Discussions with industry

representatives indicate that the sales

restriction on CFCs and HCFCs was

important in encouraging large numbers

of technicians to obtain certification.

The largest certification organizations

report that the numbers of people

interested in obtaining certification rose

sharply as the November, 1994 effective

date of the sales restriction approached.

Moreover, the contractors who staff

EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone Hotline state

that during the summer, they receive

between 20 and 40 telephone calls per

day from individuals who indicate that

they are seeking technician certification

specifically because they want to be able

to purchase refrigerant. This is strong

evidence that the sales restriction is

critical for ensuring that technicians are

certified. As discussed above, EPA

believes that technician certification is

necessary to meet the requirements of

sections 608(a) and (c).

While there are methods of

discouraging refrigerant mixing and

release other than technician

certification combined with a sales

restriction, none of them appear to be

sufficiently effective to substitute for a

sales restriction. One alternative method

for preventing mixture of ozonedepleting and HFC refrigerants might be

to require that both HFC containers and

HFC appliances be equipped with

unique fittings that would prevent them

from being connected to CFC or HCFC

containers and appliances. Under the

SNAP program, HFC-134a containers

sold for use in the automotive market

and MVACs that use HFC-134a are

required to be equipped with such

fittings.

However, while such fittings may be

effective in reducing mixture in some

sectors, EPA believes that they would be

impractical in other sectors and would

not necessarily reduce the venting of the

CFC or HCFC to be replaced. Only

motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs)

containing substitutes currently possess

the specialized fittings; other types of

air-conditioning and refrigeration

equipment containing substitutes,

including household, commercial, and

industrial refrigerators and airconditioners, do not. Introducing a

unique fittings requirement to these

stationary sectors would be impractical

for several reasons.

The most fundamental reason is that

the wide array of substitute refrigerants

available for stationary equipment

makes the development of a unique

fitting for each one almost impossible.

At least 25 refrigerants are currently

being used in the stationary airconditioning and refrigeration sectors,

and more are being developed. Unique

fittings are designed by choosing the

diameter, turning direction, thread pitch

(threads/inch) and shape of threads

(normal vs. square, also known as

Acme). However, fittings with the same

diameter and turning direction can

nearly always be connected using a

wrench, regardless of thread pitch or

shape. Therefore, practically speaking,

the number of different fittings is

limited to the double the number of

different diameters. (Each diameter

yields both a clockwise and a

counterclockwise fitting.) The number

of diameters is itself limited because

fittings must differ by at least 0.063 inch

in diameter to ensure they will not

cross-connect, and the range of

diameters is limited by valve core and

surrounding space restrictions. (In the

MVAC market to date, valve core and

surrounding space restrictions have

resulted in fittings ranging in diameter

from 0.3 inches to 0.625 inches.) Thus,

the number of unique fittings that can

be developed is limited.

Moreover, even if unique fittings

could be found for each of the

refrigerants used in the stationary

sectors, the logistics of implementing

them would be formidable. To begin

with, a massive program would be

required to retrofit existing stationary

appliances and recovery equipment

with all of the unique fittings. A great

deal of equipment in the stationary
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32083

sector has already been retrofitted to use

substitute refrigerants; retrofits would

presumably be required not only for all

this equipment, but for all of the

equipment that uses one of the four

traditional high-pressure refrigerants

(R12, R22, R502, and R500). Otherwise,

technicians who became accustomed to

relying on fittings to distinguish among

refrigerants might cross-contaminate

these four.

In addition, the large number of

fittings in the stationary sectors would

make their use as a control on

contamination unwieldy. A single piece

of recovery equipment intended for use

with high-pressure refrigerants might

conceivably require over 20 fittings.

Given the similar exterior appearances

of the fittings, finding the one that

matched a particular appliance would

be difficult.

More important, this matching of

fittings with appliances is not necessary

if the recovery equipment has been

properly cleared before use with a new

refrigerant. Technicians who work on

stationary air-conditioning and

refrigeration equipment have long

worked with multiple refrigerants, and

recovery equipment for stationary

appliances has been designed for use

with multiple refrigerants. Instead of

engineering controls, the stationary

sectors have relied on training in

refrigerant charging and recovery to

prevent cross-contamination. Adopting

unique fittings in these sectors would

represent a fundamental change of

approach that would not only be

unwieldy but redundant.

Leaving aside the difficulty of

introducing unique fittings to the

sectors that do not have them, these

fittings may not be sufficient to prevent

cross-contamination in those sectors

that do have them, such as the

automotive sector. Containers of HFCs

that are intended for the stationary

sector and that therefore possess generic

fittings may find their way into the

automotive air conditioning sector;

industry representatives have stated that

this is already occurring to some extent.

In addition, equipment is available (e.g.,

old manifolds with multiple hoses, side

can tappers) that permits technicians or

DIYers to defeat the specialized fittings

when the container is equipped with

them. Again, industry representatives

indicate that this type of cross

contamination is already happening,

and the statistics on contaminated

refrigerant from the automotive industry

support them.

Finally, there is no reason to believe

that specialized fittings would prevent

an uncertified person from venting the

original CFC or HCFC before attempting

to recharge a system with a substitute,

because this venting may well take

place before the person discovers that

he or she cannot recharge the equipment

with the purchased substitute. As noted

above, such venting prevents the

requirements of 608(c) and 608(a) from

being met.

One option that would address the

first of these three concerns, but not the

last two, is a more limited sales

restriction. This would restrict to

certified technicians the sale of

containers of substitute refrigerants that

lack specialized fittings, but would

permit the sale of containers of

substitute refrigerants that contain such

fittings to the general public. In this

manner, DIY consumers and uncertified

technicians would have unlimited

access only to containers with fittings,

making mixture more difficult.

However, EPA is concerned that this

approach would still permit mixture

through defeat of the fittings and would

fail to address venting of the refrigerant

previously in the system. EPA requests

comment on the potential effectiveness

and enforceability of such a restriction.

F. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances

1. Coverage of HFCs and PFCs

EPA is proposing to adopt the same

approach to the disposal of small

appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances charged with HFCs and PFCs

that it has adopted for these types of

equipment charged with CFCs and

HCFCs. In the May 14, 1993 rule, EPA

established specific requirements for the

safe disposal of appliances that enter the

waste stream with the charge intact,

including small appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC-like appliances. Persons

who take the final step in the disposal

process of small appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC-like appliances that contain

CFCs or HCFCs must either recover any

remaining refrigerant in the appliance or

verify that the refrigerant has previously

been recovered from the appliance or

shipment of appliances. If they verify

that the refrigerant has been recovered

previously, they must retain a signed

statement attesting to this. Recovery

equipment used to remove the

refrigerant must meet certain standards

but does not need to be certified by a

third party. Similarly, persons

recovering the refrigerant need not be

certified.

In addition to the specific safe

disposal requirements, refrigerant

recovered from disposed small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

appliances is subject to the reclamation

requirements at § 82.156(g) and (h),

which safeguard the purity of refrigerant

flowing into the stationary equipment

service sectors, and to the reclamation

requirement in Appendix A to subpart

B, which safeguards the purity of

refrigerant flowing into the MVAC and

MVAC-like appliance service sectors.

In recent amendments to the subpart

B MVAC recycling regulation, EPA

explicitly permitted refrigerant

recovered from MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances at disposal facilities to be

reused in MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances without being reclaimed as

long as certain other requirements were

met. These requirements, which apply

to HFCs (in MVACs) in addition to CFCs

and HCFCs, include the following: Only

609-certified technicians or disposal

facility owners or operators may recover

the refrigerant; the refrigerant recovered

from the MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances may not be mixed with

refrigerant from any other sources; only

section 609-certified recovery

equipment may be used to recover the

refrigerant; the refrigerant may be

reused only in an MVAC or MVAC-like

appliance; the refrigerant may be sold

only to section 609-certified

technicians; and section 609-certified

technicians must recycle the refrigerant

in section 609-certified recycling

equipment before charging it into the

MVAC or MVAC-like appliance. As

discussed in the amendments to the 609

rule, these restrictions are intended to

ensure that the exemption from the

reclamation requirement for refrigerant

removed from and charged into MVACs

and MVAC-like appliances does not

compromise the purity of refrigerant

flowing into the MVAC and MVAC-like

appliance service sectors.

Most of the restrictions (except for the

sales restriction and the restrictions as

they would apply to MVAC-like

appliances) are authorized by section

609, which requires persons servicing

motor vehicles for consideration to

properly use approved refrigerant

recycling equipment and to be properly

trained and certified. The statutory

definitions of ‘‘properly use,’’

‘‘approved equipment’’ and ‘‘properly

trained and certified’’ all reference SAE

standards that include purity

requirements for refrigerant used to

service MVACs.

These requirements for reuse of

refrigerant from MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances at disposal facilities apply in

addition to the basic safe disposal

requirements of the subpart F

regulations under section 608,

particularly the requirement that

disposers recover the refrigerant (or

ensure that the refrigerant is recovered

by others) from the MVAC or MVAC-
32084 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

like appliance before the final step in

the disposal process. Disposal facilities

must also continue to observe the

requirement that they retain signed

statements attesting to the removal of

the refrigerant from the MVAC or

MVAC-like appliance, if applicable.

When refrigerant is recovered from

disposed small appliances or when it is

recovered from disposed MVACs or

MVAC-like appliances and not reused

in MVACs and MVAC-like appliances,

only the safe disposal and reclamation

requirements set forth in the subpart F

regulations apply. In today’s notice,

EPA is proposing to extend these

requirements to small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that

contain HFCs. These requirements are

necessary to implement the 608(c)(2)

prohibition on release of substitute

refrigerants by defining good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or

safely dispose of the refrigerant in the

context of the disposal of small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

appliances. EPA believes that the

rationale for establishing the safe

disposal requirements for small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

appliances that contain CFCs and

HCFCs also applies to these appliances

when they contain substitutes for CFCs

and HCFCs. As discussed at length in

the May 14, 1993 rule, these

requirements are designed to ensure that

refrigerant is recovered before the

appliance is finally disposed of while

granting as much flexibility as possible

to the disposal facility regarding the

manner of its recovery (58 FR 28702).

EPA considered such flexibility

important for the disposal sector, which

is highly diverse and decentralized.

Because the disposal infrastructure for

appliances charged with HFCs and PFCs

is identical to that for appliances

charged with CFCs and HCFCs, EPA

believes that these considerations apply

equally to appliances containing HFCs

and PFCs. In addition, applying a

consistent set of disposal requirements

to appliances containing CFCs, HCFCs,

HFCs, and PFCs will reduce confusion

and minimize emissions of all four

types of refrigerant during the disposal

process. Thus, the Agency believes that

the regulations regarding the safe

disposal of appliances charged with

HFCs should be the same as those

regarding the safe disposal of appliances

charged with CFCs and HCFCs. EPA

requests comment on this proposal.

2. Possible Clarifications

EPA is also requesting comment on

two possible modifications that EPA is

considering making to the safe disposal

provisions to ensure that EPA’s

interpretation of the regulation is clear

on its face. As stated in Applicability

Determination number 59, the Agency

interprets the safe disposal provisions to

apply to ‘‘the entity which conducted

the process where the refrigerant was

released if not properly recovered.’’

Together, the possible changes to the

regulations would clarify that paragraph

82.156(f) applies to persons who

perform disposal-related activities

where the refrigerant would be released

if not properly recovered. One

clarification would amend the

definition of ‘‘opening’’ to include the

disposal of appliances. The first

sentence of the revised definition of

‘‘opening’’ would read, ‘‘Opening an

appliance means any service,

maintenance, repair, or disposal of an

appliance that would release refrigerant

from the appliance to the atmosphere

unless the refrigerant were recovered

previously from the appliance.’’ The rest

of the definition would remain

unchanged.

The second clarification would add

the phrase ‘‘persons who open the

appliances in the course of disposing of

them’’ to the introductory text of

§ 82.156(f). The revised text would read

(in part), ‘‘persons who take the final

step in the disposal process of small

appliances, MVACs, or MVAC-like

appliances (including but not limited to

scrap recyclers, landfill operators, and

persons who open the appliances in the

course of disposing of them) must

either: (1) Recover any remaining

refrigerant from the appliance in

accordance with paragraph (g) or (h) of

this section, as applicable; or (2) Verify

that the refrigerant has been evacuated

from the appliance or shipment of

appliances previously.’’ The rest of

§ 82.156(f) would remain unchanged.

EPA requests comment on these two

possible changes.

G. Certification by Owners of Recycling

or Recovery Equipment

EPA currently requires persons who

maintain, service, repair, or dispose of

appliances containing CFCs or HCFCs to

submit a signed statement to the

appropriate EPA Regional office stating

that they possess recovery and recycling

equipment and are complying with the

applicable requirements of the rule. EPA

is proposing to extend this provision to

persons who maintain, service, repair,

or dispose of appliances containing

HFCs or PFCs. Persons who had already

sent a signed statement to EPA for their

work on appliances containing CFCs or

HCFCs would not need to send a new

statement. EPA anticipates, therefore,

that only businesses coming into

existence after the date of publication of

the final rule would potentially be

affected by the amended provision.

EPA believes that the rationale for

requiring this report from persons who

maintain, service, repair, or dispose of

appliances containing HFCs or PFCs is

the same as that for requiring it from

persons who maintain, service, repair,

or dispose of appliances containing

CFCs or HCFCs. That is, the requirement

would help ensure that persons who

opened or disposed of appliances were

making a good faith effort to recover and

recycle the refrigerant and had the

appropriate equipment available to

comply with the section 608(c) venting

prohibition. EPA would also use this

information in conjunction with

telephone or other business listings to

target its efforts to enforce the venting

prohibition. Finally, consistent

application of the reporting requirement

to businesses that handled appliances

containing HFCs and PFCs as well as to

businesses that handled appliances

containing CFCs and HCFCs would

reduce confusion and thereby minimize

emissions of all four types of

refrigerants.

H. Servicing Apertures

EPA prohibits the sale or distribution

of CFC and HCFC appliances that are

not equipped either with a process stub

(in the case of small appliances) or with

a servicing aperture (in the case of all

other appliances) to facilitate refrigerant

recovery. EPA is today proposing to

extend this prohibition to the sale and

distribution of appliances containing

HFCs or PFCs. EPA believes that the

rationale for requiring servicing

apertures or process stubs on HFC and

PFC appliances is the same as that for

requiring these design features on CFC

and HCFC appliances. Specifically,

these features permit technicians to

comply with the venting prohibition by

making it much easier for them to attach

recovery equipment to the refrigerant

circuit and thereby recover the

refrigerant properly. Thus, EPA is

proposing to require these features in

order to implement the venting

prohibition.

I. Prohibition on Manufacture of OneTime Expansion Devices That Contain

Other Than Exempted Refrigerants

In order to implement the venting

prohibition as it applies to one-time

expansion devices using refrigerants

other than nitrogen or carbon dioxide

(see discussion in section IV.A.1.b.

above), EPA is proposing a provision

that would prohibit their manufacture

in or import into the U.S. EPA believes

that a prohibition on manufacturing or

importing the devices (which include
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32085

28EPA has also proposed to find that self-chilling

cans using HFC–152a and HFC–134a are

unaccepted under its SNAP program. If EPA

promulgates a final rule including this finding, the

manufacture of self-chilling cans using HFC–152a

and HFC–134a will be prohibited unde SNAP.

self-chilling cans) is simultaneously the

least burdensome and the most

effective, efficient, and equitable way of

carrying out the venting prohibition as

it applies to them. As discussed earlier

in section II.A., EPA believes that

section 608(c)(2) implicitly provides the

Agency authority to promulgate

regulations as necessary to implement

and enforce the statutory prohibition,

and section 301(a)(1)(a) further

supplements that authority. As

discussed below, EPA believes that a

ban on manufacture and import of the

devices is the only practical way to

implement the prohibition on venting of

section 608(c)(2) of the Act and hence

is necessary to implement and enforce

that prohibition.28

First, a prohibition on manufacturing

or importing the devices would not be

unreasonably burdensome. One-time

expansion devices function only by

venting; one-time expansion devices

containing other than exempted

refrigerants therefore have no legal use,

given the self-effectuating venting

prohibition of 608(c)(2). Thus, a

prohibition on manufacture and import

would not interfere with any lawful use

of the device or can. At the same time,

any burden on potential manufacturers

of the can either would not exist,

because perfect implementation of the

venting prohibition would reduce

demand for the cans to zero, or, to the

extent that it existed, would exist solely

as a result of illegal activity on the part

of consumers. Thus, any burden placed

on the manufacturer by a ban on

manufacturing should be discounted. In

contrast, as discussed further below,

efforts to stop use of the can would

place heavy burdens both on consumers

and on EPA.

Second, prohibiting the manufacture

or import of cans containing other than

exempted refrigerants would be both

more effective and more efficient than

attempting to prevent the use of such

cans by millions of potential consumers.

EPA estimates that the total market for

canned beverages in the U.S. is 100

billion units per year. Thus, if selfchilling cans captured even a small

percentage of this market, very large

numbers of cans could be used. For

instance, if self-chilling cans captured

just one percent of the canned beverage

market, one billion self-chilling cans per

year could be used, potentially violating

the venting prohibition one billion

times. Potential consumers of the can

would include virtually the entire U.S.

population of 265 million people.

Without a ban on manufacture, the huge

number of potential violators and

violations would make the venting

prohibition extremely difficult to

enforce. A massive outreach campaign

would be required to inform the public

of the environmental and legal

implications of using the cans, and such

a campaign would still miss some

fraction of the population. Of course,

such a campaign would also be very

expensive. At the same time,

enforcement against consumers who

either ignored or were ignorant of the

campaign would be very difficult, due

to the large numbers of potential

consumers and the unpredictable and

widespread nature of potential

violations. In contrast, outreach to and

enforcement against potential

manufacturers of the can would only

have to reach a few targets, interdicting

the cans at the top of the distribution

pyramid.

Third, a prohibition on manufacturing

or importing cans containing other than

exempted refrigerants would be more

equitable than an enforcement campaign

against consumers who might not

recognize the environmental and legal

implications of using such cans. While

consumers of such cans would be

expected to be aware that they were

releasing gas to the atmosphere, it might

not be reasonable to expect them to be

aware that the gas being released

contributed significantly to global

warming or that its release was illegal,

particularly since opening the can and

releasing the gas would be the only

possible use of a legally purchased

product. As noted above, even a massive

outreach campaign is likely to miss

some fraction of consumers, and given

the very large underlying population,

even a small fraction would be sizable.

However, it is both reasonable and

standard practice to hold manufacturers

responsible for knowledge of and

compliance with the environmental and

other laws and regulations applicable to

their products.

Thus, a ban on manufacture and

import of cans containing other than

exempted refrigerants is the only

practical way to implement the venting

prohibition as it applies to them.

Moreover, there are a number of

precedents for prohibiting the

manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of

appliances, other equipment, and

refrigerants under section 608 in order

to reduce refrigerant emissions. Sections

82.154 (j) and (k) prohibit the sale or

distribution of appliances unless they

possess servicing apertures or process

stubs, and § 82.154(c) prohibits the

manufacture or import of recycling or

recovery equipment that is not certified.

Sections 82.154(g) and (h) prohibit the

sale of used ozone-depleting refrigerants

that have not been reclaimed (with

minor exceptions), and § 82.154(m)

prohibits the sale of ozone-depleting

refrigerants to uncertified individuals

(again with minor exceptions). Sales

restrictions were more appropriate than

manufacturing bans in the latter cases

because (1) a manufacturing ban could

not apply to used refrigerants, and (2)

purchase and use of ozone-depleting

refrigerants by some individuals, in this

case certified technicians, is legal.

J. Recordkeeping Requirements

EPA currently requires reporting and

recordkeeping from the following

persons and entities:

a. Persons Who Sell or Distribute

Refrigerant

Persons who sell or distribute any

CFC or HCFC refrigerant must retain

invoices that indicate the name of the

purchaser, the date of sale, and the

quantity of refrigerant purchased. These

records help the Agency to track

refrigerant use and to verify compliance

with the venting prohibition

(§ 82.166(a)).

b. Technicians

Certified technicians must keep a

copy of their certificate at their place of

business. This permits EPA inspectors

to determine whether a technician has

been certified, as required by the

regulations (§ 82.166(l)).

Technicians servicing equipment

containing 50 or more pounds of CFC or

HCFC refrigerant must provide the

owner or operator of the appliance with

an invoice that indicates the amount of

refrigerant added to the appliance.

These records permit owners or

operators of appliances containing 50 or

more pounds of refrigerant to determine

whether they need to take action to

comply with the leak repair provisions

(§ 82.166(j)).

c. Appliance Owners

Owners of appliances containing 50

or more pounds of CFC or HCFC

refrigerant must keep servicing records

documenting the date and type of

service, as well as the quantity of

refrigerant added. These requirements

ensure that owners can determine when

they must take action under the leak

repair requirements. In addition,

equipment owners who decide not to

repair leaks must develop and maintain

a record of a plan that states that the

equipment will be retired, replaced or

retrofitted. The plan permits EPA
32086 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

inspectors to ensure that equipment

owners intend to take action to reduce

emissions and actually take such action

(§ 82.166(k)).

d. Owners of Industrial Process

Refrigeration

Owners of industrial process

refrigeration equipment who wish to

receive an extension or exclusion under

the leak repair provisions are subject to

the following reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

i. Those persons wishing to extend

leak repair compliance beyond the

required 30 days must maintain and

submit to EPA information identifying

the facility, the leak rate, the method

used to determine the leak rate and full

charge, the date a leak rate greater than

allowable was discovered, the location

of the leaks, any repair work completed

thus far and date completed, a plan to

fix other outstanding leaks to achieve

allowable leak rate, reasons why greater

than 30 days is needed, and an estimate

of when repair work will be completed.

Any dates and results of static and

dynamic tests must also be maintained

and submitted to EPA (§ 82.166(n)).

ii. Those persons wishing to extend

retrofit compliance beyond the required

one year must maintain and submit to

EPA information identifying the facility,

the leak rate, the method used to

determine the leak rate and full charge,

the date a leak rate of greater than the

allowable rate was discovered, the

location of leaks, any repair work that

has been completed thus far and date

completed, a plan to complete the

retrofit or replacement of the system, the

reasons why more than one year is

necessary, the date of notification to

EPA, an estimate of when retrofit or

replacement work will be completed, if

time changes for original estimates

occur, documentation of the reason

why, and the date of notification to EPA

regarding a change in the estimate of

when the work will be completed

(§ 82.166(o)).

iii. Those persons wishing to exclude

purged refrigerants that are destroyed

from the annual leak rate calculations

must maintain records on-site to

support the amount of refrigerant

claimed sent for destruction. These

records must include flow rate, quantity

or concentration of the refrigerant in the

vent stream, and periods of purge flow

(§ 82.166(p)).

iv. Those persons wishing to calculate

the full charge of an affected appliance

by establishing a range based on the best

available data, regarding the normal

operating characteristics and conditions

for the appliance, must maintain records

on-site to support the methodology used

in selecting or modifying the particular

range (§ 82.166(q)).

These requirements allow EPA to

determine whether or not extensions

and exclusions requested under the leak

repair provisions are warranted.

e. Refrigerant Reclaimers

Refrigerant reclaimers must certify to

EPA that they will comply with the

rule’s requirements and must submit

lists of the equipment that they use to

clean and analyze refrigerants. This

information enables EPA to verify

reclaimers’ compliance with refrigerant

purity standards and refrigerant

emissions limits. In addition, refrigerant

reclaimers must maintain records of the

names and addresses of persons sending

them material for reclamation and the

quantity of material sent to them for

reclamation. This information must be

maintained on a transactional basis.

Within 30 days of the end of the

calendar year, reclaimers must report to

EPA the total quantity of material sent

to them that year for reclamation, the

mass of refrigerant reclaimed that year,

and the mass of waste products

generated that year. These requirements

help the Agency to track refrigerant use

and to ensure compliance with the

venting prohibition by both reclaimers

and their customers (§ 82.166(g) and

(h)).

f. Equipment Certification Organizations

Equipment testing organizations must

apply to EPA to become approved. This

application process is necessary to

ensure that all approved testing

laboratories have the equipment and

expertise to test equipment to the

applicable standards. Once approved,

equipment testing organizations must

maintain records of the tests performed

and their results, and must submit a list

of all certified equipment to EPA

annually. Testing organizations must

also notify EPA whenever a new model

of equipment is certified or whenever an

existing certified model fails a

recertification test. This information is

required to ensure that recycling and

recovery equipment meets the

performance standards of the regulation

(§§ 82.160 and 82.166(c), (d), and (e)).

g. Disposers

Persons who conduct final disposal of

small appliances, room air conditioners,

and MVACs and who do not recover the

refrigerant themselves must maintain

copies of signed statements attesting

that the refrigerant has been removed

prior to final disposal of each appliance.

These records help EPA to verify that

refrigerant is recovered at some point

during the disposal process even if the

final disposer does not have recovery

equipment (§ 82.166(i)).

h. Technician Certification Programs

Organizations operating technician

certification programs must apply to

EPA to have their programs approved.

The application process ensures that the

technician certification programs meet

minimum standards for generating,

tracking, and grading tests, and keeping

records. Approved technician

certification programs have to maintain

records including the names of certified

technicians and the unique numbers

assigned to each technician certified

through their programs. These records

allow both the Agency and the

certification program to verify

certification claims and to monitor the

certification process. Approved

technician certification programs also

have to submit to EPA reports every six

months including the pass/fail rate and

testing schedules. Such reports give the

Agency the ability to evaluate

certification programs and modify

certification requirements if necessary

(§ 82.166(f)).

EPA is proposing to extend all of

these requirements, as applicable, to

persons who sell or distribute HFC or

PFC refrigerants, to technicians who

service HFC or PFC appliances, to

persons who own HFC or PFC

appliances containing more than 50

pounds of refrigerant, to reclaimers that

reclaim HFC or PFC refrigerants, to

equipment certification organizations

that certify recovery or recycling

equipment for use with HFCs or PFCs,

and to technician certification programs

that certify technicians who work with

HFCs or PFCs.

The rationale for requiring these

records for persons who handle HFC or

PFC refrigerants or equipment is the

same as that set forth above for requiring

such records for persons who handle

CFC or HCFC refrigerants or equipment.

In all cases, the records would be

necessary to ensure compliance with the

regulatory program implementing the

section 608(c)(2) prohibition on venting

and hence would be necessary to

implement and enforce section 608(c)(2)

and section 608(a) as well, for the

provisions in this proposal that are

authorized by that section. The records

proposed to be required would make it

possible for EPA both to monitor

compliance and to enforce against

violations.

V. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32087

29Frankhauser, S. ‘‘The Social Cost of

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Expected Value

Approach,’’ Energy Journal 15(2), 1994, pp. 157–

183.

must determine whether this regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant’’

regulatory action as one that is likely to

lead to a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely and materially affect a sector

of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined by OMB and

EPA that this proposed action to

amendment to the final rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the terms of Executive Order 12866 and

is therefore not subject to OMB review

under the Executive Order.

Nevertheless, the Agency has performed

a cost benefit analysis of this regulation,

which is available for review in the

public docket for this rulemaking. This

analysis is summarized below.

1. Baseline

Since these regulations are being

promulgated in addition to other

provisions that affect the use of

substitute refrigerants, the baseline for

this analysis must reflect the state of

affairs after the implementation of

previous provisions and before the

implementation of the final rule. The

provision of the Clean Air Act that must

be considered when defining the

baseline for these regulations is the

prohibition on venting contained in

section 608(c)(2), which is selfeffectuating. For the purposes of the

analysis, EPA chose two variables to

describe the effects of this provision:

The percentage of the market in which

recycling and recovery would occur as

a result of the provision (referred to as

either market penetration or

compliance); and the average recapture

efficiency of the recycling or recovery

methods that would be employed by the

complying population.

The self-effectuating prohibition on

venting in section 608(c)(2) can be

considered a minimal requirement to

recycle because chemicals must be

recycled, or at least stored, if they

cannot be vented. However, because the

prohibition on venting does not in itself

contain standards, maximum recovery

efficiency and full compliance would

not be expected under the prohibition

alone. Instead, recovery efficiency and

compliance are likely to vary across

sectors depending upon whether

recycling is privately cost-effective in

that sector. Recycling will be privately

cost-effective in a sector when the value

of the recovered refrigerant exceeds the

labor and equipment costs for the

recovery, as it does in sectors with large

charge sizes. The cost-benefit analysis

assumes that in those sectors where

recycling is estimated to be privately

cost-effective, compliance with the

venting prohibition will be 100 percent,

and recovery efficiency will be 95

percent. The figures are assumed to

remain the same after imposition of the

regulation. In those sectors where

recycling is not estimated to be privately

cost effective, including the household

refrigeration, household airconditioning, other appliance, and

refrigerated transport sectors,

compliance with the venting prohibition

is assumed to be 80 percent, and

recovery efficiencies are assumed to be

75 percent. These figures are assumed to

rise to 100 percent and 90 percent

respectively after imposition of the

regulation.

2. Costs

The costs of the substitutes recycling

rule consist of the costs of increased

compliance with the venting prohibition

(primarily labor costs), the costs of

certifying recycling and recovery

equipment, the costs of certifying

technicians, the costs of the sales

restriction, recordkeeping costs, and

refrigerant storage costs. The Agency

estimates the cost for this regulatory

program over a 29-year period between

1996 and 2025 is $1,619 million using

a 2% discount rate, and $782 million

using a 7% discount rate.

3. Benefits

The benefits of the provisions

discussed above consist of (1) avoided

damage to air-conditioning and

refrigeration equipment that would

occur if, without regulation,

contaminated refrigerants were charged

into equipment, and (2) avoided damage

to human health and the environment

that would occur if, without regulation,

environmentally harmful refrigerants

were released rather than recaptured.

EPA’s estimate of human health and

environmental benefits is based on (a)

the estimates of the benefits of avoiding

emissions of ozone-depleting

compounds that were developed for the

1993 RIA, and (b) estimates of the

benefits of avoiding emissions of global

warming compounds that are derived

from a ‘‘The Social Costs of Greenhouse

Gas Emissions: An Expected Value

Approach.29’’ This paper surveyed

previous efforts to quantify the effects of

global climate change and developed a

technique for calculating the marginal

impact of emitting a ton of carbon.

Benefits quantified include reductions

in damages from sea level rise, reduced

agricultural yields, reduced water

supply, and other impacts. The paper

explicitly incorporated many of the

uncertainties involved in developing the

estimate and thereby developed lowerbound, best-estimate, and upper-bound

values for the benefit of avoiding

emissions of a ton of carbon. EPA

adjusted these estimates to account for

the facts that (1) U.S. benefits would

only be a fraction of world-wide benefits

and (2) on a kilogram-for-kilogram basis,

the HFC and PFC refrigerants have

many times the global warming

potential of carbon.

As noted above, the analysis assumes

that the rule increases both compliance

with the venting prohibition and the

efficiency of many recovery jobs. The

Agency estimates the range of benefits

to be from $1,060 million to $11,188

million, using the lower and upper

bound estimates of the benefits of

avoided equipment damage and of the

domestic benefits of avoiding emission

of a kilogram of refrigerant. These

benefits were discounted at a 2%

discount rate. The benefits range from

$475 million to $5,615 million when

discounted at a 7% discount rate.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of certain

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare

a written statement of economic and

regulatory alternatives analyses for

proposed and final rules with Federal

mandates, as defined by the UMRA, that

may result in expenditures to State,

local, and tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or
32088 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

the private sector, in any one year. As

noted above, EPA’s cost-benefit analysis

concluded that the total annual costs of

the rule will be less than $100 million

per year. State, local, and tribal

governments may have to pay some

costs for refrigerant recycling when their

air-conditioning and refrigeration

equipment is serviced or disposed of,

but these costs will be small. Moreover,

most municipal solid waste facilities do

not accept white goods and so will not

be affected by the safe disposal

provisions of the rule. Thus, today’s

proposed rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

For the reasons outlined above, EPA

has also determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. Thus, today’s

proposed rule is not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of the

UMRA.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule has no new

information requirements subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

D. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. EPA

has concluded that this proposed rule

would not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

EPA performed a detailed screening

analysis in 1992 of the impact of the

recycling regulation for ozone-depleting

refrigerants on small entities. The

methodology of this analysis is

discussed at length in the May 14, 1993

regulation (58 FR 28710). EPA has

updated that analysis to examine the

impact of the recycling regulation for

substitute refrigerants, and has

concluded that this regulation will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The methodology for the updated

analysis is the same as for the initial

analysis, except EPA has also

considered the changing market share of

HFC equipment and compliance with

the venting prohibition that would

occur in the absence of the rule. This

approach makes the screening analysis

more consistent with the cost-benefit

analysis discussed above. In addition,

EPA added an analysis of the potential

impact of a sales restriction on HFC

refrigerants on auto parts and supply

stores that are small businesses.

In the updated screening analysis,

EPA estimates that 118 small businesses

may incur compliance costs in excess of

1% of their sales, while 39 small

businesses may incur compliance costs

in excess of 3% of their sales. These

numbers respectively represent 0.1%

and 0.03% of the 122,416 small

businesses that EPA estimates are

affected by the rule. Based on this

analysis, EPA does not believe that this

regulation will have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Consequently, I hereby certify

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant adverse effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

Although this rule will not have a

significant adverse effect on a

substantial number of small entities,

EPA has made numerous efforts to

involve small entities in the rulemaking

process and to incorporate flexibility

into the proposed rule for small entities,

where appropriate. Efforts to involve

small entities include the March 10,

1995, industry meeting, which included

several trade groups representing small

businesses, and a number of individual

meetings with both small businesses

and associations representing small

businesses. EPA has also developed

outreach materials, including fact sheets

and a videotape, to help small

businesses to comply with the existing

refrigerant recycling regulations and the

prohibition on venting of both ozonedepleting refrigerants and their

substitutes.

Moreover, the proposed rule grants to

small businesses working with

substitute refrigerants the same

flexibility that was granted to small

businesses working with CFC and HCFC

refrigerants (58 FR 28667–28669,

28712). Thus, for instance, the proposed

rule would permit persons servicing

small appliances (frequently small

businesses) to use relatively inexpensive

recovery equipment, and would

establish a flexible program for the safe

disposal of small appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC-like appliances. In addition,

the rule would permit HVAC/R

contractors to recover HFCs using

recycling and recovery equipment

designed for use with CFCs and HCFCs,

and would permit technicians certified

to work with CFCs and HCFCs to work

with HFCs with no further testing.

E. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub L. 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA requires

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

In this document, EPA is proposing to

use voluntary consensus standards in all

of the applications covered by the

proposed regulations for which there are

voluntary consensus standards

available. Thus, EPA is proposing to use

ARI Standard 740–1995, Standard for

Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling

Equipment, and ARI Standard 700–

1995, Standard for Specifications for

Fluorocarbon and Other Refrigerants.

The first establishes requirements and

test methods for refrigerant recovery and

recycling equipment; the second

establishes specifications and test

methods for refrigerants. EPA invites

public comment on whether there are

other available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards that the Agency

should apply.

F. Children’s Health Protection

This proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it does not

involve decisions on environmental

health risks or safety risks that may

disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Contractors,

Reclaimers, Reclamation, Recycling,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Technician.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, part 82, is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 82—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 82

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–

7671q.

1a. Section 82.150 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32089

§ 82.150 Purpose and scope.

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to

reduce emissions of class I and class II

refrigerants to the lowest achievable

level during the service, maintenance,

repair, and disposal of appliances and to

maximize compliance with the

prohibition on venting of all refrigerants

during the service, maintenance, repair,

and disposal of appliances in

accordance with section 608 of the

Clean Air Act.

* * * * *

2. Section 82.152 is amended by

adding definitions for ‘‘higher-pressure

appliance,’’ ‘‘leak rate,’’ ‘‘one-time

expansion device,’’ ‘‘refrigerant,’’ and

‘‘substitute,’’ and by revising the

definitions for ‘‘appliance,’’ ‘‘full

charge,’’ ‘‘high-pressure appliance,’’

‘‘low-pressure appliance,’’ ‘‘opening,’’

‘‘reclaim,’’ ‘‘technician,’’ and ‘‘veryhigh-pressure appliance’’ to read as

follows:

§ 82.152 Definitions.

Appliance means any device which

contains and uses a refrigerant and

which is used for household or

commercial purposes, including any air

conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or

freezer.

* * * * *

Full charge means the amount of

refrigerant required for normal operating

characteristics and conditions of the

appliance as determined by using one or

a combination of the following four

methods:

(1) Use the equipment manufacturer’s

determination of the correct full charge

for the equipment;

(2) Determine the full charge by

making appropriate calculations based

on component sizes, density of

refrigerant, volume of piping, and other

relevant considerations;

(3) Use actual measurements of the

amount of refrigerant added or

evacuated from the appliance; and/or

(4) Use an established range based on

the best available data regarding the

normal operating characteristics and

conditions for the appliance, where the

mid-point of the range will serve as the

full charge, and where records are

maintained in accordance with

§ 82.166(q).

* * * * *

High-pressure appliance means an

appliance that uses a refrigerant with a

liquid phase saturation pressure

between 45 psia and 220 psia at 104

degrees F. This definition includes but

is not limited to appliances using R12,

R114, R134a, R401A and B, and R500.

* * * * *

Higher-pressure appliance means an

appliance that uses a refrigerant with a

liquid phase saturation pressure

between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104

degrees F. This definition includes but

is not limited to appliances using R22,

R502, R402A and B, and R407A, B, and

C.

* * * * *

Leak rate means the rate at which an

appliance is losing refrigerant, measured

between refrigerant charges or over 12

months, whichever is shorter. The leak

rate is expressed in terms of the

percentage of the appliance’s full charge

that would be lost over a 12-month

period if the current rate of loss were to

continue over that period. The rate is

calculated using the following method:

(1) Take the number of pounds of

refrigerant added to the appliance to

return it to a full charge and divide it

by the number of pounds of refrigerant

the appliance normally contains at full

charge;

(2) Take the shorter of: (a) 365 days,

and (b) the number of days that have

passed since the last day refrigerant was

added and divide that number by 365

days;

(3) Take the number calculated in step

(1) and divide it by the number

calculated in step (2); and

(4) Multiply the number calculated in

step (3) by 100 to calculate a percentage.

This method is summarized in the

following formula:

Leak rate (% per year) = pounds of refrigerant added

pounds of refrigerant in full charge

365 days/year

shorter of: # days since refrigerant last added and 365 days

× ×100%

* * * * *

Low-pressure appliance means an

appliance that uses a refrigerant with a

liquid phase saturation pressure below

45 psia at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. This

definition includes but is not limited to

appliances using R11, R123, and R113.

* * * * *

One-time expansion device means an

appliance that relies on the release of

refrigerant to the environment to obtain

cooling.

Opening an appliance means any

service, maintenance, or repair on an

appliance that would release refrigerant

from the appliance to the atmosphere

unless the refrigerant were recovered

previously from the appliance.

Connecting and disconnecting hoses

and gauges to and from the appliance to

measure pressures within the appliance

and to add refrigerant to or recover

refrigerant from the appliance shall not

be considered ‘‘opening.’’

* * * * *

Reclaim refrigerant means to

reprocess refrigerant to all of the

specifications in appendix A to 40 CFR

part 82, subpart F (based on ARI

Standard 700–1995, Specification for

Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants)

that are applicable to that refrigerant

and to verify that the refrigerant meets

these specifications using the analytical

methodology prescribed in appendix A.

In general, reclamation involves the use

of processes or procedures available

only at a reprocessing or manufacturing

facility.

* * * * *

Refrigerant means, for purposes of

this Subpart, any class I or class II

substance used for heat transfer

purposes, or any substance used as a

substitute for such a class I or class II

substance by any user in a given enduse, except for the following substitutes

in the following end-uses:

(1) Ammonia in commercial or

industrial process refrigeration or in

absorption units

(2) Hydrocarbons in industrial process

refrigeration (processing of

hydrocarbons)

(3) Chlorine in industrial process

refrigeration (processing of chlorine and

chlorine compounds)

(4) Carbon dioxide in any application

(5) Nitrogen in any application

(6) Water in any application

* * * * *

Substitute means any chemical or

product substitute, whether existing or

new, that is used by any person as a

replacement for a class I or II compound

in a given end-use.

* * * * *

Technician means any person who

performs maintenance, service, or repair

that could be reasonably expected to

release refrigerants from appliances,

except for MVACs, into the atmosphere.

Technician also means any person who

performs disposal of appliances, except

for small appliances, MVACs, and

MVAC-like appliances, that could be

reasonably expected to release

refrigerants from the appliances into the

atmosphere. Performing maintenance,

service, repair, or disposal could be

reasonably expected to release
32090 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

refrigerants only if the activity is

reasonably expected to violate the

integrity of the refrigerant circuit.

Activities reasonably expected to violate

the integrity of the refrigerant circuit

include activities such as attaching and

detaching hoses and gauges to and from

the appliance to add or remove

refrigerant or to measure pressure and

adding refrigerant to and removing

refrigerant from the appliance.

Activities such as painting the

appliance, re-wiring an external

electrical circuit, replacing insulation

on a length of pipe, or tightening nuts

and bolts on the appliance are not

reasonably expected to violate the

integrity of the refrigerant circuit.

Performing maintenance, service, repair,

or disposal of appliances that have been

evacuated pursuant to § 82.156 could

not be reasonably expected to release

refrigerants from the appliance unless

the maintenance, service, or repair

consists of adding refrigerant to the

appliance. Technician includes but is

not limited to installers, contractor

employees, in-house service personnel,

and in some cases, owners.

Very-high-pressure appliance means

an appliance that uses a refrigerant with

a critical temperature below 104 degrees

Fahrenheit or with a liquid phase

saturation pressure above 305 psia at

104 degrees Fahrenheit. This definition

includes but is not limited to appliances

using R410A and B, R13, R23, and R503.

3. Section 82.154 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (g), (h),

and (m), and by adding paragraphs (o)

and (p) to read as follows:

§ 82.154 Prohibitions.

(a) Effective (30 days after publication

of the final rule), no person maintaining,

servicing, repairing, or disposing of

appliances may knowingly vent or

otherwise release into the environment

any refrigerant from such equipment.

The knowing release of refrigerant

subsequent to its recovery from an

appliance shall be considered a

violation of this prohibition.

De minimis releases associated with

good faith attempts to recycle or recover

refrigerants are not subject to this

prohibition. Releases shall be

considered de minimis only if they

occur when:

(1) The required practices set forth in

§ 82.156 are observed, recovery or

recycling machines that meet the

requirements set forth in § 82.158 are

used, and the technician certification

provisions set forth in § 82.161 are

observed; or

(2) The requirements set forth in

subpart B of this part are observed.

(b) No person may open appliances

except MVACs and MVAC-like

appliances for maintenance, service, or

repair, and no person may dispose of

appliances except for small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances:

* * * * *

(c) No person may manufacture or

import recycling or recovery equipment

for use during the maintenance, service,

or repair of appliances except MVACs

and MVAC-like appliances, and no

person may manufacture or import

recycling or recovery equipment for use

during the disposal of appliances except

small appliances, MVACs, and MVAClike appliances, unless the equipment is

certified pursuant to § 82.158 (b) or (d),

as applicable.

* * * * *

(g) No person may sell or offer for sale

refrigerant consisting wholly or in part

of used refrigerant unless:

(1) The refrigerant has been reclaimed

as defined at § 82.152;

(2) The refrigerant was used only in

an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance and

is to be used only in an MVAC or

MVAC-like appliance; or

(3) The refrigerant is contained in an

appliance that is sold or offered for sale

together with the refrigerant.

(h) No person may sell or offer for sale

refrigerant consisting wholly or in part

of used refrigerant unless:

(1) The refrigerant has been reclaimed

by a person who has been certified as

a reclaimer pursuant to § 82.164;

(2) The refrigerant was used only in

an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance and

is to be used only in an MVAC or

MVAC-like appliance; or

(3) The refrigerant is contained in an

appliance that is sold or offered for sale

together with the refrigerant.

* * * * *

(m) No person may sell or distribute,

or offer for sale or distribution, any

refrigerant to any person unless:

* * * * *

(o) No person may manufacture or

import one-time expansion devices.

(p) Recovery or recycling equipment

certified or rated for use with only one

refrigerant may not be used to recover

other refrigerants.

4. Section 82.156 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (a) to read as follows, by

removing paragraph (a)(5), by revising

Table 1 to read as follows, by revising

paragraph (b) to read as follows, and by

redesignating paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(1)(i),

(i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iii) as (i)(1)(i),

(i)(1)(iii), (i)(1)(iv), and (i)(1)(v), by

adding a new paragraph (i)(1)(ii), and by

revising newly designated paragraphs

(i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(iii) to read as follows,

by redesignating paragraphs (i)(2),

(i)(2)(i), and (i)(2)(ii) as (i)(2)(i),

(i)(2)(iii), and (i)(2)(iv), by adding a new

paragraph (i)(2)(ii), and by revising

newly designated paragraph (i)(2)(i) to

read as follows, by redesignating

paragraphs (i)(5), (i)(5)(i), (i)(5)(ii), and

(i)(5)(iii), as (i)(5)(i), (i)(5)(iii), (i)(5)(iv),

and (i)(5)(v), by adding a new paragraph

(i)(5)(ii), and by revising newly

designated paragraph (i)(5)(i) to read as

follows, by revising paragraphs (i)(3),

(i)(3)(i), (i)(3)(ii), and (i)(6) to read as

follows, and by replacing the phrase

‘‘annual leak rate’’ with ‘‘leak rate’’

throughout:

§ 82.156 Required Practices.

(a) All persons disposing of

appliances, except for small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances

must evacuate the refrigerant, including

all the liquid refrigerant, in the entire

unit to a recovery or recycling machine

certified pursuant to § 82.158. All

persons opening appliances except for

MVACs and MVAC-like appliances for

maintenance, service, or repair must

evacuate the refrigerant, including all

the liquid refrigerant (except as

provided in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of this

section), in either the entire unit or the

part to be serviced (if the latter can be

isolated) to a system receiver (e.g., the

remaining portions of the appliance, or

a specific vessel within the appliance)

or a recovery or recycling machine

certified pursuant to § 82.158. Certified

technicians must verify that the

applicable level of evacuation has been

reached in the appliance or the part

before it is opened.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32091

TABLE 1.—REQUIRED LEVELS OF EVACUATION FOR APPLIANCES

[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]

Type of appliance

Inches of Hg vacuum (relative

to standard atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)

Using recovery or recycling equipment manufactured or imported before

Nov. 15, 1993

Using recovery or recycling equipment manufactured or

imported on

or after Nov.

15, 1993

Very high-pressure appliance .................................................................................................................................... 0 0.

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds

of refrigerant.

0 0.

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more

of refrigerant.

4 10.

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of

refrigerant.

4 10.

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of

refrigerant.

4 15.

Low-pressure appliance ............................................................................................................................................ 25 25 mm Hg

absolute.

* * * * *

(b) All persons opening appliances

except for small appliances, MVACs,

and MVAC-like appliances for

maintenance, service, or repair and all

persons disposing of appliances except

small appliances, MVACs, and MVAClike appliances must have at least one

piece of certified, self-contained

recovery or recycling equipment

available at their place of business.

Persons who maintain, service, repair,

or dispose of only appliances that they

own and that contain pump-out units

are exempt from this requirement. This

exemption does not relieve such

persons from other applicable

requirements of § 82.156.

* * * * *

(i)(1)(i) Owners or operators of

commercial refrigeration equipment

normally containing more than 50

pounds of refrigerant and commissioned

before or during 1992 must have leaks

repaired in accordance with paragraph

(i)(9) of this section if the leak rate of the

appliance exceeds 15 percent per year,

except as described in paragraphs (i)(6),

(i)(8), and (i)(10) of this section and

paragraphs (i)(1)(iii), (i)(1)(iv), and

(i)(1)(v) of this section. Repairs must

bring the leak rate to or below 15

percent per year.

(ii) Owners or operators of

commercial refrigeration equipment

normally containing more than 50

pounds of refrigerant and commissioned

after 1992 must have leaks repaired in

accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this

section if the leak rate of the appliance

exceeds 10 percent per year, except as

described in paragraphs (i)(6), (i)(8), and

(i)(10) of this section and paragraphs

(i)(1)(iii), (i)(1)(iv), and (i)(1)(v) of this

section. Repairs must bring the leak rate

to or below 10 percent per year.

(iii) If the owners or operators of

federally-owned commercial

refrigeration appliances determine that

the leaks cannot be repaired in

accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this

section and that an extension in

accordance with the requirements

discussed in this paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of

this section applies, they must

document all repair efforts and notify

EPA of the reason for their inability to

comply within the 30-day repair period

in accordance with section 82.166(n).

Such notification must be made within

30 days of discovering the leaks. EPA

will determine if the extension

requested in accordance with the

requirements discussed in this

paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of this section is

justified. If the extension is not justified,

EPA will notify the owner/operator

within 30 days of receipt of the

notification.

* * * * *

(2)(i) The owners or operators of

industrial process refrigeration

equipment normally containing more

than 50 pounds of refrigerant must have

leaks repaired in accordance with

paragraph (i)(9) of this section if the leak

rate of the appliance exceeds 20 percent

per year, except as described in

paragraphs (i)(6), (i)(7), and (i)(10) of

this section, and paragraphs (i)(2)(ii),

(i)(2)(iii) and (i)(2)(iv) of this section.

Repairs must bring the leak rate to or

below 20 percent per year. If the owners

or operators of the industrial process

refrigeration equipment determine that

the leak rate cannot be brought to or

below 20 percent per year within 30

days (or 120 days, where an industrial

process shutdown in accordance with

paragraph (i)(2)(iv) of this section is

required) and in accordance with

paragraph (i)(9) of this section, and that

an extension in accordance with the

requirements discussed in this

paragraph applies, the owners or

operators of the appliance must

document all repair efforts and notify

EPA of the reason for the inability in

accordance with § 82.166(n). Such

notification must be made within 30

days of making the determination.

Owners or operators who obtain an

extension pursuant to this section or

elect to utilize the additional time

provided in paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this

section must conduct all necessary leak

repairs, if any, that can be performed

within 30 days of discovering the leaks.

(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of

paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section, a

maximum allowable leak rate of 35

percent per year shall apply to

industrial process refrigeration systems

meeting all of the following conditions:

(A) The refrigeration system is

custom-built;

(B) The refrigeration system has an

open-drive compressor;

(C) The refrigeration system was built

in 1992 or before; and

(D) The system is direct-expansion

(contains a single, primary refrigerant

loop).

* * * * *

(3) Owners or operators of federallyowned commercial refrigeration
32092 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

equipment or of federally-owned

comfort cooling appliances who are

granted additional time under

paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(5) of this section,

and owners or operators of industrial

process refrigeration equipment, must

have repairs performed in a manner that

sound professional judgment indicates

will bring the leak rate below the

applicable allowable leak rate. When an

industrial process shutdown has

occurred or when repairs have been

made while an appliance is mothballed,

the owners or operators shall conduct

an initial verification test at the

conclusion of the repairs and a followup verification test. The follow-up

verification test shall be conducted

within 30 days of completing the repairs

or within 30 days of bringing the

appliance back on-line, if taken off-line,

but no sooner than when the appliance

has achieved normal operating

characteristics and conditions. When

repairs have been conducted without an

industrial process shutdown or system

mothballing, an initial verification test

shall be conducted at the conclusion of

the repairs, and a follow-up verification

test shall be conducted within 30 days

of the initial verification test. In all

cases, the follow-up verification test

shall be conducted at normal operating

characteristics and conditions, unless

sound professional judgment indicates

that tests performed at normal operating

characteristics and conditions will

produce less reliable results, in which

case the follow-up verification test shall

be conducted at or near the normal

operating pressure where practicable,

and at or near the normal operating

temperature where practicable.

(i) If the owners or operators of

federally-owned commercial

refrigeration equipment or of federallyowned comfort cooling appliances who

are granted additional time under

paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(5) of this section

take the appliances off-line, or if owners

or operators of industrial process

refrigeration equipment take the

appliances off-line, they cannot bring

the appliances back on-line until an

initial verification test indicates that the

repairs undertaken in accordance with

paragraphs (i)(1) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v),

or (i)(2) (i), (ii), or (iii) or (5) (i), (ii), and

(iii) of this section have been

successfully completed, demonstrating

the leak or leaks are repaired. The

owners or operators of the industrial

process refrigeration equipment,

federally-owned commercial

refrigeration equipment, or federallyowned comfort cooling appliances are

exempted from this requirement only

where the owners or operators will

retrofit or retire the industrial process

refrigeration equipment, federallyowned commercial refrigeration

equipment, or federally-owned comfort

cooling appliances in accordance with

paragraph (i)(6) of this section. Under

this exemption, the owner or operators

may bring the industrial process

refrigeration equipment, federallyowned commercial refrigeration

equipment, or federally-owned comfort

cooling appliances back on-line without

successful completion of an initial

verification test.

(ii) If the follow-up verification test

indicates that the repairs to industrial

process refrigeration equipment,

federally-owned commercial

refrigeration equipment, or federallyowned comfort cooling appliances have

not been successful, the owner must

retrofit or retire the equipment in

accordance with paragraph (i)(6) and

any such longer time period as may

apply under paragraphs (i)(7) (i), (ii) and

(iii) or (i)(8) (i) and (ii) of this section.

The owners and operators of the

industrial process refrigeration

equipment, federally-owned commercial

refrigeration equipment, or federallyowned comfort cooling appliances are

relieved of this requirement if the

conditions of paragraphs (i)(3)(iv) and/

or (i)(3)(v) of this section are met.

* * * * *

(5)(i) Owners or operators of

appliances normally containing more

than 50 pounds of refrigerant,

manufactured before or during 1992,

and not covered by paragraphs (i)(1) or

(i)(2) of this section must have leaks

repaired in accordance with paragraph

(i)(9) of this section if the leak rate of the

appliance exceeds 10 percent per year,

except as provided in paragraphs

(i)(5)(iii), (i)(5)(iv), and (i)(5)(v) of this

section. Repairs must bring the leak rate

to or below 10 percent per year.

(5)(ii) Owners or operators of

appliances normally containing more

than 50 pounds of refrigerant,

manufactured after 1992, and not

covered by paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(2) of

this section must have leaks repaired in

accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this

section if the leak rate of the appliance

exceeds 5 percent per year, except as

provided in paragraphs (i)(5)(iii),

(i)(5)(iv), and (i)(5)(v) of this section.

Repairs must bring the leak rate to or

below 5 percent per year.

* * * * *

(6) Owners or operators are not

required to repair leaks as provided in

paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(5) of this

section if, within 30 days of discovering

the exceedance of the applicable

allowable leak rate, or within 30 days of

a failed follow-up verification test, or

after making good faith efforts to repair

the leaks as described in paragraph

(i)(6)(i) of this section, they develop a

one-year retrofit or retirement plan for

the leaking appliance. Owners or

operators who retrofit the appliance

must use a refrigerant with a lower

ozone-depleting potential than the

previous refrigerant and must include

such a change in the retrofit plan.

Owners or operators who retire and

replace the appliance must replace the

appliance with an appliance that uses a

refrigerant with a lower ozone-depleting

potential and must include such a

change in the retirement plan. The

retrofit or retirement plan (or a legible

copy) must be kept at the site of the

appliance. The original plan must be

made available for EPA inspection upon

request. The plan must be dated and all

work performed in accordance with the

plan must be completed within one year

of the plan’s date, except as described

in paragraphs (i)(6)(i), (i)(7), and (i)(8) of

this section. Owners or operators are

temporarily relieved of this obligation if

the appliance has undergone system

mothballing as defined in § 82.152.

(i) If the owner or operator has made

good faith efforts to repair leaks from

the appliance in accordance with

paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(5) of this

section, and has decided, before

completing a follow-up verification test,

to retrofit or retire the appliance in

accordance with paragraph (i)(6) of this

section, the owner or operator must

develop a retrofit or retirement plan

within 30 days of the decision to retrofit

or retire the appliance. The owner or

operator must retrofit or retire the

appliance within one year and 30 days

of when the owner or operator

discovered that the leak rate exceeded

the applicable allowable leak rate,

except as provided in paragraphs (i)(7)

and (i)(8) of this section.

* * * * *

5. Section 82.158 is amended by

revising Table 2 and Table 3, by

removing paragraphs (f) and (g), and by

redesignating paragraphs (h) through

(m) as (f) through (k) to read as follows:

§ 82.158 Standards for recycling and

recovery equipment.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32093

TABLE 2.—LEVELS OF EVACUATION WHICH MUST BE ACHIEVED BY RECOVERY OR RECYCLING EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR

USE WITH APPLIANCES 1 MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1993

Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used

Inches of vacuum (relative

to standard atmospheric

pressure of

29.9 inches of

Hg)

Very high-pressure appliance .............................................................................................................................................................. 0

Higher-pressure appliance or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant ..... 0

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant ...... 10

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant ....... 10

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant ......... 15

Low-pressure appliance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 25

1Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.

2 mm Hg absolute.

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

inches of Hg absolute.

* * * * *

TABLE 3.—LEVELS OF EVACUATION WHICH MUST BE ACHIEVED BY RECOVERY OR RECYCLING EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR

USE WITH APPLIANCES 1 MANUFACTURED BEFORE NOVEMBER 15, 1993

Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used

Inches of vacuum (relative

to standard atmospheric

pressure of

29.9 inches of

Hg)

Very high-pressure appliance .............................................................................................................................................................. 0

Higher-pressure appliance or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant ..... 0

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant ...... 4

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant ....... 4

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant ......... 4

Low-pressure appliance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 25

1Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.

2 mm Hg absolute.

The vacuums specified in inches of

Hg vacuum must be achieved relative to

an atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches

of Hg absolute.

* * * * *

6. Section 82.161 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(2) as follows:

§ 82.161 Technician Certification.

(a) * * *

(2) Technicians who maintain,

service, or repair high-, higher-, or very

high-pressure appliances, except small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

appliances, or dispose of high-,

higher-, or very high-pressure

appliances, except small appliances,

MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances,

must be properly certified as Type II

technicians.

* * * * *

7. Section 82.164 is amended by

revising the introductory text and

paragraphs (a), (b), and (e)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 82.164 Reclaimer Certification.

Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL

RULE] all persons reclaiming used

refrigerant for sale to a new owner,

except for persons who properly

certified under this section prior to

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]

must certify to the Administrator that

such person will:

(a) Reprocess refrigerant to all of the

specifications in appendix A of this

Subpart (based on ARI Standard 700–

1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons

and Other Refrigerants) that are

applicable to that refrigerant;

(b) Verify that the refrigerant meets

these specifications using the analytical

methodology prescribed in appendix A;

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) The owner or a responsible officer

of the reclaimer must sign the

certification stating that the refrigerant

will be reprocessed to all of the

specifications in appendix A of this

Subpart (based on ARI Standard 700–

1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons

and Other Refrigerants) that are

applicable to that refrigerant, that the

refrigerant’s conformance to these

specifications will be verified using the

analytical methodology prescribed in

appendix A, that no more than 1.5

percent of the refrigerant will be

released during the reclamation process,

that wastes from the reclamation

process will be properly disposed of,

and that the information given is true

and correct. The certification should be

sent to the following address: Section

608 Recycling Program Manager,

Reclaimer Certification, Stratospheric

Protection Division (6205J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

* * * * *

8. Section 82.166 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (n), (o)(4),

(o)(7), (o)(8), and (o)(10) to read as

follows:
32094 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

§ 82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

(a) All persons who sell or distribute

any refrigerant must retain invoices that

indicate the name of the purchaser, the

date of sale, and the quantity of

refrigerant purchased.

(b) Purchasers of refrigerant who

employ certified technicians may

provide evidence that at least one

technician is properly certified to the

wholesaler who sells them refrigerant;

the wholesaler must then keep this

information on file and may sell

refrigerant to the purchaser or his

authorized representative even if such

purchaser or authorized representative

is not a properly certified technician. In

such cases, the purchaser must notify

the wholesaler in the event that the

purchaser no longer employs at least

one properly certified technician. The

wholesaler is then prohibited from

selling refrigerants to the purchaser

until such time as the purchaser

employs at least one properly certified

technician. At that time, the purchaser

must provide new evidence that at least

one technician is properly certified.

* * * * *

(n) The owners or operators of

appliances must maintain on-site and

report to EPA at the address listed in

§ 82.160 the information specified in

paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of

this section, within the time lines

specified under § 82.156 (i)(1), (i)(2),

(i)(3) and (i)(5) where such reporting

and recordkeeping is required. This

information must be relevant to the

affected appliance.

(1) An initial report to EPA under

§ 82.156(i)(1)(iii), (i)(2)(i), or (i)(5)(iii)

regarding why more than 30 days are

needed to complete repairs must

include: Identification of the facility; the

leak rate; the method used to determine

the leak rate and full charge; the date a

leak rate above the applicable allowable

leak rate was discovered; the location of

leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;

any repair work that has been

completed thus far and the date that

work was completed; the reasons why

more than 30 days are needed to

complete the work and an estimate of

when the work will be completed. If

changes from the original estimate of

when work will be completed result in

extending the completion date from the

date submitted to EPA, the reasons for

these changes must be documented and

submitted to EPA within 30 days of

discovering the need for such a change.

(2) If the owners or operators intend

to establish that the appliance’s leak rate

does not exceed the applicable

allowable leak rate in accordance with

§ 82.156(i)(3)(v), the owner or operator

must submit a plan to fix other

outstanding leaks for which repairs are

planned but not yet completed to

achieve a rate below the applicable

allowable leak rate. A plan to fix other

outstanding leaks in accordance with

§ 82.156(i)(3)(v) must include the

following information: the identification

of the facility; the leak rate; the method

used to determine the leak rate and full

charge; the date a leak rate above the

applicable allowable leak rate was

discovered; the location of leaks(s) to

the extent determined to date; and any

repair work that has been completed

thus far, including the date that work

was completed. Upon completion of the

repair efforts described in the plan, a

second report must be submitted that

includes the date the owner or operator

submitted the initial report concerning

the need for additional time beyond the

30 days and notification of the owner or

operator’s determination that the leak

rate no longer exceeds the applicable

allowable leak rate. This second report

must be submitted within 30 days of

determining that the leak rate no longer

exceeds the applicable allowable leak

rate.

(3) Owners or operators must

maintain records of the dates and types

of all initial and follow-up verification

tests performed under § 82.156(i)(3) and

the test results for all follow-up

verification tests. Owners or operators

must submit this information to EPA

within 30 days after conducting each

test where required under § 82.156

(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3) and (i)(5). These

reports must also include: identification

of the facility; the leak rate; the method

used to determine the leak rate and full

charge; the date a leak rate above the

applicable allowable leak rate was

discovered; the location of leaks(s) to

the extent determined to date; and any

repair work that has been completed

thus far and the date that work was

completed.

* * * * *

(o) * * *

(4) The date a leak rate above the

applicable allowable rate was

discovered.

* * * * *

(7) A plan to complete the retrofit or

retirement of the system;

(8) The reasons why more than one

year is necessary to retrofit or retire the

system;

* * * * *

(10) An estimate of when retrofit or

retirement work will be completed. If

the estimated date of completion

changes from the original estimate and

results in extending the date of

completion, the owner or operator must

submit to EPA the new estimated date

of completion and documentation of the

reason for the change within 30 days of

discovering the need for the change, and

must retain a dated copy of this

submission.

* * * * *

(q) Owners or operators who choose

to determine the full charge, as defined

in § 82.152, of an affected appliance by

using an established range or by using

that method in combination with other

methods for determining the full charge

must maintain the following

information:

* * * * *

9. Appendix A to subpart F is revised

to read as follows:

Appendix A—Specifications for

Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants

This appendix is based on AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute

Standard 700–1995.

Section 1. Purpose

1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this

standard is to evaluate and accept/reject

refrigerants regardless of source (new,

reclaimed and/or repackaged) for use in

new and existing refrigeration and airconditioning products.

1.1.1 Intent. This standard is

intended for the guidance of the

industry including manufacturers,

refrigerant reclaimers, repackagers,

distributors, installers, servicemen,

contractors and for consumers.

1.1.2 Review and Amendment. This

standard is subject to review and

amendment as the technology advances.

Section 2. Scope

2.1 Scope. This standard specifies

acceptable levels of contaminants

(purity requirements) for various

fluorocarbon and other refrigerants

regardless of source and lists acceptable

test methods. These refrigerants are R11;

R12; R13; R22; R23; R32; R113; R114;

R123; R124; R125; R134a; R143a;

R401A; R401B; R402A; R402B; R404A;

R405A; R406A; R407A; R407B; R407C;

R408A; R409A; R410A; R410B; R411A;

R411B; R412A; R500; R502; R503; R507;

R508; and R509 as referenced in the

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–1992.

(American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning

Engineers, Inc., Standard 34–1992).

Copies may be obtained from ASHRAE

Publications Sales, 1791 Tullie Circle,

NE, Atlanta, GA 30329. Copies may also

be inspected at Public Docket No. A–

92–01, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor)

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC in room

M–1500.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32095

Section 3. Definitions

3.1 ‘‘Shall,’’ ‘‘Should,’’

‘‘Recommended,’’ or ‘‘It Is

Recommended.’’ ‘‘Shall,’’ ‘‘should,’’

‘‘recommended,’’ or ‘‘it is

recommended’’ shall be interpreted as

follows:

3.1.1 Shall. Where ‘‘shall’’ or ‘‘shall

not’’ is used for a provision specified,

that provision is mandatory if

compliance with the standard is

claimed.

3.1.2 Should, Recommended, or It is

Recommended. ‘‘Should ‘‘,

‘‘recommended’’, or ‘‘it is

recommended’’ is used to indicate

provisions which are not mandatory but

which are desirable as good practice.

Section 4. Characterization of

Refrigerants and Contaminants

4.1 Characterization.

Characterization of refrigerants and

contaminants addressed are listed in the

following general classifications:

4.1.1 Characterization

a. Gas Chromatography

b. Boiling point and boiling point

range

4.1.2 Contaminants

a. Water

b. Chloride

c. Acidity

d. High boiling residue

e. Particulates/solids

f. Non-condensables

g. Impurities including other

refrigerants

Section 5. Sampling, Summary of Test

Methods and Maximum Permissible

Contaminant Levels

5.1 Referee Test. The referee test

methods for the various contaminants

are summarized in the following

paragraphs. Detailed test procedures are

included in Appendix-C to ARI

Standard 700–95: Analytical Procedures

for ARI Standard 700–95, 1995, AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute.

Appendix C to ARI Standard 700–95 is

incorporated by reference. [This

incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from the Air-Conditioning

and Refrigeration Institute, 4301 North

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Copies may also be inspected at Public

Docket No. A–92–01, Waterside Mall

(Ground Floor) Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC in room M–1500 or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700,

Washington, DC.] If alternative test

methods are employed, the user must be

able to demonstrate that they produce

results equivalent to the specified

referee method.

5.2 Refrigerant Sampling.

5.2.1 Sampling Precautions. Special

precautions should be taken to assure

that representative samples are obtained

for analysis. Sampling shall be done by

trained laboratory personnel following

accepted sampling and safety

procedures.

5.2.2 Gas Phase Sample. A gas

phase sample shall be obtained for

determining the non-condensables.

Since non-condensable gases, if present,

will concentrate in the vapor phase of

the refrigerant, care must be exercised to

eliminate introduction of air during the

sample transfer. Purging is not an

acceptable procedure for a gas phase

sample since it may introduce a foreign

product. Since R11, R113, and R123

have normal boiling points at or above

room temperature, non-condensable

determination is not required for these

refrigerants.

5.2.2.1 Connection. The sample

cylinder shall be connected to an

evacuated gas sampling bulb by means

of a manifold. The manifold should

have a valve arrangement that facilitates

evacuation of all connecting tubing

leading to the sampling bulb.

5.2.2.2 Equalizing Pressures. After

the manifold has been evacuated, close

the valve to the pump and open the

valve on the system. Allow the pressure

to equilibrate and close valves.

5.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid

phase sample is required for all tests

listed in this standard except the test for

non-condensables.

5.2.3.1 Preparation. Place a clean,

empty sample cylinder with the valve

open in an oven at 110° C (230° F) for

one hour. Remove it from the oven

while hot, immediately connect to an

evacuation system and evacuate to less

than 1 mm mercury (1000 microns).

Close the valve and allow it to cool.

Weigh the empty cylinder.

5.2.3.2 Manifolding. The valve and

lines from the unit to be sampled shall

be clean and dry. The cylinder shall be

connected to an evacuated gas sampling

cylinder by means of a manifold. The

manifold should have a valve

arrangement that facilitates evacuation

of all connecting tubing leading to the

sampling cylinder.

5.2.3.3 Liquid Sampling. After the

manifold has been evacuated, close the

valve to the pump and open the valve

on the system. Take the sample as a

liquid by chilling the sample cylinder

slightly. Accurate analysis requires that

the sample container be filled to at least

60% by volume, however under no

circumstances should the cylinder be

filled to more than 80% by volume. This

can be accomplished by weighing the

empty cylinder and then the cylinder

with refrigerant. When the desired

amount of refrigerant has been

collected, close the valve(s) and

disconnect the sample cylinder

immediately.

5.2.3.4 Record Weight. Check the

sample cylinder for leaks and record the

gross weight.

5.3 Refrigerant Characterization.

5.3.1 Primary Method. The primary

method shall be gas chromatography

(GC) as described in Appendix-C to ARI

Standard 700–95. The chromatogram of

the sample shall be compared to known

standards.

5.3.2 Alternative Method.

Determination of the boiling point and

boiling point range is an acceptable

alternative test method which can be

used to characterize refrigerants. The

test method shall be that described in

the Federal Specification for

‘‘Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,’’ BB–F–

1421 B, dated March 5, 1982, section

4.4.3.

5.3.3 Required Values. The required

values for boiling point and boiling

point range are given in Table 1A,

Physical Properties of Single

Component Refrigerants; Table 1B,

Physical Properties of Zeotropic Blends

(400 Series Refrigerants); and Table 1C,

Physical Properties of Azeotropic

Blends (500 Series Refrigerants).

5.4 Water Content.

5.4.1 Method. The Coulometric Karl

Fischer Titration shall be the primary

test method for determining the water

content of refrigerants. This method is

described in Appendix-C to ARI

Standard 700–95. This method can be

used for refrigerants that are either a

liquid or a gas at room temperature,

including refrigerants 11, 113, and 123.

For all refrigerants, the sample for water

analysis shall be taken from the liquid

phase of the container to be tested.

Proper operation of the analytical

method requires special equipment and

an experienced operator. The precision

of the results is excellent if proper

sampling and handling procedures are

followed. Refrigerants containing a

colored dye can be successfully

analyzed for water using this method.

5.4.2 Limits. The value for water

content shall be expressed as parts per

million by weight and shall not exceed

the maximum specified (see Tables 1A,

1B, and 1C).

5.5 Chloride. The refrigerant shall be

tested for chloride as an indication of

the presence of hydrochloric acid and/

or metal chlorides. The recommended

procedure is intended for use with new

or reclaimed refrigerants. Significant
32096 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

amounts of oil may interfere with the

results by indicating a failure in the

absence of chloride.

5.5.1 Method. The test method shall

be that described in Appendix-C to ARI

Standard 700–95. The test will show

noticeable turbidity at chloride levels of

about 3 ppm by weight or higher.

5.5.2 Turbidity. The results of the

test shall not exhibit any sign of

turbidity. Report the results as ‘‘pass’’ or

‘‘fail.’’

5.6 Acidity.

5.6.1 Method. The acidity test uses

the titration principle to detect any

compound that is highly soluble in

water and ionizes as an acid. The test

method shall be that described in

Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700–95.

This test may not be suitable for

determination of high molecular weight

organic acids; however these acids will

be found in the high boiling residue test

outlined in 5.7. The test requires a 100

to 120 gram sample and has a detection

limit of 0.1 ppm by weight calculated as

HCl.

5.6.2 Limits. The maximum

permissible acidity is 1 ppm by weight

as HCl.

5.7 High Boiling Residue.

5.7.1 Method. High boiling residue

shall be determined by measuring the

residue of a standard volume of

refrigerant after evaporation. The

refrigerant sample shall be evaporated at

room temperature or at a temperature

45°C (115°F) for all refrigerants, except

R113 which shall be evaporated at 60°C

(140°F), using a Goetz bulb as specified

in Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700–95.

Oils and/or organic acids will be

captured by this method.

5.7.2 Limits. The value for high

boiling residue shall be expressed as a

percentage by volume and shall not

exceed the maximum percent specified

(see Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C). An

alternative gravimetric method is

described in Appendix-C to ARI

Standard 700–95.

5.8 Method of Tests for Particulates

and Solids.

5.8.1 Method. A measured amount

of sample is evaporated from a Goetz

bulb under controlled temperature

conditions. The particulates/solids shall

be determined by visual examination of

the Goetz bulb prior to the evaporation

of refrigerant. Presence of dirt, rust or

other particulate contamination is

reported as ‘‘fail.’’ For details of this test

method, refer to Part 3 of Appendix-C to

ARI Standard 700–95.

5.9 Non-Condensables.

5.9.1 Sample. A vapor phase sample

shall be used for determination of noncondensables. Non-condensable gases

consist primarily of air accumulated in

the vapor phase of refrigerants. The

solubility of air in the refrigerants liquid

phase is extremely low and air is not

significant as a liquid phase

contaminant. The presence of noncondensable gases may reflect poor

quality control in transferring

refrigerants to storage tanks and

cylinders.

5.9.2 Method. The test method shall

be gas chromatography with a thermal

conductivity detector as described in

Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700–95.

5.9.3 Limit. The maximum level of

non-condensables in the vapor phase of

a refrigerant in a container shall not

exceed 1.5% by volume (see Tables 1A,

1B, and 1C).

5.10 Impurities, including Other

Refrigerants.

5.10.1 Method. The amount of other

impurities including other refrigerants

in the subject refrigerant shall be

determined by gas chromatography as

described in Appendix-C to ARI

Standard 700–95.

5.10.2 Limit. The subject refrigerant

shall not contain more than 0.5% by

weight of impurities including other

refrigerants (see Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C).

Section 6. Reporting Procedure

6.1 Reporting Procedure. The source

(manufacturer, reclaimer or repackager)

of the packaged refrigerant shall be

identified. The refrigerant shall be

identified by its accepted refrigerant

number and/or its chemical name.

Maximum permissible levels of

contaminants are shown in Tables 1A,

1B, and 1C. Test results shall be

tabulated in a like manner.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32097

TABLE 1A.—PHYSICAL

PROPERTIES OF

SINGLE

COMPONENT

REFRIGERANTS

Reporting units

Reference

(subclause) R11 R12 R13 R22 R23 R32 R113 R114 R123 R124 R125 R134a R143a

Characteristics*:

Boiling Point* ................... °F @ 1.00 atm ........................ .................. 74.9 ¥21.6 ¥114.6 ¥41.4 ¥115.7 ¥61.1 117.6 38.8 82.6 12.2 ¥55.3 ¥15.1 ¥52.6

°C @ 1.00 atm ....................... .................. 23.8 ¥29.8 ¥81.4 ¥40.8 ¥82.1 ¥51.7 47.6 3.8 27.9 ¥11.0 ¥48.5 ¥26.2 ¥47.0

Boiling Point Range* ....... K ............................................. .................. 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3Typical Isomer Content ... by weight ................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 0–1%

R113a

0–30%

R-114a

0–8%

R123a

0–5%

R-124a

N/A 0–5000

ppm

R-134

0–100

ppm

R-143

Vapor Phase Contaminants:

Air and other noncondensables. % by volume @ 25 °C ........... 5.9 N/A** 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 N/A** 1.5 N/A** 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Liquid Phase Contaminants:

Water ............................... ppm by weight ........................ 5.4 20 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 20 10 10 10 10All other impurities including refrigerants. % by weight ............................ 5.1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50High boiling residue ......... % by volume ........................... 5.7 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Particulates/solids ............ Visually clean to pass ............ 5.8 pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass passAcidity .............................. ppm by weight ........................ 5.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Chlorides*** ..................... No visible turbidity .................. 5.5 pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass

*Boiling points and boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.**Since R11, R13, and R123 have normal boiling points at or above room temperature, non-condensable determinations are not required for these refrigerants.*** Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is 3 ppm.

TABLE 1B.—PHYSICAL

PROPERTIES OF

ZEOTROPIC

BLENDS (400 SERIES

REFRIGERANTS)

Reporting units Reference (sub- clause) R401A R401B R402A R402B R404A R405A R406A R407A R407B

Characteristics *

Refrigerant Components. ............................. ............................. R22/152a/124 ..... R22/152a/124 ..... R125/290/22 ....... 125/290/22 .......... R125/143a/134a R22/152a/142b/ C318. R22/600a/142b ... R32/125/134a ..... R32/125/134a.Nominal Comp,

weight %.

............................. ............................. 53/13/34 .............. 61/11/28 .............. 60/2/38 ................ 38/2/60 ................ 44/52/4 ................ 45/7/5.5/42.5 ....... 55/4/41 ................ 20/40/40 .............. 10/70/20.

Allowable Comp,

weight %.

............................. ............................. 51–54/11.5–13.5/

33–35.

59–63/9.5–11.5/

27–29.

58–62/1–3/36–40 36–40/1–3/58–62 42–46/51–53/2–6 43–47/6–8/4.5–

6.5/40.5–44.5.

53–57/3–5/40–42 19–21/38–42/38–

42.

9–11/68–72/18–

22.

Boiling Point* ........ °F @ 1.00 atm .... ............................. ¥27.7 to ¥18.1 ¥30.4 to ¥21.2 ¥54.8 to ¥53.9 ¥53.3 to ¥49.0 ¥51.0 to ¥49.8 ¥31.8 to ¥21.8 ¥32.7 to ¥15.0 ¥49.9 to ¥38.1 ¥53.1 to ¥45.2.

°C @ 1.00 atm .... ............................. ¥33.2 to ¥27.8 ¥34.7 to ¥29.6 ¥48.2 to ¥47.7 ¥47.4 to ¥45.0 ¥46.1 to ¥45.4 ¥34.0 to ¥21.9 ¥36.0 to ¥26.1 ¥45.5 to ¥38.9 ¥47.3 to ¥42.9.

Boiling Point

Range*.

K .......................... ............................. 5.4 ....................... 5.1 ....................... 0.5 ....................... 2.4 ....................... 0.7 ....................... 12.1 ..................... 9.9 ....................... 6.6 ....................... 4.4.

Vapor Phase Contaminants:

Air and other noncondensables. % by volume @ 25°C. 5.9 ....................... 1.5 ....................... 1.5 ....................... 1.5 ....................... 1.5 ....................... 1.5 ....................... 1.5 ....................... 1.5 ....................... 1.5 ....................... 1.5.

Liquid Phase Contaminants:

Water .................... ppm by weight .... 5.4 ....................... 10 ........................ 10 ........................ 10 ........................ 10 ........................ 10 ........................ 10 ........................ 10 ........................ 10 ........................ 10.All other impurities

including refrigerants.

% by weight ........ 5.1 ....................... 0.50 ..................... 0.50 ..................... 0.50 ..................... 0.50 ..................... 0.50 ..................... 0.50 ..................... 0.50 ..................... 0.50 ..................... 0.50.

High boiling residue. % by volume ....... 5.7 ....................... 0.01 ..................... 0.01 ..................... 0.01 ..................... 0.01 ..................... 0.01 ..................... 0.01 ..................... 0.01 ..................... 0.01 ..................... 0.01.Particulates/solids Visually clean to

pass.

5.8 ....................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass.

Acidity ................... ppm by weight .... 5.6 ....................... 1.0 ....................... 1.0 ....................... 1.0 ....................... 1.0 ....................... 1.0 ....................... 1.0 ....................... 1.0 ....................... 1.0 ....................... 1.0.Chlorides** ............ No visible turbidity 5.5 ....................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass .................... pass.

*Boiling points and boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.** Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is 3ppm.Shaded columns denote refrigerants for which analytical data is not available.
32098 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1B (CONTINUED).—PHYSICAL

PROPERTIES OF

ZEOTROPIC

BLENDS (400 SERIES

REFRIGERANTS)

Reporting units

Reference

(subclause) R407C R408A R409A R410A R410B R411A R411B R412A

Characteristics:*

Refrigerant Components. .................................. ................ R32/125/134a ........... R125/143a/22 ........... R22/124/142b ........... R32/125 .................... R32/125 .................... R1270/22/152a ......... R1270/22/152a ......... R22/218/ 142.Nominal Comp,

weight %.

.................................. ................ 23/25/52 ................... 7/46/47 ..................... 60/25/15 ................... 50/50 ........................ 45/55 ........................ 1.5/87.5/11.0 ............ 3/94/3 ....................... 70/5/25.

Allowable Comp,

weight %.

.................................. ................ 22–24/23–27/50–54 5–9/45–47/45–49 ..... 58–62/23–27/14–16 48.5–50.5/49.4–51.5 44–46/54–56 ............ 0.5–1.5/87.5–89.5/

10–11.

2–3/94–96/2–3 ......... 68–72/3–7/24–26.

Boiling Point ............ °F@1.00 atm ............ ................ 46.4 to –33.0 ............ ¥48.8 to ¥47.9 ....... 32.4 to ¥18.2 .......... ¥60.1 to ¥60.0 ....... ¥60.3 to ¥60.2 ....... .................................. .................................. ¥40.2 to 25.6.

°C@1.00 atm ........... ................ ¥43.6 to ¥36.6 ....... ¥44.9 to ¥44.4 ....... ¥35.8 to ¥27.9 ....... ¥51.2 to ¥51.1 ....... ¥51.3 to ¥51.2 ....... .................................. .................................. ¥40.1 to 32.0.

Boiling Point Range* K ............................... ................ 7.0 ............................ 0.5 ............................ 7.9 ............................ 0.1 ............................ 0.1 ............................ .................................. .................................. 8.1

Vapor Phase Contaminants:

Air and other noncondensables. % by volume @25°C 5.9 1.5 ............................ 1.5 ............................ 1.5 ............................ 1.5 ............................ 1.5 ............................ 1.5 ............................ 1.5 ............................ 1.5

Liquid Phase Contaminants:

Water ...................... ppm by weight .......... 5.4 10 ............................. 10 ............................. 10 ............................. 10 ............................. 10 ............................. 10 ............................. 10 ............................. 10All other impurities

including refrigerants.

% by weight ............. 5.1 0.50 .......................... 0.50 .......................... 0.50 .......................... 0.50 .......................... 0.50 .......................... 0.50 .......................... 0.50 .......................... 0.50

High boiling residue % by volume ............ 5.7 0.01 .......................... 0.01 .......................... 0.01 .......................... 0.01 .......................... 0.01 .......................... 0.01 .......................... 0.01 .......................... 0.01Particulates/solids ... Visually clean to

pass.

5.8 pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass

Acidity ..................... ppm by weight .......... 5.6 1.0 ............................ 1.0 ............................ 1.0 ............................ 1.0 ............................ 1.0 ............................ 1.0 ............................ 1.0 ............................ 1.0Chlorides** .............. No visible turbidity .... 5.5 pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass .......................... pass

*Boiling points and boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.**Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is 3ppm.Shaded columns denote refrigerants for which analytical data is not available.

TABLE 1C.—PHYSICAL

PROPERTIES OF

AZEOTROPIC

BLENDS (500 SERIES

REFRIGERANTS)

Reporting units

Reference

(subclause) R500 R502 R503 R507 R508 R509

Characteristics:*

Refrigerant Components ............................................. ................ R12/152a ............................ R22/115 .............................. R23/13 ................................ R125/143a .......................... R23/116 .............................. R22/218.Nominal Comp. weight

%.

............................................. ................ 73.8/26.2 ............................ 48.8/51.2 ............................ 40.1/59.9 ............................ 50/50 .................................. 39/61 .................................. 44/56.

Allowable Comp. weight

%.

............................................. ................ 72.8–74.8/25.2–27.2 .......... 44.8–52.8/47.2–55.2 .......... 39–41/59.61 ....................... 49–51/49–51 ...................... 37–41/59–63 ...................... 42–46/56-60.

Boiling Point* ................ °F@1.00 atm ...................... ................ ¥28.1 ................................. ¥49.7 ................................. ¥127.7 ............................... ¥52.1 ................................. ¥123.5 ............................... ¥53.9.

°C@1.00 atm ..................... ................ ¥33.4 ................................. ¥45.4 ................................. ¥88.7 ................................. ¥46.7 ................................. ¥86.4 ................................. ¥47.7.

Boiling Point Range* .... K ......................................... ................ 0.5 ...................................... 0.5 ...................................... 0.5 ...................................... 0.5 ...................................... 0.5 ...................................... 0.5.

Vapor Phase Contaminants:

Air and other noncondensables. % by volume @25° C ........ 5.9 1.5 ...................................... 1.5 ...................................... 1.5 ...................................... 1.5 ...................................... 1.5 ...................................... 1.5.

Liquid Phase Contaminants:

Water ............................ ppm by weight .................... 5.4 10 ....................................... 10 ....................................... 10 ....................................... 10 ....................................... 10 ....................................... 10.All other impurities including refrigerants. % by weight ........................ 5.1 0.50 .................................... 0.50 .................................... 0.50 .................................... 0.50 .................................... 0.50 .................................... 0.50.High boiling residue ...... % by volume ...................... 5.7 0.05 .................................... 0.01 .................................... 0.01 .................................... 0.01 .................................... 0.01 .................................... 0.01.Particulates/solids ......... Visually clean to pass ........ 5.8 Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass ................................... PassAcidity ........................... ppm by weight .................... 5.6 1.0 ...................................... 1.0 ...................................... 1.0 ...................................... 1.0 ...................................... 1.0 ...................................... 1.0Chlorides** .................... No visible turbidity .............. 5.5 Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass.

*Boiling points and boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.**Recognized chloride level for pass/fail in 3ppm.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 112 /Thursday, June 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32099

Appendix A. References—Normative

Listed here are all standards,

handbooks, and other publications

essential to the formation and

implementation of the standard. All

references in this appendix are

considered as part of this standard.

ASHRAE Terminology of Heating,

Ventilating, Air Conditioning and

Refrigeration, American Society of

Heating Refrigeration and AirConditioning Engineers, 1992, 1791

Tullie Circle N.E., Atlanta, GA 30329–

2305; U.S.A.

ASHRAE Standard 34–1992, Number

Designation and Safety Classification of

Refrigerants, American Society of

Heating Refrigeration and AirConditioning Engineers, 1992, 1791

Tullie Circle N.E., Atlanta, GA 30329–

2305; U.S.A.

Appendix C to ARI Standard 700–95:

Analytical Procedures to ARI Standard

700–95, Specifications for Fluorocarbon

and Other Refrigerants, AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute,

1995, 4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite

425, Arlington, VA 22203; U.S.A.

Federal Specification for

Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, BB–F–1421–

B, dated March 5, 1992, Office of the

Federal Register, National Archives and

Records Administration, 1992, 800

North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20402; U.S.A.

[FR Doc. 98–15003 Filed 6–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P