[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 49 (Friday, March 12, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11946-11988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3817]
[[Page 11945]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute
Refrigerants; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 49 / Friday, March 12, 2004 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11946]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-7625-6]
RIN 2060-AF37
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling;
Substitute Refrigerants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the rule
on refrigerant recycling, promulgated under section 608 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act), to clarify how the requirements of section 608
apply to refrigerants that are used as substitutes for
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)
refrigerants.
This rule explicates the self-effectuating statutory prohibition on
venting substitute refrigerants to the atmosphere that became effective
on November 15, 1995. The rule also exempts certain substitute
refrigerants from the venting prohibition on the basis of current
evidence that their release does not pose a threat to the environment.
In addition, EPA is amending the current refrigerant recovery and
recycling requirements for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants to accommodate the
proliferation of new refrigerants on the market, and to clarify that
the venting prohibition applies to all refrigerants for which EPA has
not made a determination that their release ``does not pose a threat to
the environment,'' namely hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and perfluorocarbon
(PFC) refrigerants. With the exception of the venting prohibition, this
rule will not further regulate the use or sale of substitute
refrigerants that do not contribute to the depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer, such as HFC and perfluorocarbon PFC
refrigerants. In addition, today's action will not address leak repair
requirements for appliances containing substitutes for ozone-depleting
substance (ODS) refrigerants nor will it address certification
requirements for refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment intended
for use with substitute refrigerants.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained in Air
Docket No. A-92-01 located at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Docket 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: Information concerning this rulemaking
should be forwarded to Julius Banks; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Global Programs Division-Stratospheric Program Implementation
Branch, Mail Code 6205-J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. The Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline (800-296-1996) and
the Ozone Web page www.epa.gov/ozone can also be contacted for further
information.
I. Regulated Entities
II. Overview
A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
B. Factors Considered in the Development of This Rule
C. Public Participation
D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Recycling of
Substitute Refrigerants
III. Scope of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. EPA's Statutory Authority
B. Determination of Whether Release Poses a Threat to the
Environment
1. HFC and PFC Refrigerants
2. Chemically Active Common Gases
3. Hydrocarbons
4. Inert Atmospheric Constituents
IV. The Final Rule
A. Overview
B. Application of the Venting Prohibition and Required Practices
to Substitute Refrigerants
1. HFC and PFC Refrigerants
2. Chemically Active Common Gases
3. Hydrocarbons
C. Definitions
1. Appliance
a. One-Time Expansion Devices, Including Self-Chilling Cans
b. Secondary Loops
2. Full Charge
3. High-Pressure Appliance (proposed as higher-pressure
appliance)
4. Leak Rate
5. Low-Pressure Appliance
6. Opening
7. Reclaim
8. Refrigerant
9. Substitute
10. Technician
11. Very High-Pressure Appliance
D. Required Practices
1. Evacuation of Appliances
a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances Other than Small
Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances
i. Low-Pressure Appliance Category
ii. Medium-Pressure and High-Pressure (proposed as high- and
higher-pressure) Appliance Categories
iii. Very High-Pressure Appliance Category
b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances
c. Evacuation Levels for Disposal of MVACs, MVAC-like
Appliances, and Small Appliances
d. Request for Comment on Establishing Special Evacuation
Requirements for Heat Transfer Appliances
e. Clarifications of Evacuation Requirements
2. Extension of the Refrigerant Standard to Substitute
Refrigerants
a. Updates to the Refrigerant Standard
b. Generic Specification Standards for Refrigerants
c. Application of the Refrigerant Standard to Virgin and Used
Refrigerants
d. Possession and Transfer of Used Refrigerant
3. Leak Repair
4. Servicing MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances Containing Substitute
Refrigerants
a. Background
b. Amendments to Subpart B
c. Amendments Concerning MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances
Containing Substitute Refrigerants
d. Clarification of Applicability-Servicing of Buses Using HCFC-
22
E. Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Certification
F. Technician Certification
G. Refrigerant Sales Restriction
1. Background
2. Extension of the Refrigerant Sales Restriction to Substitute
Refrigerants
3. Consideration of Alternative Methods of Emissions Reduction
a. Unique Fittings
b. Limited Sales Restriction
c. MVAC Retrofit Kits
H. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
Appliances
1. Coverage of HFCs and PFCs
2. Transfer of Substitute Refrigerants During the Safe Disposal
of MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances
3. Clarification of Requirements for Persons Disposing of
Appliances
4. Stickers as a Form of Verification
I. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment
J. Servicing Apertures and Process Stubs
K. Prohibition on the Manufacture or Import of One-Time
Expansion Devices that Contain Other than Exempted Refrigerants
L. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
1. Persons Who Sell or Distribute Refrigerant
2. Technicians
3. Appliance Owners and Operators
4. Refrigerant Reclaimers
5. Recovery and Recycling Equipment Testing Organizations
6. Disposers
7. Programs Certifying Technicians
M. Economic Analysis
1. Baseline
2. Costs
3. Benefits
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
[[Page 11947]]
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. The Congressional Review Act
I. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include those that
manufacture, own, maintain, service, repair, or dispose of all types of
air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances, including motor vehicle
air-conditioners; those that sell or reclaim refrigerants; those that
certify technicians; and manufacturers and certifiers of refrigerant
recycling and recovery equipment. This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities
likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your
company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria contained in section 608 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990. The applicability criteria are discussed below and in
regulations published on December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69638). 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. Overview
Effective November 15, 1995, section 608(c)(2) of the Act prohibits
the knowing venting, release, or disposal of any substitute for CFC and
HCFC refrigerants by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or
disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. This
prohibition applies unless EPA determines that such venting, releasing,
or disposing does not pose a threat to the environment.
Today's final rule clarifies how the venting prohibition of section
608(c)(2) applies to substitute refrigerants for which EPA is not
determining that their release does not pose a threat to the
environment, namely, HFC and PFC refrigerants. In addition to
establishing that the venting prohibition will remain in effect for HFC
and PFC substitute refrigerants, this rule will clarify that EPA
regulations affecting the handling and sales of ozone-depleting
refrigerants are applicable to substitute refrigerants, primarily HFC
refrigerant blends, that contain an ozone-depleting substance (ODS).
Today's rule does not extend the refrigerant sales restriction to pure
HFC and PFC refrigerants. This rule does exempt from the venting
prohibition certain refrigerant substitutes for which EPA has
determined that their release does not pose a threat to the
environment.
A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
Section 608 of the CAA requires EPA to establish a comprehensive
program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. Section 608
also prohibits the release or disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerants
and their substitutes during the maintenance, service, repair, or
disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances.
Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief, section
608(a) requires EPA to develop regulations and standards to reduce the
use and emission of class I substances (e.g., CFCs, halons, carbon
tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) and class II substances (e.g.,
HCFCs) to the lowest achievable level, and to maximize the recapture
and recycling of such substances. Section 608(b) requires that the
regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) contain standards
and requirements concerning the safe disposal of class I and class II
substances. Finally, section 608(c) establishes a self-effectuating
prohibition on the venting into the environment of class I or class II
substances and their substitutes during servicing and disposal of air-
conditioning or refrigeration equipment.
Section 608(a) provides EPA authority to promulgate many of the
requirements in today's rule. 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 ``such 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.'' 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 regulations are required
to reduce emissions and maximize recycling of class I and II ODSs.
Section 608(c) provides EPA authority to promulgate regulations to
interpret, implement and enforce the venting prohibition. 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
such appliance (or industrial process refrigeration) in a manner which
permits such substance to enter the environment.
The statute exempts from this self-effectuating prohibition ``[d]e
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 (Sec. 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.'' While
section 608(c) is self-effectuating, EPA regulations are necessary to
define ``[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to
recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of such substances, and to
effectively implement and enforce the venting prohibition.
EPA is today promulgating 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. These regulations
are also vital to the Agency's efforts to continue to carry out its
mandate under section 608(a) to minimize emissions of ozone-depleting
substances.
B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Rule
In developing this rulemaking, EPA has considered a number of
factors in determining whether the release of a substitute refrigerant
poses a threat to the environment. First, EPA has considered which
refrigerants should be classified as ``substitute'' refrigerants. EPA
is adopting a definition of substitute that is similar to that adopted
by EPA in its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program,
except the 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 ozone-depleting substance.''
[[Page 11948]]
As the second factor in this remaking, EPA has made a determination
regarding whether or not the release of a substitute refrigerant during
the maintenance, service, repair or disposal of an appliance poses a
threat to the environment. This determination consists of two findings.
First, EPA determined whether the release of a substitute refrigerant
could pose a threat to the environment due to the toxicity or other
inherent characteristic of the refrigerant. Second, EPA determined
whether and to what extent such releases or disposal actually takes
place during the servicing and disposal of appliances, and to what
extent these releases are controlled by other authorities or
regulations. The release of many substitute refrigerants is limited
and/or controlled by other entities, such as Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations or EPA regulations under other
authorities. To the extent that releases during the maintenance,
service, repair, or disposal of appliances are adequately controlled by
other authorities, EPA defers to these authorities rather than set up a
second duplicative regulatory regime.
As the third factor in this 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.
EPA has identified five classes of substitute refrigerants in the
sectors covered under SNAP: HFCs, PFCs, hydrocarbons, chemically active
common gases (including ammonia and chlorine), and inert atmospheric
constituents (including carbon dioxide (CO2) 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.
C. Public Participation
In developing this rule, EPA has considered comments received in
response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as well as those
comments stated during meetings with industry, government, and
environmental representatives. During meetings with industry and
government representatives, EPA has gained a better understanding of
current industry practices and how existing regulatory authorities
serve to control emissions of substitute refrigerants. All data and
information received from industry and government representatives that
EPA has relied on in developing this final rule was placed in the
docket and made available to the public. EPA refers readers to Docket
No. A-92-01, Categories VI-B8, VIII-H, VIII-H1, and VIII-H6 for all
factual materials. In addition, EPA has consulted the air-conditioning
and refrigeration industry's primary standards-setting organizations,
the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(ASHRAE), in developing this rule. As required by statute, EPA has,
where appropriate, incorporated in this rule voluntary consensus
standards and guidelines developed by these organizations.
D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Recycling of
Substitute Refrigerants
On June 11, 1998, EPA published an NPRM (63 FR 32044) outlining
requirements for substitute refrigerants. In that notice, EPA proposed
regulations under section 608 of the Act to amend 40 CFR part 82 by
proposing regulations nearly identical to those dealing with the use
and handling of class I and class II ODS refrigerants. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed to extend the regulatory framework for CFC and HCFC
refrigerants to HFC and PFC refrigerants, making appropriate
adjustments for the varying physical properties and environmental
impacts of these refrigerants. The following requirements were included
in the NPRM:
Appliances containing HFC or PFC refrigerants
would have to be evacuated to established levels;
Refrigerant recycling and recovery equipment
used with HFCs or PFCs would have to be certified;
Technicians servicing, maintaining, or repairing
appliances containing HFC or PFC refrigerants would have to be
certified;
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 reclaimed by an EPA-certified refrigerant
reclaimer and tested to verify that they meet industry refrigerant
standards, including purity standards;
Refrigerant reclaimers who reclaim HFC or PFC
refrigerants would have to be certified;
Owners of HFC and PFC appliances with
refrigerant charges greater than 50 lbs. would have to repair leaks
when the applicable leak repair trigger rate was exceeded over a 12-
month period;
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.
The NPRM also proposed clarifications to the requirements of
section 608 as they would apply to substitutes for CFC and HCFC
refrigerants, and proposed to exempt certain substitute refrigerants
from the statutory venting prohibition on the basis of evidence that
their releases do not pose a threat to the environment. In addition,
EPA proposed to amend the requirements for CFC and HCFC refrigerants to
accommodate the proliferation of new refrigerants on the market and to
strengthen and clarify the leak repair requirements.
The NPRM asked for public comment on the Agency's proposed findings
and on the rationale behind them. The Agency received 167 public
comment letters (comments/commenters) in response to the NPRM. In
general, most commenters recognized the need for mandatory refrigerant
recovery in order to help protect the ozone layer and to provide a
source of refrigerant to service existing capital equipment after the
phaseout of CFC and HCFC refrigerant production is complete. The
majority of commenters believed that the proposed amendments were
necessary to clarify and improve regulations, but many expressed
concerns over the regulation of refrigerants that do not deplete the
ozone layer. EPA received mixed comments concerning the proposed HFC
refrigerant sales restriction. Representatives of the MVAC service
sector were in favor of the restriction, while representatives of the
after market automotive parts sector opposed any refrigerant sales
restriction.
Today's action addresses the public comments received in response
to the proposed rule as they relate to the components of the NPRM that
EPA is finalizing in today's action. Comments concerning leak repair
requirements and certification of refrigerant recovery/recycling
equipment will be addressed in separate rulemakings. Relevant comments
that are not directly addressed in today's action are addressed in the
accompanying ``Response to Comments'' document, which is available in
Air Docket No. A-92-01.
[[Page 11949]]
III. Scope of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. EPA's Statutory Authority
Pursuant to section 608(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is broadly
authorized to promulgate regulations establishing standards and
requirements regarding the use and disposal of class I and class II
substances during service, repair, or disposal of appliances and
industrial process refrigeration (42 U.S.C. 7671g(a)). Section 608(b)
authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations establishing standards and
requirements assuring the safe disposal of class I and class II
substances (42 U.S.C. 7671g(b)). Section 608(c)(1) provides that it is
unlawful for any person, while in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of an appliance or of industrial process
refrigeration, to knowingly vent, 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 (42 U.S.C. 7671g(c)(1)). Section
608(c)(2) provides that the section 608(c)(1) knowing venting, release,
or disposal prohibition also applies to the venting, release, or
disposal of any substitute substance for a class I or class II
substance by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing
of any appliance or industrial process refrigeration that contains and
uses such substitute substance as a refrigerant--unless EPA determines
that venting, releasing, or disposing of such substitute substance does
not pose a threat to the environment (42 U.S.C. 7671g(c)(2)).
With today's action, EPA is amending the current refrigerant
recovery and recycling requirements for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants to accommodate the
proliferation of new refrigerants on the market, and to clarify that
the Section 608(c) venting prohibition applies to all refrigerants
consisting in whole or in part of a class I or class II ozone-depleting
substance (ODS). This rule also explicates the self-effectuating
statutory prohibition on venting substitute refrigerants to the
atmosphere that became effective on November 15, 1995. In addition, the
rule exempts certain substitute refrigerants from the venting
prohibition on the basis of current evidence that their release does
not pose a threat to the environment.
Public comments questioned the need for regulations for a self-
effectuating venting prohibition. Section 608(c)(2) establishes a self-
effectuating prohibition on venting of any refrigerants that are
substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs. Thus, venting of all substitute
refrigerants, including HFC and PFC refrigerants (and blends thereof)
is prohibited under section 608(c), with the exception of de minimis
releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle.
The de minimis releases exception, however, is not self-effectuating,
nor is it self-explanatory.
EPA believes that regulatory clarification is necessary to define
such ``[d]e minimis releases'' and ``good faith attempts to recapture
and recycle or safely dispose of any such substance'' and safely
dispose of appliances to effectively implement and enforce the venting
prohibition. Section 608(c)(1) in conjunction with 608(c)(2) of the Act
allow for an exemption for de minimis releases associated with good
faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of
substitutes for class I and class II ODSs used as refrigerants. A
regulation reflecting the statutory requirement for recovery of
substitute refrigerants is an essential part of a regulatory framework
within which de minimis releases and good faith attempts to recapture
and recycle or safely dispose of substitute refrigerants can be
defined.
B. Determination of Whether Release Poses a Threat to the Environment
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. In
determining whether the release of a substitute refrigerant during the
maintenance, servicing, repair, or 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. These effects vary among the different
classes of refrigerants.
EPA has also examined the extent to which the release of a
substitute refrigerant is already controlled by other authorities (such
as state and local regulations, building codes, and other Federal
regulations). In some cases, such authorities tightly limit the
quantity of the substitute emitted or disposed; 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 other cases, existing
authorities address some threats (e.g., occupational exposures), but
not others (e.g., long-term environmental impacts).
The discussion that follows details the potential environmental
impacts of and existing controls on each class of refrigerant addressed
in today's action.
1. HFC and PFC Refrigerants
In the NPRM, EPA proposed not to find that the release of HFC and
PFC refrigerants does not pose a threat to the environment. HFC and PFC
refrigerants have been classified as A1 refrigerants under American
Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) Standard 34,\1\ 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 HFC 152a may propagate flame under the
test conditions, but only at relatively high concentrations and with
relatively low heat of combustion. However, like CFC and HCFC
refrigerants, HFCs can have central nervous system depressant and
cardio-toxic effects at high concentrations (several thousand parts-
per-million (ppm)), and can displace oxygen at very high
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASHRAE 34, ``Number Designatiojn and Safety Classification
of Refrigerants,'' establishes a uniform system of assigning the
proper reference number classification to refrigerants, and includes
safety classifications based on toxicity and flammability data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, once released into the atmosphere, HFCs and PFCs have the
ability to trap heat that would otherwise be radiated from the Earth
back to space. This ability, along with the relatively long atmospheric
lifetime of these gases (particularly the PFCs), gives both HFCs and
PFCs relatively high global warming potentials (GWPs). The 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 (for
perfluorocyclobutane) to 9,200 (for perfluoroethane). HFC-134a, the
most common individual HFC used in air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, has a GWP 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.) Therefore, EPA is not
[[Page 11950]]
determining that HFC and PFC substitute refrigerants do not pose a
threat to the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The CFCs and HCFCs being replaced by the HFCs are also
greenhouse gases, though their direct warming effect is counteracted
somewhat by the indirect cooling effect caused by their destruction
of stratospheric ozone, which is itself a greenhouse gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under SNAP, HFC refrigerants (either pure or in blends) have been
approved for use in almost every major air-conditioning and
refrigeration end-use, including household refrigerators, motor vehicle
air conditioners, retail food refrigeration, comfort cooling chillers,
industrial process refrigeration, and refrigerated transport. HFC-134a
in particular has claimed a large share of the market for non-ozone-
depleting substitutes in these applications. Given this range of
applications, HFCs have the potential to come into contact with
consumers, workers, the general population, and the environment.
Under SNAP, EPA has approved PFCs for use in relatively few end-
uses because of their large GWPs and long atmospheric lifetimes. These
end-uses include uranium isotope separation, for which no other
substitute refrigerant has been found, and some heat-transfer
applications. In these applications, PFCs may come into contact with
workers, the general population, and the environment.
Analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rule (59 FR
13049) 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).\3\ However, these requirements
and practices do not address releases 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 atmosphere. In accordance with
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 for tight fitting or outward-opening doors, refrigerant
detectors that activate alarms when refrigerant levels rise above
recommended long-term exposure levels, and mechanical ventilation that
discharges released refrigerant to the outdoors. However, ASHRAE 15
does not include requirements for refrigerant recovery or recycling.\5\
In general, ASHRAE 15 addresses design specifications rather than
service and disposal practices, and ASHRAE 15 requirements are codified
and enforced by state or local building codes rather than by contractor
licensing boards or Federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. EPA. 1994. Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for
Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning. Office of Air and Radiation, March 15, 1994.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Substitutes Recycling Rule,
Office of Air and Radiation, 1998).
\4\ ASHRAE 15, Safety Code for Mechanical Refrigeration, is an
industry standard developed by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). ASHRAE 15
forms the basis for state and local building codes throughout the
U.S.
\5\ ASHRAE Guideline 3 recommends recycling of all fluorocarbon
refrigerants, but is not codified or enforced by any Federal agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the American Industrial Hygiene Association 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 do not apply to HFCs or PFCs. HFCs and
PFCs are not listed chemicals for the purposes of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III or the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) reporting requirements; nor are they listed as EPA section
112(r) hazardous air pollutants.
Several commenters advised EPA to take a balanced view of HFC
refrigerants' threat to the environment by including discussions on the
associated benefits of their use. Commenters stated that HFCs
contribute considerably less to greenhouse gas emissions than their
precursors in many applications, promote energy efficiency, and in many
instances are cost-effective alternatives to ozone-depleting
refrigerants.
The Act prohibits the release of a substitute for a class I or
class II ODS refrigerant unless EPA determines that such a release
``does not pose a threat to the environment.'' The commenters make
valid points that in some circumstances HFC refrigerants may contribute
less to greenhouse gas emissions than their precursors in some
applications; promote energy efficiency; and in many instances are
cost-effective alternatives to ozone-depleting refrigerants.
Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed above, EPA concludes that HFC
and PFC refrigerants have adverse environmental effects. For this
reason, and because of a lack of regulation governing the release of
such substitute refrigerants, EPA is not making a determination that
the release of HFC or PFC refrigerants ``do not pose a threat to the
environment.'' Hence, the statutory venting prohibition remains in
effect for these refrigerants, and the knowing venting of HFC and PFC
refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair and disposal of
appliances remains illegal.
2. Chemically Active Common Gases
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that the release of either of the
two SNAP-approved chemically active common gases used as refrigerants
(i.e., ammonia and chlorine) during the service, maintenance, repair,
and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment
under section 608.
EPA received comments supporting the exemptions for ammonia and
chlorine, as long as the exemptions are restricted to their use in
industrial process applications, because it accurately asserts that the
release of ammonia and chlorine refrigerants is properly safeguarded
and controlled by other authorities. Commenters supported EPA's
proposed determination that the release of ammonia and chlorine
refrigerants used during the servicing, maintenance, repair, and
disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment under
section 608(c)(2).
Occupational exposure to ammonia is primarily controlled by OSHA
requirements and national and local building and fire codes. OSHA sets
permissible exposure limits (PELs) to protect workers against the
health effects of exposure to hazardous substances. PELs are regulatory
limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air, based
on an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure. PELs are enforceable
by OSHA. 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 that cover systems containing more
than 10,000 pounds of ammonia. These standards require employee
training,
[[Page 11951]]
emergency response plans, and written standard operating procedures.
State and local codes, based upon ASHRAE 15, impose strict quantity
limits for direct-type ammonia refrigeration systems (which possess no
secondary heat transfer fluid), and generally prohibit the use of
ammonia in direct-type comfort cooling systems. In accordance with the
standard, 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 fireproofing 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 the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), State Implementation Plans
(SIPs), etc. In such cases, releases are controlled under the
permitting authority.
The more common release of ammonia is due to disposal. Disposal is
generally performed by mixing the ammonia with water, which lowers or
neutralizes the pH of the ammonia, and then disposing 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
pretreatment 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,
avoid ammonia overloading, and 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.
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 Clean
Air 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) states that companies have a general duty to prevent
accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances, including
ammonia and chlorine.
Chlorine has not been submitted or approved under SNAP, for use as
a class I or class II ODS refrigerant substitute, except in industrial
process refrigeration. In this application, chlorine could come into
contact with workers, the general population, and the environment.
Regulatory impact and risk screen analyses performed for both this rule
and the SNAP rule 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. Exposures to chlorine are controlled through many of the same
regulatory mechanisms that control exposures to ammonia, except
enforceable concentration and release limits are lower for chlorine
than for ammonia. For instance, the OSHA PEL for chlorine is one ppm
compared to 50 ppm for ammonia. Similarly, the reporting threshold
under CERCLA section 103 and SARA Title III for chlorine releases is 10
pounds compared to 100 pounds for ammonia, and the quantity of chlorine
that triggers requirements under section 112(r) is 2,500 pounds per
process. In addition to these requirements, chlorine is subject to
restrictions under sections 112(b) and 113 of the Act. Chlorine is
listed as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) under section 112(b) of the
Act, and under section 113 of the Act criminal penalties can be
assessed for negligently releasing HAPs into the atmosphere.
In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether there are
chlorine sources that are ``major sources'' under CAA section 112(a).
Section 112 defines ``major source'' as any stationary source or group
of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls,
in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air
pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. Such
sources could be restricted, controlled, and/or phased-out of
production. The Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards
under Section 112 of the Act, classify chlorine as a controllable HAP.
EPA received comment stating that chlorine manufacturing plants
could be considered as ``major sources'' under section 112 of the Act,
because the Act defines a major source to include all actual and
potential emissions of all hazardous air pollutants from all facilities
and processes at one site. The potential emissions due to chlorine's
use as a refrigerant may be small, but the potential emissions are
large enough to make the site ``major.''
Current industry practices and engineering controls in chlorine
manufacture are 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 one ppm, use of self-contained breathing apparatus
during servicing, isolation of liquid chlorine in receivers during
servicing, and use of caustic scrubbers to neutralize gaseous chlorine
during servicing. Such monitoring efforts are included in ASHRAE 15 and
ASHRAE Guideline 3--``Reducing Emission of Halogenated Refrigerants in
Refrigeration in Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Equipment and
Systems,'' these standards are typically adopted into service standard
operating procedures and local building codes. The charge sizes in the
refrigeration system are
[[Page 11952]]
several 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.
Because releases of ammonia and chlorine from their currently
approved air-conditioning and refrigeration applications are adequately
addressed by other authorities, EPA is making the determination that
the release of ammonia and chlorine refrigerants during the service,
maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat
to the environment under section 608(c)(2). This determination does not
endorse the venting of ammonia and chlorine refrigerants. The Agency
supports responsible handling of these refrigerants during the service,
maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances. However, EPA believes
that regulating these substances under section 608, and in particular
requiring that the practices currently in place for class I and class
II refrigerants be applied to these substances, would not provide
additional substantial public health or environmental protection, since
the use and release of these compounds are adequately addressed by
other authorities.
3. Hydrocarbons
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that the release of hydrocarbon
(HC) refrigerants during the servicing and disposal of such systems
does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608, because
the use of HC refrigerants as substitutes for class I or class II ODS
refrigerants is limited and the releases are adequately controlled by
other authorities. EPA requested comment on this proposed finding and
on the rationale behind it.
Commenters expressed concern that the NPRM was deficient, in that
it did not include a mechanism to address alternative or future
applications for hydrocarbons (e.g., hydrocarbon technology in
household refrigeration).
Under SNAP, EPA has approved hydrocarbon refrigerants as
substitutes for class I or class II ODS refrigerants only for use in
industrial process refrigeration systems.\6\ Therefore, it is illegal
to use a hydrocarbon refrigerant as a substitute for a class I or class
II ODS refrigerant for any end use other than industrial process
refrigeration systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Under SNAP, EPA restricts the use of hydrocarbon
refrigerants as substitutes for ozone-depleting refrigerants to
industrial process refrigeration systems and recommends (but does
not require) that hydrocarbon refrigerants only be used at
industrial facilities which manufacture or use hydrocarbons in the
process stream (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13076).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters generally supported EPA's determination that the release
of hydrocarbon refrigerants during the servicing, maintenance, repair,
and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment
under section 608(c)(2). Commenters noted that hydrocarbon refrigerants
are regulated appropriately as criteria pollutants and/or hazardous air
pollutants.
Hydrocarbons are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that degrade in
the lower atmosphere, contributing to ground-level (or tropospheric)
ozone, also referred to as smog. Unlike stratospheric ozone, which
forms naturally in the upper atmosphere and protects us from the sun's
harmful ultraviolet rays, ground-level ozone is created through the
interactions of man-made (and natural) emissions of VOCs and nitrogen
oxides in the presence of heat and sunlight. Ground-level ozone does
not deplete the stratospheric ozone layer; but when inhaled (even at
very low levels), ozone can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate
asthma; cause significant temporary decreases in lung capacity in some
healthy adults; cause inflammation of lung tissue; and impair the
body's immune system defenses, making people more susceptible to
respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia; and reduce
agricultural yields for many economically important crops (e.g.,
soybeans, kidney beans, wheat, cotton). The scientific support papers
referenced in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
Ozone (62 FR 38856) describe numerous documents that identify and
discuss the adverse environmental and health effects of ground-level
ozone.
Propane, ethane, propylene, and to some extent butane are used as
refrigerants in specialized industrial applications, primarily in oil
refineries and chemical plants. In these applications they are
frequently available as part of the process stream, and their use
contributes only a slight additional increment to the overall risk of
fire or explosion. Such systems are generally designed to comply with
the safety standards required for managing flammable chemicals. In this
application, hydrocarbons have the potential to come into contact with
workers, the general population, and the environment.
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 an Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
(IDLH) limit 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.
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 Act. In addition, hydrocarbons are considered
VOCs, and are therefore subject to State VOC regulations implemented in
accordance with the Act.
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 fireproofing requirements.
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, and leak repairs are attempted within five days. If initial
repair attempts are unsuccessful, the system is shut down, unless
releases from a shutdown are predicted to be greater than allowing a
continued leak. During servicing, OSHA confined space requirements are
followed, including continuous monitoring of explosive gas
concentrations and oxygen levels.
Hydrocarbon refrigerants may be returned to the product stream or
can be released through a flare during servicing. Due to fire and
explosion risks and the economic value of the hydrocarbon, direct
venting is not a widely used procedure. In general, hydrocarbon
emissions from refrigeration systems are likely to be significantly
smaller than those emanating from the process and storage systems,
which are already well-controlled for safety reasons.
[[Page 11953]]
Because the release of hydrocarbons from industrial process
refrigeration systems is adequately addressed by other authorities, EPA
determines 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(c)(2) of the Act. Today's determination
does not endorse the venting of hydrocarbon refrigerants. The Agency
supports responsible handling of these refrigerants during the service,
maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances. However, EPA believes
that regulating these substances under section 608, and in particular
requiring that the practices currently in place for class I and class
II refrigerants be applied to these substances, would not provide
additional substantial public health or environmental protection, since
the use and release of these compounds are adequately addressed by
other authorities.
The determination that the release of hydrocarbon refrigerants does
not pose a threat to the environment only applies to the end-use sector
for which hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes are approved, namely
industrial process refrigeration. Therefore the venting prohibition
does not apply for hydrocarbon substitutes in non-approved applications
(e.g., comfort cooling or motor vehicle air-conditioning), since their
use as a substitute in other end-use sectors is illegal.
4. Inert Atmospheric Constituents
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that the release or disposal of
CO2 refrigerant during the servicing and disposal of
appliances does not pose a threat to the environment under section 608.
EPA also requested comment on the factual basis for this proposal.
Under SNAP, EPA has approved CO2 as a replacement for
CFC-13, R-13b1 and R-503 in very low temperature and industrial process
refrigeration applications. EPA has also approved CO2 as a
substitute for R-113, R-114, and R-115 in non-mechanical heat transfer
applications. Carbon dioxide is a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable
gas. Its GWP is defined as one, 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 CO2 needs
to be produced for refrigeration applications. Thus, the use and
release of such commercially available CO2 as a refrigerant
would have no net contribution to global warming.
EPA has approved direct nitrogen expansion as an alternative
technology for many CFC and HCFC refrigerants used in vapor compression
systems. Nitrogen is a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable gas that
makes up 78 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Nitrogen contributes
neither to global warming nor to ozone-depletion.
EPA has approved evaporative cooling as an alternative technology
for MVACs using CFC-12 as a refrigerant. 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. Furthermore, EPA has
determined that the use of water or air as a coolant is not included
under the definition of ``refrigerant.''
EPA received no comments in opposition to the proposal to exempt
inert atmospheric constituents from the venting prohibition. Therefore,
EPA determines that the release of CO2 refrigerant,
elemental nitrogen, or water during the maintenance, service, repair,
and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the environment
under section 608, and therefore their uses as substitute refrigerants
are exempt from the venting prohibition. The finding for the use of
CO2 only applies to the SNAP-approved end-uses for
CO2, namely very low temperature and industrial process
refrigeration applications.
IV. The Final Rule
A. Overview
EPA is promulgating regulations that identify substitute
refrigerants that are exempt from the section 608 venting prohibition,
because the Agency finds that their release does not pose a threat to
the environment. For all substitute refrigerants other than those
specifically identified as not posing a threat to the environment, it
remains unlawful pursuant to section 608(c)(2) to knowingly vent,
release, or dispose of such substance in a manner that permits it to
enter the environment.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed, and in today's action has made changes
to a number of the regulations covering CFC and HCFC refrigerants.
Several of these changes are intended to accommodate the growing number
of refrigerants, including newer blended HFC/HCFC substitutes, that are
subject to the regulations because they consist of a class II ODS. For
refrigerant substitutes consisting of a class I or class II ODS, EPA is
mandating identical required practices and clarifying the prohibitions
promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. Such changes include the
adoption of evacuation requirements based solely on the saturation
pressures of refrigerants, the requirement for service apertures on
appliances, mandatory certification of service technicians, and the
restriction on the sales of such blended refrigerants.
EPA is not, however, finalizing the proposal to extend all of the
regulations concerning emissions reduction of CFC and HCFC
refrigerants, found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, to HFC and PFC
refrigerants. Therefore, today's rule does not mandate any of the
following proposed requirements for HFC or PFC refrigerants that do not
consist of a class I or class II ODS (i.e., pure HFC or PFC
refrigerants): A sales restriction on HFC or PFC refrigerants; specific
evacuation levels for servicing HFC or PFC appliances; certification of
HFC or PFC recycling and recovery equipment; certification of
technicians who work with HFC or PFC appliances; reclamation
requirements for used HFC and PFC refrigerants; certification of
refrigerant reclaimers who reclaim only HFCs or PFCs; or leak repair
requirements for HFC and PFC appliances.
EPA intends to address in future rulemakings other components of
the NPRM, such as the use of representative refrigerants from
saturation pressure categories for certifying recycling and recovery
equipment and adoption (with modification) of the ARI 740 industry
recovery/recycling equipment standard, which includes a number of
refrigerants that were omitted from its predecessors.
EPA also proposed to reduce the maximum allowable leak rates for
appliances containing more than 50 pounds of an ODS refrigerant;
changes to the leak repair requirements promulgated at Sec. 82.156(i),
the associated recordkeeping provisions at Sec. 82.166(n) and (o), and
the definition of ``full charge'' at Sec. 82.152; and a proposed
definition for ``leak rate'' under Sec. 82.152 for the purposes of
Sec. 82.156(i). The leak repair provisions will also be finalized in a
separate rulemaking. EPA believes that addressing these components in
separate rulemakings will simplify today's action, by focusing on the
determination of which refrigerant substitutes pose a threat to the
environment.
B. Application of the Venting Prohibition and Required Practices to
Substitute Refrigerants
1. HFC and PFC Refrigerants
While EPA is not finalizing the proposal to extend the full
regulatory framework for CFC and HCFC refrigerants to HFC and PFC
refrigerants,
[[Page 11954]]
the Agency emphasizes that since no determination has been made that
their release does not pose a threat to the environment, the statutory
venting prohibition applies to these refrigerants.
2. Chemically Active Common Gases
EPA determines that for the purposes of section 608, the release of
chlorine and ammonia refrigerants does not pose a threat to the
environment, because the release of these refrigerants during the
maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances is adequately
controlled by other authorities in the air-conditioning and
refrigeration applications where they are currently used. Therefore,
the venting prohibition does not apply to these substances in those
applications, and the Agency is not adopting recycling requirements for
these refrigerants at this time. EPA's findings apply to current SNAP-
identified end uses only (www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/index.html). If
ammonia and chlorine refrigerants are granted approval under SNAP for
use in other applications, EPA will evaluate whether regulations
governing their use under section 608 should apply in those
applications.
3. Hydrocarbons
EPA determines that for the purposes of section 608, the release of
hydrocarbons during the maintenance, repair, service and disposal of
appliances does not pose a threat to the environment, because such
releases are adequately controlled by other authorities. Therefore, the
venting prohibition does not apply to these substances and the Agency
is not adopting recycling requirements for these refrigerants at this
time. EPA's findings apply to current SNAP-identified end uses only
(www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/index.html). If hydrocarbon refrigerants are
granted approval under SNAP for applications other than industrial
process refrigeration, EPA will evaluate whether regulations governing
their use under section 608 should apply in those applications.
C. Definitions
1. Appliance
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend the definition of ``appliance''
to include air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contain
class I and class II ODSs and their substitutes. The proposed amendment
to the definition of appliance did not have an effect on its
applicability to all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment
except for those designed and used exclusively for military
applications; hence, the definition includes: household refrigerators
and freezers, commercial refrigeration appliances, other refrigeration
appliances (such as refrigerated cargo compartments of trucks),
residential and light commercial air-conditioning, motor vehicle air
conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under section
609, and industrial process refrigeration.
EPA received comment stating that the Act defines the term
``appliance,'' and for the purposes of the 608 refrigerant recycling
rule. The commenter requested that the Agency either eliminate or
revise its proposed definition of ``appliance'' to match the statute.
The commenter feared that the Agency might include as an appliance
equipment that doesn't use a refrigerant, as specified in section 608
of the Act, and noted that this is an important clarification because
some substances have many different refrigerant and non-refrigerant
uses.
EPA also received comments opposed to the inclusion of motor
vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) in the definition of appliance. The
commenters stated that there is no evidence that Congress intended to
include MVACs as ``appliances'' to be regulated under sections 601(1)
or 608(c)(2). A commenter argued that only section 609, which
specifically authorizes regulation of MVACs, authorizes regulation of
MVACs. The commenter emphasizes that neither section 601(1) or
608(c)(2) includes motor vehicle air-conditioners as an example of an
``appliance.'' Therefore, the commenter argued that EPA does not have
authority to regulate MVACs as an appliance under section 608.
In the 1993 final rulemaking (58 FR 28660), ``appliance'' was
defined at Sec. 82.152, as ``any device which contains and uses a
class I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is used for
household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner,
refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.'' The preamble discussion in section
III.E. concerning the definition of ``appliance'' (May 14, 1993, 58 FR
28660) discussed in detail the Agency's rationale for inclusion of MVAC
in the definition of ``appliance.'' While the preamble language
discussed the inclusion of MVAC, the final definition did not
explicitly include MVAC. Since 1993, EPA has consistently interpreted
MVAC to be included under the definition of appliance.
The preamble to the proposed rule states: ``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.'' (emphasis added) (63 FR 32053). EPA proposed to
continue to interpret ``appliance'' to include all air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment except that is designed and used exclusively
for military applications. Thus, the term ``appliance'' includes
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 (63 FR 32053).
EPA proposed to delete the phrase ``a class I or class II substance
as'' leaving simply the reference to ``refrigerant,'' which would have
encompassed both class I and class II substances and substitutes for
such substances. EPA proposed no other amendments to the definition of
``appliance.'' EPA refers readers to the May 14, 1993, rulemaking 1993
(58 FR 28660) for detailed discussion of the inclusion of MVAC in the
Agency's interpretation of the definition of appliance.
EPA is amending the definition of ``appliance'' to include air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contain substitute
refrigerants consisting of a class I or class II substance. The amended
definition now reads, ``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.'' EPA will continue to interpret ``appliance'' to include all
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, except that designed and
used exclusively for military applications. Thus, the term
``appliance'' includes household refrigerators and freezers (which may
be used outside the home), other refrigeration appliances, residential
and light commercial air-conditioning, motor vehicle air conditioners
(MVACs), comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under section 609
(such as buses using R-22), electrical transformers, secondary
refrigeration loops, and industrial process refrigeration equipment.
a. One-Time Expansion Devices, Including Self-Chilling Cans
While EPA proposed 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
[[Page 11955]]
environment (see the discussion of CO2 above), EPA did not
propose and cannot make this finding for the HFC refrigerants that have
been suggested for use in one-time expansion devices.
One-time expansion devices are appliances, and the release of
substitute refrigerants from such appliances is prohibited by section
608(c)(2), unless EPA finds that the release of these refrigerants does
not pose a threat to the environment. One-time expansion devices, which
include ``self-chilling cans,'' rely on the release and associated
expansion of a compressed refrigerant to cool the contents (e.g., a
beverage) of a container. EPA considers refrigerant releases from such
devices to be prohibited by section 608(c). First, the refrigerant in
these devices acts as a not-in-kind substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in
household and commercial refrigerators. Although the refrigerant in a
one-time expansion device is not being used in the same system as CFC-
12 in a household or commercial refrigerator, it is providing the same
effect of cooling the container. EPA has previously considered not-in-
kind technologies, such as evaporative cooling, to be substitutes under
SNAP. The SNAP regulation defines ``substitute or alternative'' as
``any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing
process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for
a class I or II compound.''
This approach is consistent with the language of section 612 of the
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.'' \7\ 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 definition of
``substitute'' in today's action is very similar to that in the SNAP
regulations, except the definition omits the proviso that the
substitute be intended for use as a replacement for a class I or class
II substance. Thus, under the definition in today's action and
consistent with the definition in the SNAP regulations and section 612
of the Act, EPA considers the refrigerant in a one-time expansion
device to be a ``substitute substance'' under section 608(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Section 612(b)(3) directs EPA to ``specify initiatives * * *
to promote the development and use of safe substitutes for class I
and class II substances, including alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes'' (emphasis
added). Similarly, Sec. 612(b)(4) requires EPA to ``maintain a
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes,
and alternative manufacturing processes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, 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 is
the same as that of a traditional refrigerator, that is vapor
compression and expansion. The difference between a one-time expansion
device and a traditional refrigerator is 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.
Thirdly, EPA believes that the act of opening a one-time expansion
device constitutes disposal of the device. This interpretation is
consistent with the definition of ``disposal'' included in the
recycling and emissions reduction regulations at Sec. 82.152.
``Disposal'' is ``the process leading to and including:
The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of
any discarded appliance into or on any land or water;
The disassembly of any appliance for discharge,
deposit, dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or on
any land or water; or
The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of
its component parts.''
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.
One commenter believed that the Agency's interpretation of one-time
expansion device is flawed, because it is so broad that it would
include equipment that the Agency would not want to regulate, such as
fire extinguishers. The commenter requested EPA to state specifically
that EPA intends to ban self-chilling beverage cans.
For purposes of clarity, the Agency has determined that one-time
expansion devices, which include ``self-chilling cans,'' that rely on
the release and associated expansion of a compressed refrigerant to
cool the contents (e.g., a beverage) of a container, are considered
appliances. Any one-time expansion device that does not rely on the
release and expansion of a refrigerant for cooling purposes would not
fall under the definition of appliance. In addition, EPA reminds
readers that the final rule published on March 5, 1998 (63 FR 11084),
prohibits the intentional release of any class I ODS (i.e., Halon 1211,
Halon 1301, and Halon 2402) during the testing, repairing, maintenance,
servicing, or disposal of halon-containing equipment. The rule became
effective April 6, 1998.
b. 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 comfort
cooling chillers, industrial process refrigeration equipment, and some
specialty and commercial refrigeration systems.
The definition of ``appliance'' with respect to secondary loops is
somewhat ambiguous under the Act. Given this ambiguity, EPA proposed 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. In the proposal, EPA requested comment on
its interpretation of ``appliance'' as it applies to secondary loops.
Specifically, EPA requested comment on whether there are human health
or environmental risks that could be
[[Page 11956]]
significantly reduced by subjecting to the venting prohibition
secondary loops that transport heat from warmer to cooler areas without
a change of state. EPA also requested 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.
The majority of comments received in response to EPA's requests,
recommended that secondary loops containing a regulated refrigerant be
covered under the provisions of the section 608 recycling regulations.
The majority of commenters agreed with the Agency's decision to
include, under the definition of appliance, refrigerant loops that are
primary to the system or secondary involving a change of state of
refrigerant, while excluding secondary loops that do not involve a
change of state.
EPA received no comments in response to the proposal's request for
information concerning the extent to which ozone depleting substances,
such as HCFC-123, are used in secondary loops that transport heat from
warmer to cooler areas or the need to require recovery of such
substances used in secondary loops. The Agency believes that it is not
necessary to specify secondary loops using regulated refrigerants as
part of an appliance, since they are already subject to the section
608(c) venting prohibition. Therefore, EPA is interpreting
``appliance'' consistent with the language and purpose of section 608,
and that it is reasonable to interpret as part of an ``appliance''
refrigerant loops that (1) are primary or (2) involve heat transfer
with a change of state. Such systems may include cascade systems,
electric transformers, or any secondary loop containing a regulated
refrigerant. Under this interpretation, secondary loops that use
substances not covered under the definition of refrigerant (as defined
at Sec. 82.152) such as water, brine, and glycol solutions thereof
will not be considered to be part of an ``appliance.''
EPA believes that this interpretation covers those secondary loops,
using a class I or class II ODS as a refrigerant, that have
traditionally been considered to be part of the air conditioner or
refrigerator, while excluding those that are not. Furthermore, this
interpretation excludes for the definition of appliance air-
conditioning and refrigerating components that do not use an ODS. Thus,
EPA believes that this interpretation is consistent with Congress'
intent regarding the scope of EPA's regulatory authority over
``appliances.''
This interpretation is also consistent with EPA's decision not to
list secondary fluids under SNAP. In that decision, published in SNAP
Notice 6 (62 FR 10700, March 10, 1997), EPA expressed concern that due
to the large number of secondary fluids, any listing of secondary
fluids could discourage their use and could be very burdensome to the
Agency and the regulated community. 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.
2. Full Charge
While EPA had proposed changes to the definition of full charge as
it relates to the leak repair required practices found at Sec. 82.156,
the Agency has decided to address this definition, including public
comments concerning the definition in a separate rulemaking dedicated
to finalizing the leak repair components of the NPRM. Based on the
comments received, EPA believes that this issue will be more
appropriately addressed separately.
3. High-Pressure Appliance (Proposed as Higher-Pressure Appliance)
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to create a new category of ``higher-
pressure appliance'' whose refrigerants have saturation pressures
between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104 [deg]F. Appliances in this
category would be subject to the original evacuation requirements for
HCFC-22 appliances.
While EPA received supporting comments concerning the proposed
definition of the higher-pressure appliance category, the Agency
received a request to change the category name to ``high-pressure
appliance.'' The commenter stated that this change reflects common
field nomenclature and would avoid confusion.
EPA agrees with the commenter and today is finalizing a new
category of ``high-pressure appliance.'' These appliances contain
refrigerants with saturation pressures between 170 psia and 355 psia at
104 [deg]F. This category was proposed as the ``higher-pressure
appliance'' category, but the category name was changed to reflect
common field nomenclature and to remain as close as possible to the ARI
groupings for the ARI Standard 740 for refrigerant recovery and
recycling equipment. The Agency has changed the dividing lines to 170
psia and 355 psia in an effort to retain consistency between the
previous evacuation requirements and the procedures used for
certification of recovery equipment used to obtain the evacuation
levels. As discussed in greater detail below, EPA has altered the
classification scheme by eliminating the special evacuation category
for R-22 and replacing it with a new saturation pressure category that
includes the ``high-pressure'' refrigerants with saturation pressures
between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 [deg]F. This change enables EPA to
tailor requirements to refrigerants with relatively high saturation
pressures, while retaining the long standing evacuation requirements
for appliances using R-22 refrigerant.
Appliances in this category are subject to the same requirements
previously reserved for HCFC-22 appliances. This action's definition of
``refrigerant'' limits the applicability of the high-pressure appliance
definition to appliances that use a CFC or HCFC refrigerant, or a blend
containing a CFC or HCFC refrigerant, with a liquid phase saturation
pressure between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 [deg]F. The definition of
``high-pressure appliances'' reads as follows: High-pressure appliance
means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase
saturation pressure between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 [deg]F. This
definition includes but is not limited to appliances using R-401A, R-
409A, R-401B, R-411A, R-22, R-411B, R-502, R-402B, R-408A, and R-402A.
4. Leak Rate
While EPA had proposed to officially define ``leak rate'' in the
NPRM for purposes of clarity when applying the leak repair requirements
contained in Sec. 82.156(i), the Agency has decided to address this
definition, including public comments concerning the definition in a
separate rulemaking dedicated to finalizing the leak repair components
of the NPRM. Based on the comments received, EPA believes that this
issue will be more appropriately addressed separately.
5. Low-Pressure Appliance
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to revise the definition of ``low-
pressure appliance'' to refer to saturation pressures at 104 [deg]F
rather than boiling points. This proposal to define low-pressure
appliances according to saturation pressure was intended in part to
make it easier for technicians to remember and implement when compared
to standards that varied both by saturation pressure and type of
refrigerant. Without such a change, the number of new evacuation
categories could conceivably have been doubled by the influx of new
substitute refrigerants.
The Agency received no comments concerning the proposed revision.
Therefore, EPA has revised the
[[Page 11957]]
definition of ``low-pressure appliance'' to refer to saturation
pressures at 104 [deg]F rather than boiling points. The revised
definition reads: Low-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a
refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at
104 [deg]F. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances
using R-11, R-123, and R-113.
6. Opening
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend the definition of ``opening'' to
include service, maintenance, or repair of an appliance that would
release class I, class II, or substitute refrigerants unless the
refrigerant were recovered previously from the appliance. EPA also
requested comment on adding disposal to the definition of ``opening.''
EPA received one comment representing the scrap and recycling
industry in opposition to adding the term ``or disposal'' to the
definition of ``opening.'' The commenter was opposed on the grounds
that the NPRM did not distinguish between recycling and disposal.
Sections 608 (b)(1) and 608(c)(2) of the Act require that class I,
class II, and their substitute refrigerants contained in bulk in
appliances be removed from the appliance prior to disposal or their
delivery for recycling. The Agency does not interpret this statutory
language to mean that scrap recyclers who choose to dispose of
appliances or choose to accept appliances (or their parts) with
refrigerant charges intact are exempt from the Required Practices
codified at Sec. 82.156 (including the acquisition of recovery
equipment that meets the standards set forth in Sec. 82.158). EPA
refers readers to the May 14, 1993, rulemaking 1993 (58 FR 28660) for
detailed discussion of the Agency's long standing interpretation of
scrap metal recycling's inclusion in the term ``final disposal.''
Therefore, EPA has amended the definition of ``opening'' to include
any service, maintenance, repair, or disposal of an appliance that
would release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere unless
the refrigerant was 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.''
7. Reclaim
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend the definition of ``reclaim'' to
reflect the update of the refrigerant standards at Appendix A from
standards based on ARI Standard 700-1993 to standards based on ARI
Standard 700-1995. In addition, EPA proposed to amend 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 amended the definition of
``reclaim'' in the related Industrial Recycling Guide (IRG)-2 final
rule (68 FR 43786), by adopting the 1995 version of the ARI Standard
700. Today's action makes no further amendment to the definition of
``reclaim.''
8. Refrigerant
In the NPRM, EPA proposed 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:
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; or water in
any application. As discussed above, EPA proposed to interpret
``appliance'' to exclude secondary loops that move heat from warmer to
cooler areas using a fluid that does not change state. EPA also
requested comment on the Agency's proposal to add a restriction to the
definition of ``refrigerant'' to the same effect, ensuring consistency
between the interpretation of ``appliance'' and the definition of
``refrigerant.''
Several commenters stated that the proposed definition of
refrigerant was too broad. Commenters stated that the definition should
not encompass substances that are not actually used as refrigerants,
such as air, water or brine used in secondary loops. One commenter
suggested that the Agency revise the definition of refrigerant to
clarify that the recycling rule does not apply to systems that provide
heat. The commenter expressed concern that the definition of
refrigerant contained the phrase ``for heat transfer purposes,'' and
stated that although heat transfer can cool a system, it can also warm
a system and provide heating, and in these cases the substance is not
being used as a refrigerant. The commenter noted that in the CAA,
Congress always used words related to cooling when referring to
refrigeration and never intended to regulate heating. Similarly, a
number of commenters supported defining refrigerant in terms of phase
change and to exclude secondary loops that do not involve change of
state in order to ensure that substances that are not actually used as
refrigerants are not encompassed in the definition.
With today's rule EPA is defining ``refrigerant'' as follows:
``Refrigerant means, for purposes of this Subpart, any substance
consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting
substance that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a
cooling effect, or any substance used as a substitute for such a class
I or class II substance by any user in a given end-use, except for the
following substitutes in the following end-uses: (1) Ammonia in
commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in absorption units;
(2) Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
hydrocarbons); (3) Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration
(processing of chlorine and chlorine compounds); (4) Carbon dioxide in
any application; (5) Nitrogen in any application; or (6) Water in any
application.'' This definition also excludes air from the definition of
refrigerant.
EPA has defined ``refrigerant'' to simplify the text of the
regulations. The definition permits 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. EPA
believes that this definition appropriately defines ``refrigerant'' for
purposes of section 608, and has revised the proposed definition of
``refrigerant'' by adding the phrase ``that provide a cooling effect''
to make certain that the definition does not capture substances that
provide for heat transfer but do not provide a cooling effect. This
definition removes any ambiguity for substances that may provide a
cooling effect but are not considered refrigerants under section 608.
The Agency does not intend the definition to either 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
class I and class II fluids in traditional vapor-compression systems,
such as refrigerators, air-conditioners, and heat pumps, as well as the
class I and class II fluids in heat transfer systems that lack
compressors, such as electrical transformers. At the same time, the
Agency has not considered substances whose use as refrigerants have
been denied under SNAP (such as hydrocarbons outside of industrial
[[Page 11958]]
process refrigeration), to fall under the definition of
``refrigerant.'' EPA has adopted this interpretation based on both
technical and common definitions of ``refrigerant.'' The Agency
believes that the definition addresses the ODSs and substitutes covered
by the technical and common definitions of refrigerant. Therefore, the
Agency has not added the phrase ``including a change of state'' to the
definition of refrigerant.
9. Substitute
In the NPRM, EPA proposed 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 ODS in a given end-use.
Several commenters objected to classifying a substance as a substitute
refrigerant, when in a specific refrigeration system the substance has
not replaced any class I or class II ODS refrigerant as a second
generation substitute.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ By second generation substitute the Agency means a substance
being used as a replacement refrigerant for a substitute
refrigerant, where the substitute refrigerant was an original SNAP-
approved replacement for a class I or II refrigerant (i.e., a first
generation substitute).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Agency were to take this approach, a substitute would be
regulated only if the equipment owner/operator previously used the
substance as a direct replacement for a class I or class II substance
(for example, during the retrofit of an appliance from HCFC to an HFC
blend), and an identical substitute refrigerant used by a different
entity would not be regulated if it were a replacement for a non-ODS
refrigerant (regardless of the generation of the substitute). EPA
believes that a lack of regulatory conformity among substitute
refrigerants, regardless of generation class, would not reduce
emissions of substitute refrigerants, would lead to confusion within
the regulated community, and would make enforcement difficult. For the
purposes of section 608, EPA considers a refrigerant a substitute in a
certain end-use, if the substance has SNAP approval as a substitute for
CFC or HCFC refrigerants in that end-use by any user. This holds even
if the SNAP-approved substitute is being used in a new appliance, and
previously has never been used by the owner/operator of the appliance.
Under section 608, EPA considers a SNAP-approved refrigerant a
``substitute'' for CFC or HCFC refrigerants under section 608 if any of
the following is 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 (i.e., it was a second-or later-generation
substitute), or (3) the substitute refrigerant has always been used in
a particular instance, but other users in that end-use have 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 CFC or HCFC refrigerants
in a given instance. First, it is reasonable to interpret
``substitute'' to include first, second-or later generation substitutes
for CFCs and HCFCs. One of the goals of this rulemaking 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. Thus, even if
a substance is not being used as a direct or first generation
substitute for CFC or HCFC refrigerants 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 substances.
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, even if the refrigerant has a history
of use by a particular user or in a particular end-use. EPA's authority
to promulgate enforceable regulations would be impeded if the Agency
had to attempt to trace the individual histories of specific appliances
in implementing and enforcing the section 608 regulations.
Several commenters expressed concern that a refrigerant could
become a substitute without notice or rulemaking. One scenario was
described as a first-generation refrigerant used in an industrial
process by one user becoming a regulated substitute by its use as a
replacement for a class I or class II refrigerant by another unrelated
user.
This scenario is covered by the third leak repair scenario
discussed in the NPRM (63 FR 32070) by which EPA would consider a
refrigerant a ``substitute'' for CFCs or HCFCs under section 608. A
legally used first-generation refrigerant used as a substitute by any
end-user is already authorized under section 612 of the Act.
Appropriate notice via rulemaking under SNAP would have taken place
prior to the substitute's use in the specific end-use sector. On March
18, 1994, EPA published a final rule (59 FR 13044), that described the
process for administering SNAP and issued EPA's first acceptability
lists for substitutes in the major industrial use sectors, including
refrigeration and air-conditioning. Anyone who produces a substitute
must notify the Agency at least 90 days before introducing it into
interstate commerce for use as an alternative. This requirement applies
to chemical manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators or
end-users when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into
commerce. Therefore, in the commenter's scenario proper notice would
have been granted for any approved substitute. Formulators or end-users
concerned about the status of their refrigerant need to verify the
refrigerant's acceptability under SNAP. Such verification can be made
by checking the EPA Web page (www.epa.gov/ozone) or contacting the
Ozone Hotline (800-296-1996) for a complete listing of SNAP
determinations.
One commenter believed that the proposed rule contradicts the
Agency's final rule addressing the reporting requirements for
substitutes under the SNAP (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13044). In that rule,
the Agency determined that second-generation replacements, if they are
non-ozone depleting and are replacing non-ozone-depleting first-
generation alternatives, are exempt from reporting requirements under
section 612 of the Act.
The SNAP final rule does not grant an exemption from the venting
prohibition established under 608(c) of the Act, and section 612 does
not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with
the venting prohibition. Section 612 of the Act authorizes EPA to
develop a program (i.e., SNAP) for evaluating alternatives to ODSs,
whereas section 608 of the Act authorizes EPA to write regulations
reducing emissions of class I and class II refrigerants and their
substitutes to the lowest achievable level during the service,
maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances.
EPA is defining ``substitute'' as any chemical or product, whether
existing or new, that is used by any person as an EPA-approved
replacement for a class I or II ozone-depleting substance in a given
refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use. As discussed 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
[[Page 11959]]
used to replace class I or class II substances in other instances of
that end-use. This definition of substitute differs from the proposed
definition (63 FR 32059) in that the word ``compound'' has been
replaced with ``substance'' in order to bring the definition of
substitute into conformity with the original intent of the proposed
rule.
10. Technician
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to amend 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. One
commenter opposed expanding the definition of technician to include
those disposing of appliances, unless the Agency properly distinguishes
between recycling and disposal.
EPA did not intend for the proposed definition of technician to
alter the exclusion of those disposing of MVACs or small appliances
from the definition of technician. However, EPA believes that persons
disposing of appliances that have not been evacuated, in accordance
with Sec. 82.156, pose a reasonable risk of releasing refrigerant. The
Agency has determined (May 14, 1993, 58 FR 28660) that for purposes of
subpart F, disposal means the process leading to and including: (1) The
discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded appliance into
or on any land or water; (2) the disassembly of any appliance for
discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of its discarded component parts
into or on any land or water; or (3) the disassembly of any appliance
for reuse of its component parts. Therefore, any person who performs
any of these activities (whether they consider themselves a recycler,
scrap dealer, or disposer, etc.) is not exempt from the required
practices codified at Sec. 82.156.
Two commenters asked that the Agency clarify its definition of
technician with respect to ``do-it-yourselfers'' (DIYers), and clarify
that process operators in industrial settings are not considered
technicians.
EPA's amended definition of ``technician'' includes any person
(including DIYers or process operators) who performs maintenance,
service, or repair, that could be reasonably expected to release
refrigerants from appliances 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 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, but are not limited to, activities such
as: Pressure checks by attaching and detaching gauges to and from the
appliance, attaching or detaching hoses, or adding refrigerant to and
removing refrigerant from the appliance. Activities such as painting
the appliance, rewiring 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 in accordance with
Sec. 82.156 could not be reasonably expected to release refrigerants
from the appliance unless the maintenance, service, or repair consists
of adding refrigerant to the appliance. Technician includes but is not
limited to installers, contractor employees, in-house service
personnel, and in some cases owners and/or operators.
11. Very High-Pressure Appliance
EPA did not receive any negative comments concerning the proposed
definition of ``very high-pressure appliance'' to refer to saturation
pressures at 104 [deg]F rather than boiling points.
Since 104 [deg]F is above the critical temperatures \9\ of many
very high-pressure refrigerants (meaning that there is no ``saturation
pressure'' in the usual sense for those refrigerants at that
temperature), EPA is also adding the phrase ``or with a critical
temperature below 104 degrees Fahrenheit'' to the definition. The final
definition reads as follows: ``Very high-pressure appliance means an
appliance that uses a refrigerant with a critical temperature below 104
[deg]F or with a liquid phase saturation pressure above 355 psia at 104
[deg]F. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using
R-13 and R-503.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Critical temperature is the temperature above which a gas
cannot be liquefied by an increase of pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Required Practices
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to require persons servicing or disposing
of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contain HFC or PFC
refrigerants to observe certain service practices that minimize
emissions of these refrigerants that 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. In order
to implement section 608(c)(2) more effectively, EPA proposed not only
to define ``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely
dispose,'' 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 disposing of an appliance, as
defined in Sec. 82.152.
EPA is not finalizing the proposed required practices for the
handling and use of pure HFC and PFC refrigerant substitutes. However,
since EPA is not determining that the release of HFC or PFC
refrigerants does not pose a threat to the environment, it remains
illegal to knowingly vent these substitutes during the maintenance,
service, repair, or disposal of appliances. This finding means that
efforts to prevent venting such as the proper use of refrigerant
recovery equipment are necessary when maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of appliances.
1. Evacuation of Appliances
EPA is not finalizing the proposed evacuation requirements for HFC
and PFC appliances that are opened for maintenance, service, repair, or
disposal to established levels that are the same as those for CFCs and
HCFCs with similar saturation pressures. This action is consistent with
EPA's decision to not regulate, under section 608, refrigerants that do
not contain a class I or class II ODS. Similarly, EPA is not finalizing
the option that would have permitted technicians to recover HFC or PFC
refrigerants using equipment certified for use with multiple CFC or
HCFC refrigerants of similar saturation pressures. EPA defers
discussion of the certification of refrigerant recovery equipment to a
future rulemaking.
In today's action, EPA is clarifying that evacuation requirements
are applicable to substitute refrigerants that consist, in whole or in
part, of a class I or class II ODS. Additionally, evacuation
requirements are not
[[Page 11960]]
applicable to substitutes that have been exempted by today's action
namely, ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in
absorption units; hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration;
chlorine in industrial process refrigeration; carbon dioxide in any
application; nitrogen in any application; water in any application; or
air in any application.
EPA is classifying refrigerants according to their saturation
pressures at 104 [deg]F, 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/HCFC blends do not have precise boiling points. Instead, these
refrigerants exhibit ``glide,'' (i.e., 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, but that is not consistently the case
with many substitute refrigerants. The new approach avoids these
difficulties, because it links evacuation requirements directly to the
refrigerant saturation pressure at a temperature similar to that at
which recovery typically takes place.
a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances Other Than Small Appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances
EPA is not finalizing the proposed extension of the evacuation
requirements for appliances (other than small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances) containing HFC or PFC refrigerants. However, EPA
is amending the system for classifying appliances and clarifying how
the evacuation requirements apply to appliances containing substitute
refrigerants that consist, in whole or in part, of a class I or class
II ODS.
Table I lists the required levels of evacuation for air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment, other than small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. EPA is clarifying that the required
evacuation levels apply to refrigerant substitutes that have a class I
or class II ODS component (for example, HFC refrigerant blends that
contain an HCFC). EPA has amended the table to reflect definition
changes for medium-pressure and high-pressure appliances, formerly
referred to as high-pressure and higher-pressure appliances
respectively. The proposed changes concerning evacuation requirements
for appliances containing substitutes with ODS components are captured
and finalized by inclusion of the new definitions for medium-, high-,
and very high-pressure appliances in Table 1, which were previously
classified according to their boiling points at atmospheric pressure.
Table 1.--Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances
[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard
atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)
-------------------------------------------
Using recovery or Using recovery or
Type of appliance recycling equipment recycling equipment
manufactured or manufactured or
imported before imported on or after
November 15, 1993 November 15, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance........................................ 0 0
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, 0 0
normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant............
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, 4 10
normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant..............
Medium-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, 4 10
normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant............
Medium-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such appliance, 4 15
normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant..............
Low-pressure appliance.............................................. 25 25 mm Hg absolute
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evacuation requirements in Table 1 are very similar to those
that have been in place for appliances containing single component CFC
and HCFC refrigerants. The evacuation requirements for CFC and HCFC
appliances were based largely, but not entirely, on their saturation
pressures. Appliances were classified according to their refrigerant's
boiling point at atmospheric pressure, which is generally inversely
related to its saturation pressures at higher temperatures.
Successively deeper vacuums have been required for lower pressure
appliances.
EPA has 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.\10\ A comparison between R-
502, which has a saturation pressure of 245 psia at 104 [deg]F, and R-
11, which has a saturation pressure of 25.3 psia at 104 [deg]F, makes
this clear. At an evacuation level of 10 inches of mercury vacuum and
an ambient temperature of 104[deg]F, 96 percent of R-502 refrigerant
vapor has been recovered, but only 61 percent of R-11 refrigerant vapor
has been recovered. For R-502, the compression ratio necessary to
achieve this vacuum is about 25 to 1, but for R-11 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 R-502, but that it is easy to
achieve a lower evacuation level for R-11. Thus, a refrigerant's
saturation pressure directly
[[Page 11961]]
affects both the technical feasibility and the environmental impact of
a given evacuation level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The saturation pressure of a refrigerant is the same as its
vapor pressure, that is, the characteristic pressure of the vapor in
a vapor/liquid mixture of that refrigerant at equilibrium at a given
temperature. A compression ratio is the ratio of the pressures of a
gas on the discharge and suction sides of the compressor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Low-Pressure Appliance Category
EPA is finalizing the proposal to define low-pressure appliances as
those using refrigerants with a liquid phase saturation pressure below
45 psia at 104 [deg]F. Evacuation requirements for the low-pressure
category apply to these appliances. This category includes but is not
limited to appliances using R-113, R-123, and R-11.
ii. Medium-Pressure and High-Pressure (Proposed as High- and Higher-
Pressure) Appliance Categories
In the NPRM, EPA sought comment on the proposal to use a saturation
pressure of 45 psia as the lower-bound saturation pressure for high-
pressure appliances. EPA also sought comment on the proposal to
eliminate the special category for R-22 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 [deg]C and saturation
pressures between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104 [deg]F). EPA proposed to
designate this as the ``higher-pressure appliances.'' EPA also sought
comment on the establishment of the ``higher-pressure appliance''
saturation pressure category. EPA specifically sought comment on the
proposed use of 305 psia as the upper bound saturation pressure for
this new category, and whether R-502 was appropriate for this category.
EPA received supportive comments on the establishment of the upper
bound saturation pressure for the ``high-pressure'' saturation pressure
category. The pressures to which R-22 appliances must be evacuated (and
therefore to which ``high-pressure'' appliances would have to be
evacuated) are 0 inches of vacuum (atmospheric pressure) for appliances
containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant, and 10 inches of vacuum
(9.8 psia) for appliances containing more than 200 pounds of
refrigerant.
EPA received one comment supporting the inclusion of R-502 (which
has a relatively low discharge temperature) in the higher pressure
category. The commenter stated that the real-world compression ratio
would be lower than the theoretical 30:1 ratio, because the actual
condensing conditions during recovery should typically be lower than
104 [deg]F.
EPA has attempted to select bracketing saturation pressures for
appliance categories so as to maintain as much consistency as possible
with the previous categories based on boiling points. For instance,
since the current definition of ``medium-pressure appliances''
(previously referred to as high-pressure appliances) includes R-114
appliances at the low-pressure end, and the saturation pressure of R-
114 at 104 [deg]F is slightly above 45 psia, EPA is implementing a
saturation pressure of 45 psia as the lower-bound saturation pressure
for medium-pressure appliances.
EPA has altered the classification scheme by eliminating the
special category for R-22 and replacing it with a new saturation
pressure category that includes the ``high-pressure'' refrigerants with
saturation pressures between 170 psia and 355 psia at 104 [deg]F). EPA
designates this as the ``high-pressure'' refrigerants category. This
change enables EPA to tailor requirements to refrigerants with
relatively high saturation pressures, while retaining the previous
evacuation requirements for appliances using R-22 refrigerant, as
stated in Table 1. The new category includes but is not limited to
appliances using R-401A, R-409A, R-401B, R-411A, R-22, R-411B, R-502,
R-402B, R-408A, R-402A. 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 R-13 and R-503 (whose
critical temperatures fall below 104 [deg]F).
iii. Very High-Pressure Appliance Category
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to modify the definition of very high-
pressure appliances to add the phrase ``or whose critical temperatures
fall below 104 [deg]F. EPA also sought comment on the proposal to
classify refrigerants based upon saturation pressures at 104 [deg]F
rather than boiling points
As proposed, EPA has modified the definition of very high-pressure
appliances to add the phrase ``or whose critical temperatures fall
below 104 [deg]F.'' This modification has been made to address the
classification of appliances using very high-pressure refrigerants such
as R-13, R-23, and R-503. These refrigerants do not have a saturation
pressure in the traditional sense at 104 [deg]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.
b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances
EPA is not finalizing the proposal to establish the same evacuation
requirements for servicing small appliances charged with HFC and PFC
refrigerants as it has for small appliances charged with CFC and HCFC
refrigerants. However, EPA is finalizing these evacuation requirements
for SNAP-approved substitute refrigerants that contain a class I or
class II ODS.
Technicians opening small appliances for service, maintenance, or
repair are required to use equipment certified either under Appendices
B or B1, or under Appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices for
Use with Small Appliances, to recover the refrigerant, and must pull a
four-inch vacuum on the small appliance being evacuated.
Equipment certified under Appendix C must capture 90 percent of the
refrigerant in the appliance if the compressor is operating, and 80
percent of the refrigerant if the compressor is not operating. Because
the percentage of refrigerant mass recovered is very difficult to
measure on any given job, technicians must adhere to the servicing
procedure certified for that recovery system, under Appendix C, to
ensure that they achieve the required recovery efficiencies.
c. Evacuation Levels for Disposal of MVACs, MVAC-like Appliances, and
Small Appliances
EPA had proposed to establish the same evacuation requirements for
disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that are
charged with HFC refrigerants as it has for these types of appliances
charged with CFC and HCFC refrigerants.
EPA received comments generally supporting the evacuation
requirements for disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances, but one commenter argued that the responsibility for
removing remaining refrigerants from appliances destined for disposal
or for recycling should be placed on the person disposing of the
appliance or delivering the appliance for recycling as opposed to the
person recycling the obsolete appliance.
Sections 608(b)(1) and 608(c)(2) require that class I and class II
refrigerants or their substitute refrigerants, that are contained in
bulk in appliances be removed from the appliance prior to its disposal
or delivery for recycling. The Agency does not interpret this statutory
language to mean that scrap metal recyclers who
[[Page 11962]]
choose to dispose of appliances or choose to accept appliances (or
their parts) with refrigerant charges intact are exempt from the
Required Practices codified at Sec. 82.156 (including the acquisition
of recovery equipment that meets the standards set forth in Sec.
82.158). Therefore, persons who take the final step in the disposal
process of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances 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.
EPA is not establishing the same evacuation requirements for
disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that are
charged with HFC refrigerants as it has for these types of appliances
charged with CFC or HCFC refrigerants. However, EPA is finalizing these
evacuation requirements for such appliances that use a substitute
refrigerant consisting, in part, of a class I or class II substance
(for example, an HFC refrigerant blend that contains an HCFC). Such
MVACs and MVAC-like appliances must be evacuated to 102 mm
(approximately four inches) of mercury vacuum, and 80 or 90 percent of
the refrigerant in small appliances must be recovered (depending on
whether or not the compressor is operating) or the small appliance must
be evacuated to four inches of mercury vacuum. Although EPA is not
finalizing the proposed evacuation requirements, it remains illegal to
knowingly vent HFC refrigerants during the service, maintenance,
repair, or disposal of small, MVAC, and MVAC-like appliances.
d. Request for Comment on Establishing Special Evacuation Requirements
for Heat Transfer Appliances
As noted in the NPRM, EPA received comments from a manufacturer of
PFCs stating 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 received no comments in response to its request for comment on
the need for special evacuation requirements for heat transfer
appliances, and EPA is not establishing evacuation requirements for any
appliance using pure PFCs.
e. Clarifications of Evacuation Requirements
In the NPRM, EPA proposed two clarifications to the evacuation
requirements based on a previous request to the Agency. Specifically,
the first request for clarification concerned 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 concerned 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 minor changes to the regulatory
language to respond to the first and second requests, EPA proposed to
add language to paragraph Sec. 82.156(a) to clarify that, except in
the case of non-major repairs to low-pressure appliances, liquid
refrigerant must be removed from appliances (or from the isolated parts
to be serviced) before they are opened to the atmosphere.
EPA received one comment suggesting the use of the term ``storage
vessel'' in situations where the system receiver is used as a storage
vessel and can be isolated from the rest of the system.
The required practices at Sec. 82.156 require that all persons
opening appliances except for MVACs and MVAC-like appliances for
maintenance, service, or repair evacuate the refrigerant, including all
the liquid refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part to be
serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver (e.g.,
the remaining portions of the appliance, or a specific vessel within
the appliance) or a recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to
Sec. 82.158. If the system receiver also serves as a storage vessel,
then the required practice is satisfied.
As proposed, EPA is today clarifying that for purposes of complying
with Sec. 82.156(a), EPA interprets the term ``system receiver'' to
include a part of the appliance that is not a separate tank, if that
portion of the appliance can be isolated from the portion of the
appliance that is opened for repairs. From an environmental
perspective, EPA believes that the critical consideration is whether
the part of the appliance to be opened to the atmosphere for repair has
had the refrigerant removed and isolated from it, not the configuration
of the remaining appliance parts within which the refrigerant is
isolated. To clarify this point, EPA is amending paragraph Sec.
82.156(a) by adding the following examples after the term ``system
receiver'': ``(e.g., the remaining portions of the appliance, or a
specific vessel within the appliance).''
In addition to clarifying its interpretation of ``system
receiver,'' as proposed, EPA is adding language to Sec. 82.156(a) to
ensure that the regulations clearly preclude a possible
misinterpretation of these requirements. EPA has always interpreted
Sec. 82.156(a) to require that, except in the case of non-major
repairs to low-pressure appliances, liquid refrigerant must be removed
from appliances (or from the isolated parts to be serviced) before they
are opened to the atmosphere. Currently, Sec. 82.156(a) reads (in
part) ``all persons disposing of appliances * * * must evacuate the
refrigerant in the entire unit to a recovery/recycling machine
certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158. All persons opening appliances * *
* must evacuate the refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part
to be serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver or
a recovery or recycling equipment certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158.''
Paragraphs 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
paragraphs 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, thus reducing the vapor pressure, the
liquid will boil until the equilibrium between the vapor and liquid
states is restored, returning the vapor pressure to the saturation
pressure of the refrigerant. However, heat must flow into the system
from the environment for this to occur, and such heat flow takes time.
Thus, if an individual quickly recovers vapor from an appliance,
permitting no time for the liquid to boil to return the vapor pressure
to the equilibrium value, the pressure specified in Sec. 82.156(a) may
be attained, albeit only temporarily. If the individual opens the
appliance at this point, a great deal of refrigerant will be released
to the environment. This is because the density of liquid refrigerant
is typically one to two orders of magnitude greater than that of vapor
refrigerant, meaning that a large mass of refrigerant may be
concentrated in a relatively small volume of liquid, and the liquid
will continue to boil off into the atmosphere as long as the appliance
is opened.
[[Page 11963]]
EPA believes that the use of the phrase ``evacuate the
refrigerant'' in Sec. 82.156(a), as well as the language in Sec.
82.154(a)(the prohibition on venting), already clearly indicates 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 would not be considered a de minimis
release.
One commenter stated that it may not be possible to remove all
liquid refrigerant as a part of the required evacuation prior to
opening a refrigeration system. The commenter asserted that due to the
complexity and uniqueness of some large refrigeration systems, it may
be impossible to determine if all liquid refrigerant has been removed
from the entire system prior to opening. The commenter added that
determination may become even more difficult for substitute
refrigerants that remain in the liquid phase at or near ambient
temperature and pressure.
The Agency continues to believe that these clarifications in Sec.
82.156(a) are appropriate as proposed. The intent of the wording change
to the required practices is to make certain that refrigerant will be
evacuated to a recovery device prior to opening an appliance. In order
to eliminate any possible ambiguity on this point, the Agency is adding
the phrase, ``including all the liquid refrigerant,'' after the phrase,
``the refrigerant,'' in both places where it occurs in Sec. 82.156(a).
To ensure that the modified language does not implicitly override Sec.
82.156(a)(2)(i)(B), which provides that recovery of liquid is not
required in cases of non-major repairs to low-pressure appliances, EPA
is also adding the parenthetical phrase ``(except as provided at Sec.
82.156(a)(2)(i)(B))'' to the second occurrence of ``including all
liquid refrigerant.''
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 service, maintenance, or repair without further
evacuation, so long as liquid refrigerant is not present in the
isolated part. Again, the purpose of the requirement to evacuate under
Sec. 82.156(a) is to minimize refrigerant emissions from the part. If
the required level of evacuation has been met, and no liquid is present
in the isolated part, only de minimis quantities of refrigerant will be
released when the part is opened to the atmosphere. Therefore, this
situation meets the requirements to evacuate under Sec. 82.156(a).
The third point of clarification concerns verification of
evacuation by certified technicians. EPA received a comment requesting
clarification concerning verification of evacuation requirements by
certified technicians. A commenter stated that the reference to
``technicians'' should be singular not plural. EPA certainly believes
that verification by a single technician is sufficient. Accordingly,
section 82.156(a) is modified to state that a certified technician must
verify that the applicable level of evacuation has been reached in the
appliance or the part before it is opened.
2. Extension of the Refrigerant Standard to Substitute Refrigerants
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to establish refrigerant standards for
new and used HFC and PFC refrigerants that were very similar to those
for CFCs and HCFCs. In addition, the Agency proposed to update its
requirements for all refrigerants to reflect the ARI Standard 700-1995,
Specifications for Fluorocarbon and Other Refrigerants, which includes
standards for a number of refrigerants that were not addressed by the
previously codified standard, ARI Standard 700-1993. EPA also requested
comment on adoption of a generic standard for those refrigerants that
are not covered by ARI Standard 700-1995.
In a previous rulemaking (July 24, 2003, 68 FR 43786), commonly
referred to as the IRG-2, EPA adopted, with modification, the ARI
Standard 700-1995 along with the standard's analytical protocol (i.e.,
Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995) into Appendix A of Sec. 82,
subpart F. While the IRG-2 rulemaking adopted the ARI Standard 700-
1995, it included a modification in that the rule did not adopt
standards for refrigerants that were not included in the originally
adopted ARI Standard 700-1993, namely HFC refrigerants and blends
thereof.
a. Updates to the Refrigerant Standard
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to adopt ARI 700-1995, that includes
standards for a number of refrigerants that were not addressed by the
previously codified standard, ARI 700-1993. These refrigerants include
R-404A, R-405A, R-406A, R-407A, B, and C, R-408A, R-409A, R-410A and B,
R-411A and B, R-412A, R-507, R-508 and R-509. The proposed changes to
the standard included: (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 wide range of equipment, techniques, and
calculations used in the methods for determining the composition of
refrigerant blends.
The NPRM also proposed changes to the referenced protocol in
Section 5.1 Referee Test (63 FR 32095), which specifically references
Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-95-Analytical Procedures for ARI
Standard 700-95. In addition, the ARI Standard 700's analytical
protocol was originally included into regulation by reference into
Appendix A of Sec. 82, subpart F (based on ARI Standard 700-1993), as
Section 5. Sampling, Summary of Test Methods and Maximum Permissible
Contaminant Levels (May 14, 1993; 58 FR 28660). The protocol
established definitive test procedures for determining the quality of
new, reclaimed and/or repackaged refrigerants for use in new and
existing refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Proposed changes
to Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-95 included:
The addition of test methods for determining the
composition of the zeotropic refrigerant blend families R-404, R-407,
R-408, R-409, and R-410, and of the azeotropic refrigerant blends R-507
and R-508--These additions enable laboratories to verify that the
blends contain the appropriate percentages of their component
materials.
The addition of a gravimetric test as an
alternate method for determining high-boiling residues. This method is
considered to be more accurate than the previously adopted volumetric
method. This addition permits 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
were 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.
EPA received several comments concerning the requirements for
substitute HFC and PFC refrigerants. However, EPA is not finalizing
refrigerant standards for HFC or PFC refrigerants that do not contain
an ODS. Refrigerants that were previously adopted into Appendix A,
based on ARI
[[Page 11964]]
Standard 700-1993 that do not consist in part or whole of a listed
class I or class II ozone-depleting chemicals will not be included in
the new appendix, namely R-23; R-32; R-125; R-134a; and R-143a.
Today's action includes substitute refrigerants consisting of a
class I or class II ODS into Appendix A (based on the ARI Standard 700-
1995), that were omitted from the IRG-2 rulemaking (July 24, 2003, 68
FR 43786) because they were either pure HFC refrigerants or blends of
HFC refrigerants. While ARI Standard 700-1995 includes standards for a
number of refrigerants that were not addressed by the previously
codified standard, ARI Standard 700-1993, EPA is only adopting
refrigerant standards for those substitute refrigerants listed in ARI
Standard 700-1995 that consist in part or whole of an ODS, namely R-11;
R-12; R-13; R-22; R-113; R-114; R-123; R-124; R-401A and B; R-402A and
B; R-405A; R-406A; R-408A; R-409A; R-411A and B; R-412A; R-500; R-502;
R-503; and R-509.
b. Generic Specification Standards for Refrigerants
Despite EPA's recent adoption of the ARI Standard 700-1995, the
Agency's refrigerant standards are likely to be rendered incomplete by
the rapid development and introduction of new refrigerants into the
market. Although EPA will consider specification requirements along
with recycling requirements for each new refrigerant as it undergoes
SNAP review, there is likely to be a delay between the introduction of
new refrigerants and SNAP approval of new refrigerants. EPA feels that
it is premature to adopt specific specification standards for
refrigerants prior to their acceptance for specific end-uses under
SNAP. To address this issue, EPA proposed to establish a generic
refrigerant standard for refrigerant substitutes for which standards
have not yet been codified into Appendix A of 40 CFR 82, subpart F.
EPA received comment that the proposed generic specifications
failed to include a specification for either organic impurities or for
blend balance. EPA notes that specifications for organic impurities are
included in the ``Other Impurities Including Refrigerant'' column and
are limited to 0.50% by weight. EPA is establishing that the allowable
blend composition of reclaimed refrigerant must be maintained to 2.0% for blend components greater than or equal to 25%;
1.0% for blend components less than 25% but
greater than or equal to 10%; 0.50% for blend
components less than 10%. This means that for refrigerant blends that
must meet the generic specifications, each blend component must be
maintained at the aforementioned levels in order to be considered
reclaimed. For example, assume that the hypothetical azeotropic blend
R-500x has a nominal composition of a, b, and c at 8%, 13%, and 79%
respectively, where any component consists of an ODS. The reclaimed
blend R-500x must have a composition that falls within the following
ranges: component a: 7.5% to 8.5%; component b: 12% to 14%; and
component c: 77% to 81%.
EPA received favorable comments and requests to include the generic
maximum contaminant level (based on ARI Standard 700-1995) for
refrigerants that have SNAP approval but have not been included into
ARI Standard 700. One commenter expressed concern that the ARI Standard
700 would act as regulation (instead of EPA adopting the standard as
Appendix A), and possibly allow the use of refrigerants that have not
been approved for specific end-uses under SNAP.
EPA is aware that instances may occur where refrigerants have been
listed as approved for specific end-uses under SNAP, but have not been
noted in the ARI Standard 700. Conversely, refrigerants may not have
SNAP approval for a particular refrigeration end-use, but may be
included in the ARI Standard 700. EPA has made efforts throughout this
action to clarify that Appendix A to 40 CFR 82 subpart F is the Federal
regulation that governs specifications for refrigerants. While this
appendix is based on ARI Standard 700, the ARI standard is not in
itself a regulation. This point is essential as EPA determines
specifications for SNAP-approved refrigerants, so that mandatory
specifications are not created for substitute refrigerants that have
either been found unacceptable for specific end-uses or have not been
addressed under SNAP.
Reclamation requires not only that refrigerant be processed to the
refrigerant specifications in Appendix A, but also that it be analyzed
to verify that it meets the specifications. Therefore, a ``generic
refrigerant specification'' should be matched by a generic analytical
protocol. General analytical procedures exist to determine the levels
of acidity, water, high-boiling residue, chloride, and noncondensable
gases in refrigerants; these procedures are detailed in parts 1 through
5 of Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995. 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 believes that it
is useful to have generic specifications 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.
Thus, the proposed generic specifications are applicable for all
SNAP-approved refrigerants, consisting in whole or in part of an ODS,
for which specification standards have not yet been included in
Appendix A. EPA is establishing and including as Appendix A1 the
following generic maximum contaminant levels for refrigerants and
specific composition standards for SNAP-approved refrigerant blends
awaiting inclusion into Appendix A:
Generic Maximum Contaminant Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant Reporting units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air and Other Non-condensables............ 1.5% by volume @ 25[deg]C (N/
A for refrigerants used in
low-pressure appliances*).
Water..................................... 10 ppm by weight; 20 ppm by
weight (for refrigerants
used in low-pressure
appliances*).
Other Impurities Including Refrigerant.... 0.50% by weight.
High boiling residue...................... 0.01% by volume.
Particulates/solids....................... visually clean to pass.
Acidity................................... 1.0 ppm by weight.
Chlorides (chloride level for pass/fail is No visible turbidity.
3 ppm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Low-pressure appliances means an appliance that uses a refrigerant
with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 [deg]F.
Blend Compositions
[Where applicable]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable
Nominal composition (by weight%) composition
(by weight%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component constitutes 25% or more....................... 2.0
[[Page 11965]]
Component constitutes less than 25% but greater than 10% 1.0
Component constitutes less than or equal to 10%......... 0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also received comment that the process for reclaiming blended
refrigerant back to original specifications at a reclamation facility
is a technically simple operation, which is hampered by the refrigerant
manufacturers' refusal to sell any amount of the individual blend
components to a reclaimer not affiliated with the manufacturer. The
manufacturers, however, argued that reclaimers who return fractionated
refrigerants to specification would be guilty of patent infringement.
The commenter believed that the patent in this case has already been
served on the fractionated refrigerant and returning this refrigerant
to specification constitutes repair of broken material. The commenter
requested that part of the final rule include a requirement for
refrigerant manufacturers to make components of refrigerant blends
available to reclamation facilities at a fair market price.
EPA declines to address these issues in this final rule. EPA did
not propose to require refrigerant manufacturers to make components of
refrigerant blends available to reclamation facilities. Therefore, EPA
will not now impose such a requirement in this final rule. Moreover,
EPA views this as, essentially, a commercial dispute that is not
appropriately addressed in the context of EPA's regulations.
c. Application of the Refrigerant Standard to Virgin and Used
Refrigerants
EPA believes that the vast majority of new refrigerant sold meets
the ARI Standard 700-1995, and that chemical manufacturers have led the
way in assuring that new refrigerants meet the specifications of the
Standard. However, the Agency understands that used or contaminated
refrigerant has been marketed and/or sold as ``new,'' which could
result in equipment failure and subsequent venting of ozone-depleting
refrigerants. In order to ensure that the Agency can prevent the sale
of contaminated refrigerant that is labeled as ``new,'' EPA is
clarifying that all refrigerants must meet the specifications of
Appendix A, based on the ARI Standard 700-1995, regardless of how they
are marketed. EPA received favorable comments on this requirement,
which cited the need to have all refrigerants meet the refrigerant
specifications regardless of origin.
Commenters stated that manufacturers of virgin refrigerants have
previously established operating procedures to meet the refrigerant
standard, and have consistently verified the results using the protocol
established under ARI Standard 700. Therefore, EPA believes that this
requirement will not place additional burden on the refrigerant
manufacturing industry, since the industry would have continued to
follow ARI Standard 700 in the absence of this regulatory
clarification.
d. Possession and Transfer of Used Refrigerant
The Agency received a comment from an EPA-certified refrigerant
reclaimer requesting clarification as to what entities, other than
reclaimers, can take possession of used product and what reporting is
required of them once they take possession.
EPA regulations prohibit the sale of any used refrigerant, with the
exceptions of refrigerant used and intended for use in MVAC or MVAC-
like appliances, unless it has been reclaimed by an EPA-certified
reclaimer (Sec. 82.154(g)). Therefore, it would be a violation of this
prohibition for any person (including wholesalers, service companies,
and brokers) to sell the material (i.e., used refrigerant) for use as a
refrigerant to a new owner.
Since used refrigerant that is sold to an EPA-certified reclaimer
does not equate to sale of used refrigerant to a new owner, such sale
is legal. Therefore, EPA finds that persons such as wholesalers,
service companies, and brokers are allowed to collect used refrigerant
for the purpose of selling bulk quantities to certified reclaimers.
This interpretation reduces emissions by granting flexibility to
appliance owners who cannot afford the burden of storing small
quantities of used refrigerant, while allowing other entities to
transfer ownership of the used refrigerant to certified reclaimers.
Without this flexibility, some appliance owners might have an incentive
to vent refrigerant instead of bearing the costs of storing used
refrigerant or shipping small quantities of refrigerant to reclaimers.
This transfer of ownership is not deemed a violation of Sec. 82.154(g)
since the material is not intended for use as a refrigerant, but as
used material for purposes of reclamation. Conversely, it would be a
violation of this section for any person to sell the material as a
refrigerant, unless it has first been reclaimed by an EPA-certified
reclaimer.
3. Leak Repair
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to lower the permissible leak rates for
some air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing more than
50 pounds of CFC or HCFC refrigerant, and to extend the leak repair
requirements (as they would be amended) to air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment containing more than 50 pounds of HFC or PFC
refrigerant. Specifically, EPA proposed to lower the permissible annual
leak rate for new commercial refrigeration equipment from 35 to 10
percent of the charge per year, the permissible annual leak rate for
older commercial refrigeration equipment from 35 to 15 percent per
year; the permissible annual leak rate for some industrial process
refrigeration equipment from 35 to 20 percent of the charge per year;
the permissible annual leak rate for other new appliances (e.g.,
comfort cooling chillers) from 15 to 5 percent of the charge per year;
and the permissible annual leak rate for other existing appliances
(e.g., comfort cooling chillers) from 15 to 10 percent of the charge
per year.
EPA has decided to defer action on the leak repair components of
the NPRM to a future rulemaking dedicated to finalizing the proposed
leak repair requirements.
4. Servicing MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances Containing Substitute
Refrigerants
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,
which are subject to regulations promulgated under section 609 of the
Act, but 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
[[Page 11966]]
published at subpart B. For instance, Sec. 82.156(a)(5) states that
persons who open MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, service, or
repair may do so only while ``properly using,'' as defined at Sec.
82.32(e), recycling or recovery equipment certified pursuant to Sec.
82.158(f) or (g) as applicable. The definition of ``properly using''
appears in the regulations published at subpart B, and the reference
therefore subjects MVAC-like appliances to the evacuation and
refrigerant standard requirements of subpart B. Similarly, the
equipment and technician certification provisions applicable to MVAC-
like appliances in subpart F (Sec. 82.158(f) and Sec. 82.161(a)(5))
refer to the equipment and technician certification provisions
applicable to MVACs in subpart B (Sec. 82.36(a) and Sec. 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,'' meaning that they are
financially or otherwise compensated for their services. 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.\11\ Second, persons who service MVACs
must have recovery and recycling equipment available at their place of
business, even if they never open the refrigeration circuit of the
MVACs. In contrast, persons who service MVAC-like appliances are
required to have 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 refrigerant recycling and recovery
equipment manufactured before the effective date of the section 608
equipment and intended for use with MVAC-like appliances must be able
to pull a 4-inch vacuum. Finally, persons servicing MVAC-like
appliances have the option of becoming certified as Type II technicians
under subpart F (i.e., section 608) instead of becoming certified as
MVAC technicians under subpart B (i.e., section 609). 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 for their work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Note that persons servicing MVACs are subject to the
section 608 venting prohibition regardless of whether they are
compensated for their work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 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/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 without reclamation, 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 recovery/
recycling equipment, HFC-134a recover-only equipment, service
procedures for HFC-134a containment, standards for recycled HFC-134a,
recovery/recycling 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.
These regulations apply both to MVACs containing all SNAP-approved
substitutes and to MVAC-like appliances containing class I and class II
substances. As 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 address refrigerant venting during the
maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of MVAC-like appliances. In
brief, the rationale for this approach is that (1) MVACs and MVAC-like
appliance are very similar, and the requirements for MVAC-like
appliances under the subpart F regulations have historically referred
back to the requirements for MVACs under subpart B, and (2) MVACs and
MVAC-like appliances are often serviced by the same group of people,
and therefore publishing the requirements for both MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances in the same place will minimize confusion within this group.
Under this approach, most of the provisions governing MVAC-like
appliances have been reproduced in the regulations at subpart B and
will be removed from the regulations at subpart F; an important
exception is the definition of MVAC-like appliance, which will remain
in the regulations at subpart F. Thus, the final subpart B rule covers
MVAC-like appliances as defined in the subpart F regulations, which at
the time of the final subpart B rule was promulgated, meant MVAC-like
appliances containing CFCs or HCFCs. However, the subpart B amendment
did not affect the four differences between the treatment of MVACs and
MVAC-like appliances identified above.
c. Amendments Concerning MVAC and MVAC-like Appliances Containing
Substitute Refrigerants
As proposed and discussed previously, EPA has changed the
definitions of ``appliance'' and ``opening'' in subpart F to include
substitute refrigerants. EPA is also establishing required practices
for ``MVAC-like appliance'' (which is based on the definition of
``appliance''). This effectively applies the major requirements of the
amended subpart B regulations to MVAC-like appliances containing
substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs that consist of a class I or class II
ODS. However today's final rule does not affect the section 609 service
requirements for MVACs using HFC-134a (R-134a). Today's final rule does
establish that the regulatory structure in place for class I and class
II ODSs used as refrigerants in MVACs will only apply to substitutes
consisting of a class I or class II ODS. EPA has also made 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
[[Page 11967]]
containing substitute refrigerants. In the case of MVAC-like
appliances, the similarities in design and servicing patterns between
MVACs and MVAC-like appliances make it appropriate to subject MVAC-like
appliances to the required practices and certification programs
established for MVACs in subpart B rather than to the required
practices and certification programs established for stationary
appliances in subpart F. As noted above, the argument for parallel
coverage of MVACs and MVAC-like appliances was discussed at length in
the May 14, 1993, rule (58 FR 28686).
d. Clarification of Applicability-Servicing of Buses Using HCFC-22
EPA has become aware of a growing misinterpretation of how the
Agency classifies buses using HCFC-22 refrigerant (R-22), and how
technicians servicing buses using R-22 should be certified. The
definition of MVAC-like appliance at Sec. 82.152 specifically states
that appliances using R-22 are not covered under the definition of
MVAC-like. Similarly, the definition of MVAC at Sec. 82.32
specifically states that it does not cover air-conditioning systems
found on passenger buses using HCFC-22 refrigerant.
Section 82.152 defines high-pressure appliance as an appliance that
uses a refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 170
psia and 355 psia at 104 [deg]F, including R-22. EPA has established
under Sec. 82.161(a)(2) that technicians who maintain, service, or
repair high-pressure appliances must be certified as a section 608 type
II technician. Hence taking the definition of high-pressure appliance
into consideration, EPA finds that technicians servicing buses using R-
22 must be certified according to section 608 not 609. EPA inspections
at transit facilities typically have found that technicians have
credentials that allow the servicing of buses using R-12, as well as
buses using R-22 (i.e., that are certified under section 609 and
section 608 type II, respectively). But, EPA has received an increasing
number of inquiries concerning this issue. Therefore, EPA is providing
clarification in this final rule to assist the regulated community.
E. Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment Certification
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to require that equipment used to service
appliances containing HFCs and PFCs be tested by an EPA-approved
laboratory to the same standards as apply to equipment used to service
appliances containing class I and class II refrigerants. This proposal
was based on the more recent ARI Standard 740-1998, which adopts more
substitute refrigerants into the standard than the 1995 version.
EPA has decided to address the proposed certification of
refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment intended for use with
substitute refrigerants in a future action.
F. Technician Certification
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to extend the certification requirements
for technicians who work with CFC and HCFC refrigerants to technicians
who work with HFCs and PFCs. EPA also proposed to ``grandfather''
technicians who have been certified to work with CFCs and HCFCs by not
requiring them to be retested in order to work with HFC or PFC
appliances.
Commenters generally supported EPA's decision to not require
additional training and testing in order to work with and purchase HFC
and PFC refrigerants, as opposed to any requirement to once again
certify credentialed technicians. EPA received numerous comments from
members of the MVAC service sector expressing the need for fairness and
consistency in applying rule provisions to all potentially
environmentally damaging refrigerants. Comments from air-conditioning
and refrigeration contractors voiced the opinion that the imposition of
less stringent recovery or certification requirements for HFC
refrigerants could undermine compliance with recycling requirements for
both HFC and ozone-depleting refrigerants by confusing technicians and
encouraging a ``cavalier'' attitude toward refrigerant recovery. The
majority of commenters believed 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
their substitutes.
Commenters contesting the certification requirement stated several
reasons to justify their opposition. They believe that economics and
the value of refrigerants promote recovery and recycling, not an EPA
mandate to certify technicians. They also contested the Agency's belief
that certification will reduce venting or cross-contamination by
providing technicians with information about effective and efficient
recycling. These commenters stated that the technician certification
requirement does not address the intent of persons, certified or not,
who are predetermined to knowingly vent refrigerant, because
technicians have routinely vented R-12 despite being certified, and
preferred the option of educating technicians at the point of purchase
via instructions and warnings instead of mandating further
certification requirements.
With today's action, EPA is not requiring certification of
technicians who work exclusively with HFC and PFC refrigerants that do
not consist of a class I or class II ODS. However the Agency is
clarifying that certification is required in order to maintain,
service, or repair appliances, as well as to dispose appliances (other
than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances) containing a
substitute consisting of a class I or class II ODS. As discussed below,
technician certification will also be required in order to purchase
substitute refrigerants that contain a class I or class II ODS.
EPA believes that this action is necessary to effectively implement
and enforce both section 608(c) and section 608(a)(2) of the Act. 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
these refrigerants. It is reasonable to interpret ``good faith attempts
to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' as requiring that only
certified technicians perform service, maintenance, repair, or disposal
that could release ozone-depleting refrigerants and/or ozone-depleting
substitute refrigerants. This interpretation is also consistent with
EPA's interpretation of the same statutory language as it applies to
ozone-depleting refrigerants.
It is the Agency's belief that persons who are not certified
technicians are far more likely to intentionally or inadvertently
release refrigerant contrary to the venting prohibition, and that
consistent application of technician certification requirements is
necessary to implement the section 608(a) directive to reduce releases
and maximize recapture and recycling of class I and II refrigerants.
Requiring certification of technicians who work with substitute
refrigerants that consist of a class I or class II ODS 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. In fact, due to 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.
[[Page 11968]]
Thus, they might fail to recover refrigerants properly or may not
recover them at all. Technician certification requirements for work
with substitute refrigerants consisting of a class I or class II ODS
will directly reduce emissions of substitutes containing an ODS and
protect against refrigerant mixture and cross contamination, which
otherwise would cause more substantial releases of class I and II
refrigerants for the following reasons.
First, technician certification ensures that technicians are
trained in refrigerant recovery requirements and techniques and are
knowledgeable of EPA refrigerant handling practices. Before EPA adopted
the technician certification requirements, technicians in many sectors
were not recovering refrigerants at all, and technicians who did
recover 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 needed training to
acquire that expertise. 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 would often not occur
at all or would be performed improperly. This would lead 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 28691-94), and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) performed for that rule (6-34 through 6-39).
While EPA understands that a person who is unconcerned about the
venting of refrigerant may illegally do so whether or not they are
certified, the Agency believes that requiring technicians to
demonstrate knowledge of standard practices and regulations via a
technician certification requirement is the most effective means of
reducing refrigerant emissions. There is a direct correlation between
information exchange to technicians and the technician certification
requirement. Agency approved technician certifying programs tend to
offer training programs, directly linked to the section 608 exam,
covering proper handling and recovery techniques. Information from the
EPA Ozone Hotline reflects the fact that technicians seeking
certification often request information about programs that also offer
combined course work and study materials. In addition, EPA mandates
that section 608 certifying programs test technicians' proficiency and
understanding of the environmental impacts of venting, refrigeration
regulations, refrigerant leak detection, recovery techniques, safety,
and safe disposal of refrigerants. Mandatory certification also
enhances EPA's ability to enforce today's rule by providing another
tool for use against intentional noncompliance (i.e., the Agency's
ability to revoke the technician's certification).
Secondly, in addition to possessing training in refrigerant
recovery, certified individuals are more likely than uncertified
individuals to have access to recovery equipment because they will have
a heightened awareness, as proven by their passing grade for the
certification exam, of the requirement to recover refrigerant prior to
opening an appliance. EPA requires that persons maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration
appliances certify to the appropriate EPA Regional Office that they
have acquired (built, bought, or leased) recovery/recycling equipment.
While EPA believes that the value of refrigerant independently
promotes recycling and reclamation, nonetheless, this incentive can be
and often is overridden by ignorance and/or defiance of regulations via
a lack of access or use of recycling/recovery equipment. The
requirement for technician certification will enhance the effect of the
economic incentive provided by the value of refrigerant by ensuring
that persons working with refrigerant have the information and
equipment necessary to reach that economic potential.
For the reasons cited above, EPA believes that it is necessary to
clarify and extend the technician certification requirement in order to
implement section 608(a), and that EPA has authority under this section
to promulgate a technician certification requirement. Therefore, EPA is
extending the certification requirements for technicians who work with
CFC and HCFC appliances to technicians who work with appliances
containing substitute refrigerants that consist whole or in part of a
class I or class II ODS.
EPA is not requiring previously certified technicians who have been
certified to work with CFC and HCFC appliances to undertake additional
training or testing in order to service substitutes containing an ODS.
This decision is based on EPA's understanding that techniques and
requirements for recycling substitute refrigerants are very similar to
those for CFCs and HCFCs. Differences, such as compatibility with
different lubricants, have been highlighted by the recycling/
reclamation equipment certification program, and are being reinforced
by recycling and recovery equipment manufacturers. EPA believes that
more recent information on proper handling of substitutes has been and
will continue to be disseminated to previously certified technicians,
refrigerant manufacturers and distributors, recovery equipment
manufacturers, industry associations, and the trade press. Moreover,
the requirements for handling substitutes adopted in this rule are in
most cases identical to the requirements for handling CFC and HCFC
refrigerants.
In addition to EPA's outreach efforts, the normal chain of
information dissemination within the refrigeration and air-conditioning
community should quickly alert certified technicians of EPA's adoption
of new specific standards for substitute refrigerants. Accordingly,
technicians that are already certified will be knowledgeable about the
requirements for recapture and recovery, the potential damages
associated with improper mixture of refrigerants and the existence of
comprehensive requirements for refrigerant handling. Thus, the benefits
of any new certification requirement affecting previously certified
technicians would probably be small and would likely be outweighed by
the burden of such certification.
New technicians entering the field (i.e., technicians certified
after the effective date of this final rule) will have to become
certified in order to maintain, service, or repair appliances using
CFC, HCFC, and substitute refrigerants consisting of a class I or class
II ODS. As part of its next update of the technician certification
question bank, EPA will include questions on handling such substitute
refrigerants and potential environmental damages associated with the
illegal release of substitute refrigerants.
G. Refrigerant Sales Restriction
1. Background
In accordance with the regulations promulgated under sections 608
and 609, only certified technicians may purchase CFC and HCFC
refrigerants. Effective November 14, 1994, the sales restriction covers
any class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant. Thus, the
restriction covers ozone-depleting refrigerants contained in bulk
containers (cans, cylinders, or drums) and pre-charged parts of split-
systems.\12\ The
[[Page 11969]]
restriction excludes refrigerant contained in appliances, such as
household refrigerators, window air conditioners, and packaged air
conditioners. In addition, the restriction does not apply to class I or
class II substances that are not used as refrigerants in appliances,
such as those used as solvents or sterilizing agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Effective January 27, 1995, the restriction on sale of pre-
charged split systems has been stayed while EPA reconsiders this
provision of the sales restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a previous rulemaking (July 24, 2003; 68 FR 43786), EPA amended
the refrigerant sales restriction by amending Sec. 82.154(m), and
further restricted the sale or distribution or the offer for sale or
distribution of class I and class II substances used as refrigerants
that are suitable for use in MVACs, to technicians certified by a
program approved under Sec. 82.40 and certified in accordance with
Sec. 82.34 (i.e., section 609 certified technicians). In accordance
with Sec. 82.34(b), this modification limits refrigerant purchases, by
such section 609 technicians, to R-12 and substitute refrigerants
containing a class I or class II ODS that is listed as acceptable for
use in MVACs, in accordance with all regulations promulgated under
section 612 of the Act. Furthermore, only technicians certified under
section 609 are allowed to purchase such ozone-depleting refrigerants
in containers containing less than 20 pounds of such refrigerant, in
accordance with Sec. 82.34(b).
Employers of certified technicians, or the employers' authorized
representatives are also allowed to purchase refrigerant without being
certified themselves. This provision of the sales restriction is
allowed only if the employer provides the wholesaler with evidence that
he or she employs at least one certified technician. The term
``employers'' includes, but is not limited to, appliance owners or
operators who have a contract with a certified technician or employ
service personnel to perform installation or service and manufacturers
of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
2. Extension of the Refrigerant Sales Restriction to Substitute
Refrigerants
EPA proposed to extend the refrigerant sales restriction to HFC and
PFC refrigerants in all size containers for use in all types of
appliances, including HFC refrigerants suitable for use in MVACs. This
effort was proposed to address the issue of venting of refrigerants
from MVACs and more specifically the venting of refrigerants resulting
from cross contamination as a result of retrofitting MVAC from R-12 to
R-134a. While R-134a is an HFC refrigerant that does not contribute to
stratospheric ozone depletion, it dominates the MVAC market for
original manufactured equipment and retrofitted R-12 motor vehicles.
EPA received comments both opposed and in favor of such a
restriction, specifically as it would apply to the sale of R-134a. EPA
received comments from the aftermarket automotive parts industry
stating that cross contamination is not a concern for MVACs using R-
134a, and thus a sales restriction would not have an effect on venting
reduction in the automobile sector. The commenters stated that the
Agency's assumption that DIYers are likely to damage their MVACs by
cross-contamination is invalid. The commenters in opposition to the
sales restriction also described any attempt to reduce cross
contamination via a sales restriction on R-134a as ``too late,'' since
the majority of R-12 vehicles have already been retrofitted.
During the comment period for this rule EPA received approximately
90 comments from automobile service representatives stating their
assertion that the unrestricted sale of R-134a contributes to the
problem of cross contamination of motor vehicle air-conditioning
refrigeration systems by untrained individuals. The commenters claimed
that DIYer retrofits of existing R-12 and R-134a systems are often
conducted improperly, leading to contamination of entire systems which
causes the repair industry to suffer from this contamination long after
the repair of the improper retrofit is complete. The commenters also
stated that the automotive service industry has invested in training
and equipment to prevent the venting of refrigerant and that those same
efforts should be undertaken by anyone who handles refrigerant in the
course of serving or repairing a motor vehicle air conditioner.
Commenters in opposition to the proposed sales restriction stated
that the sales restriction provides an unfair economic benefit to the
automotive refrigerant servicing industry by compelling all MVAC
service to be performed in automotive repair shops. They noted that all
persons who might be expected to release refrigerant in the course of
maintaining, servicing, or disposing of appliances should invest in
recovery and recycling equipment. Comments from MVAC service
technicians claimed that many shops repair damage to MVACs caused as a
result of improper retrofits where class I refrigerants have already
been vented to the atmosphere. Commenters pointed out that repair shops
invest in recovery and recycling machines that the general public
cannot access.
In today's action, EPA is not finalizing the proposed restriction
on the sale of HFC or PFC refrigerants to certified technicians. EPA
believes that an extended sales restriction enforces the technician
certification requirements of both the refrigerant recycling
regulations promulgated under section 608 and those promulgated under
section 609 and ultimately implement the requirements of sections
608(a) and 608(c)(2). As discussed below, EPA has determined that the
environmental benefit is not sufficient to mandate such a sales
restriction for HFC and PFC refrigerants. However, the Agency is
extending the sales restriction to those substitutes that contain a
class I or class II substance. This will restrict the sale of most HFC
refrigerant blends to certified technicians.
EPA has decided that a more expansive sales restriction on HFC and
PFC refrigerants would not have the desired impact of reducing class I
and class II refrigerant emissions for a number of reasons. First,
appliances used in the stationary sector use an array of class I, class
II, and substitute refrigerants. Although R-410A appears to be the
current substitute of choice in the stationary air-conditioning sector,
HCFC refrigerants currently dominate the stationary market and will
continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the
overwhelming majority of stationary technicians will not work solely on
appliances using HFC or PFC refrigerants. Secondly, for the stationary
sector the sales of class I or II refrigerants are already restricted
to certified technicians and these technicians must be certified in
order to work on appliances containing CFC and HCFC refrigerants.
Similarly, mobile sector technicians certified under section 609 of
the Act who repair or service MVACs for consideration are already
required to be certified by an EPA-approved organization (Sec.
82.34(a)). The sale of class I or II ODS refrigerants suitable for use
in an MVAC in a container containing less than 20 pounds of refrigerant
is restricted under section 609 (Sec. 82.34(b)) to 609 certified
technicians and the sales of class I or II refrigerants in other size
containers is restricted to section 608 certified technicians (Sec.
82.154(m)). Therefore, the effect of the technician certification and
sales restriction on the mobile sector is identical to the effect of
the proposed certification and extended sales restriction. That effect
is the achievement of an overall reduction in the emissions of
refrigerants by ensuring
[[Page 11970]]
that technicians are aware of the environmental consequences of illegal
venting, refrigeration regulations, and proper use of recovery/
recycling equipment.
In the absence of a requirement for all persons who open appliances
to obtain and properly use EPA-certified recovery/recycling equipment,
there is no means to ensure compliance with the venting prohibition.
The remaining population affected by this rulemaking consists of the
MVAC do-it-yourself (DIY) market. This category consists of automobile
owners who choose to service their own MVACs and are not servicing or
repairing MVACs for consideration. The sales of class I or II
refrigerants to this group are limited to those DIYers who have been
certified under section 609. While an extended sales restriction would
limit the amount of illegal venting of refrigerants by persons who are
not maintaining, servicing, or repairing MVACs for compensation (for
example DIYers) by limiting the number of people legally able to
purchase refrigerant, it would not address the issue of access to
certified refrigerant recycle/recovery equipment. Although it is
illegal to knowingly vent refrigerants, DIYers are the only segment of
the regulated community for which EPA regulations do not explicitly
require the proper use of certified recycle/recovery equipment. EPA
believes that any effort to open an appliance prior to recovering the
refrigerant would constitute a violation of the venting prohibition,
and the only means for the DIYer to be in compliance with the venting
prohibition is by using recovery equipment as a means of preventing
venting during service, maintenance, and repair.
3. Consideration of Alternative Methods of Emissions Reduction
As discussed in the proposal, EPA considered and sought public
comments on a number of alternatives to an extended sales restriction
on HFC and PFC refrigerants. EPA considered many alternatives to
address the problem of cross contamination of refrigerants in the
mobile air-conditioning sector which leads to the venting of class I or
class II refrigerants. This venting occurs due to appliance or
recovery/recycling equipment failure that results from contamination
and refrigerant compatibility conflicts and the financial disincentive
to destroy severely contaminated refrigerants that have been recovered
from MVACs. Cross contamination is of particular interest in the MVAC
service sector where mixtures of R-12 and R-134a, and to a lesser
degree the illegal use of hydrocarbon refrigerants as a substitute for
R-12, have become commonplace and the use of refrigerant identifiers
and recovery equipment specified for use with unknown refrigerants has
become common.
a. Unique Fittings
In the NPRM, EPA proposed as one alternative method for preventing
mixture of ozone-depleting and HFC refrigerants a requirement 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 SNAP, substitute refrigerant containers sold for use
in the automotive market are required to be equipped with such
fittings.
Several commenters stated that the requirement for unique fittings
in the automotive sector is sufficient to reduce the emissions of
ozone-depleting refrigerants. Thus, an extended sales restriction would
not be necessary. Commenters pointed out that the adoption of unique
fittings on containers and compressors by industry has greatly reduced
cross-contamination, and there is no practical reason that precludes
the design of fitting for refrigerants in the stationary sector.
EPA has not overlooked the benefits of unique fitting or their
effectiveness in reducing cross-contamination, but the Agency feels
that implementing unique fittings into the stationary sector would be
impractical and would not necessarily reduce the venting of the CFC or
HCFC to be replaced. EPA believes that introducing a unique fittings
requirement into the vast array of stationary sector appliances and
refrigerant containers would be impractical for several reasons. The
most fundamental reason is that the wide array of substitute
refrigerants available for stationary equipment makes the development
of a unique fitting for each one almost impossible. At least 25
refrigerants are currently being used in the stationary air-
conditioning and refrigeration sectors, and more are being developed.
Unique fittings are designed by choosing the diameter, turning
direction, thread pitch (threads/inch) and shape of threads (normal vs.
square, also known as Acme). However, fittings with the same diameter
and turning direction can nearly always be connected using a wrench,
regardless of thread pitch or shape. Therefore, the number of different
fittings is limited to double the number of different diameters, since
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 inches in diameter to ensure they will not cross-
connect, and the range of diameters is limited by valve core and
surrounding space restrictions.\13\ Thus, the number of unique fittings
that can be developed is limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Retrofits would
presumably be required not only for all stationary appliances that have
been retrofitted to substitute refrigerants, but for all of the
equipment that uses one of the four traditional medium-to high-pressure
refrigerants (i.e., R-12, R-22, R-502, and R-500). Otherwise,
technicians who became accustomed to relying on fittings to distinguish
among refrigerants might cross-contaminate these refrigerants as well.
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 medium-pressure
refrigerants might conceivably require more than 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/
recycling equipment that has been designed for use with multiple
refrigerants. Instead of engineering controls, the stationary sector
has 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 be unwieldy.
b. Limited Sales Restriction
In the NPRM, EPA proposed a more limited sales restriction as a
means to address the concerns of illegal venting of ozone-depleting
refrigerants. The limited sales restriction would restrict
[[Page 11971]]
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
individuals would have unlimited access only to containers with
fittings, making mixture and cross contamination more difficult.
EPA did not receive comments on the potential effectiveness and
enforceability of such a limited sales restriction, but the
overwhelming majority of commenters representing MVAC service shops
recognized that a limited sales restriction would reduce the
occurrences of illegal and uncontrolled venting of regulated
refrigerants by limiting the supply of the refrigerant. These
commenters supported the sales restriction and argued that if people do
not have the proper recovery/recycling equipment, they should not be
allowed to purchase and use HFC and PFC refrigerants.
EPA believes that a limited sales restriction reduces the
opportunity for noncompliance with the venting prohibition. A limited
sales restriction reduces the quantity of refrigerant available to
persons who are not performing service or repair on MVACs for
consideration. However, even a limited sales restriction does not
address the need for persons opening MVACs to properly use recovery
equipment. Hence, EPA is not finalizing a limited sales restriction,
but is emphasizing that the use of refrigerant recovery equipment by
any person opening an appliance, including DIYers, is a necessity in
order to prevent venting of refrigerant during service, maintenance,
repair, and disposal of appliances.
c. MVAC Retrofit Kits
EPA received comments questioning why the Agency has allowed the
unrestricted sale of MVAC R-12/R-134a retrofit kits. While the sale of
R-12 is restricted to certified technicians, retrofit kits allow any
person certified or not to replace the R-12 in an MVAC with R-134a.
EPA did not propose any restrictions on the sale of R-12/R-134a
MVAC retrofit kits. However, EPA believes that retrofit kits could be
linked to the venting of ozone-depleting refrigerants, particularly
when any remaining R-12 in the MVAC is not recovered prior to opening
the appliance. In the absence of the proper use of recovery equipment,
the user would have no alternative other than to knowingly vent any
remaining refrigerant charge in violation of section 608(c)(1). It is
the Agency's interpretation that the use of such kits without properly
recovering any remaining refrigerant is a violation of the venting
prohibition. While EPA is not extending the sales restriction to people
servicing appliances using HFC or PFC refrigerants, at a future date
the Agency may consider a proposal, amending Sec. 82.34(a), requiring
all persons repairing or servicing MVACs to use certified recovery
equipment. Similarly, EPA could propose restrictions on the sale and
use of R-12 retrofit kits.
H. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances
1. Coverage of HFCs and PFCs
In the NPRM, EPA proposed and requested comment on its plan to
adopt the same approach to the disposal of small appliances, MVACs and
MVAC-like appliances charged with HFC and PFC refrigerants that it
adopted for these types of equipment charged with CFC and HCFC
refrigerants.
Commenters tended to agree with the Agency's decision to extend the
safe disposal requirements for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances that contain substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants,
noting that it is important to reevaluate Sec. 608 requirements in
connection with new or other alternative uses of refrigerant
substitutes. When refrigerant is recovered from disposed small
appliances, MVAC or MVAC-like appliances, and for the case of MVAC and
MVAC-like appliances is not reused in similar appliances, the safe
disposal and reclamation requirements set forth in the subpart F
regulations apply.
EPA received comment from the Institute of Scrap Recycling
Industries, Inc. (ISRI) requesting Agency clarification for safe
disposal of small appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like appliances by
distinguishing between recycling and disposal. ISRI argued that the
responsibility for removing remaining refrigerants from appliances
destined for disposal or for recycling should be placed on the person
disposing of the appliance or delivering the appliance for recycling
and not upon the recycler of the obsolete appliance.
Section 608(b)(1) and 608(c)(2) require that class I, class II, and
their substitute refrigerants contained in bulk in appliances be
removed from the appliance prior to the disposal or their delivery for
recycling. EPA's regulations at Sec. 82.156(f) require that persons
taking the final step in the disposal process must either (1) recover
any remaining refrigerant from the appliance, in accordance with
regulatory requirements, or, (2) verify that the refrigerant has been
evacuated from the appliance previously. If the final person in the
disposal chain chooses to verify that the refrigerant has been
recovered previously, they must retain a signed statement attesting to
this in accordance with Sec. 82.166(i).
The rationale for establishing the safe disposal requirements for
small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that contain CFCs and
HCFCs was discussed at length in the May 14, 1993, rule (58 FR 28701).
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. EPA considered such flexibility important for the
disposal sector, which is highly diverse and decentralized.
EPA is not extending the established requirements for the safe
disposal of appliances that enter the waste stream with the charge
intact, including small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances
using class I and class II refrigerants to those appliances containing
pure HFC and PFC refrigerants. However, EPA is extending the safe
disposal requirements to those substitutes containing an ODS.
Therefore, persons who take the final step in disposing of small
appliances, MVAC, and MVAC-like appliances that contain a class I or
class II substance as a refrigerant must either: (1) Recover any
remaining refrigerant in the appliance; or (2) verify that the
refrigerant has previously been recovered from the appliance or
shipment of appliances, in accordance with the required practices of
Sec. 82.156(f)(1) and (2). Recovery equipment used during the disposal
of appliances, except small, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliances, must meet
the same certification requirements as equipment used in the service,
repair, and maintenance of appliances in accordance with Sec.
82.158(b) and (c).\14\ In addition, persons recovering refrigerant
during disposal of small, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliances need to do so
in accordance with Sec. 82.156(f)-(h), but they need not be certified
as section 608 technicians. These exemptions only apply to the disposal
of small, MVAC, and MVAC-like appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Equipment used during the disposal of small, MVAC, or MVAC-
like appliances need not be certified in accordance with Sec.
82.158(b) or (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11972]]
2. Transfer of Substitute Refrigerants During the Safe Disposal of MVAC
and MVAC-Like Appliances
In the December 30, 1997, amendments to the subpart B MVAC
recycling regulation (62 FR 68025), 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. The transfer of such used refrigerant is allowed as long as
certain other requirements are met. These requirements, which now also
apply to any substitute consisting of a class I or class II ODS,
including many HFC blends, deemed acceptable as substitutes for MVAC
and MVAC-like appliances under SNAP, include the following: Only
section 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 section 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 these restrictions 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 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards that include
purity requirements for refrigerant used to service MVACs.
These requirements for reuse of refrigerant, including substitutes
consisting of a class I or class II ODS, 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-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, as applicable.
3. Clarification of Requirements for Persons Disposing of Appliances
In the NPRM, EPA requested comment on two possible textual changes
to clarify the safe disposal provisions, which are contained in
paragraph 82.156(f). EPA interprets the safe disposal provisions (as
stated in Applicability Determination number 59) to apply to ``the
entity which conducted the process where the refrigerant was released
if not properly recovered.'' EPA proposed to clarify that 82.156(f)
applies to any person who performs disposal related activities, such as
dismantling, recycling, or destroying the appliance, where the
refrigerant would be released into the atmosphere if not properly
recovered prior to violating the refrigerant circuit of the appliance.
The first modification amends the definition of ``opening'' found
at Sec. 82.152 to include ``the disposal of appliances.'' The first
sentence of the revised definition of ``opening'' reads, ``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 remains unchanged. In the NPRM,
EPA had proposed a modification that would have added the phrase
``persons who open the appliances in the course of disposing of them''
to the introductory text of paragraph 82.156(f). EPA has opted to not
add the phrase as proposed but modify Sec. 82.156(f) by providing
examples of persons who might take the final step in the disposal
process.
EPA received one comment opposing the proposed clarifications. The
commenter expressed concern that the clarifications do not distinguish
between recycling and disposal of appliances and could lead to
recyclers facing the same requirements as those disposing of appliances
or those delivering the appliances for recycling.
EPA is finalizing the two modifications to clarify that 82.156(f)
applies to any person who performs disposal related activities, such as
dismantling, recycling, or destroying the appliance, where the
refrigerant would be released into the atmosphere if not properly
recovered prior to violating the refrigerant circuit of the appliance.
These clarifications do not place additional requirements on scrap
recyclers. The context of the required practices of Sec. 82.156(f) has
not been changed, as since promulgation of the section 608 regulations,
the required practices for safe disposal of appliances have applied to
persons who take the final step in the disposal process (as disposal is
defined at Sec. 82.152 \15\). In addition, the Act does not grant
scrap recyclers an exemption to the venting prohibitions. Sections 608
(b)(1) and (b)(2) require that class I and class II refrigerants as
well as their substitutes contained in bulk in appliances be removed
from the appliance prior to the disposal or their delivery for
recycling. The Agency does not interpret this statutory language to
mean that scrap recyclers who choose to dispose of appliances or choose
to accept appliances (or their parts) with refrigerant charges intact
are exempt from the required practices codified at Sec. 82.156
(including the acquisition of recovery equipment that meets the
standards set forth in Sec. 82.158).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Disposal, as defined in Sec. 82.152, means the process
leading to and including: (1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or
placing of any discarded appliance into or on any land or water; (2)
the disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit, dumping or
placing of its discarded component parts into or on any land or
water; or (3) the disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its
component parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons who take the final step in the disposal process (including
but not limited to scrap recyclers and landfill operators) must recover
any remaining refrigerant from the appliance or verify that the
refrigerant has been previously evacuated from the appliance. This
required practice is applicable to persons preparing to reuse the
component parts of an appliance, if the preparation could result in the
release of any refrigerant consisting in whole or in part of a class I
or class II ODS.
4. Stickers as a Form of Verification
EPA has become aware that there is confusion in the metal scrap and
recycling industry concerning the safe disposal requirements.
Especially as they pertain to the use of stickers as a means of
verification of refrigerant recovery. Many final disposers will not
accept small appliances, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliances unless a sticker
is affixed to each appliance.
EPA has never mandated such stickers, and the Agency emphasizes
that they may not satisfy the verification requirements of Sec.
82.156(f)(2). In order to satisfy the safe disposal requirements, such
stickers, tags, or other identifying
[[Page 11973]]
marks must include a signed statement from the person from whom the
appliance is obtained that all refrigerant that had not leaked
previously has been recovered from the appliance in accordance with
paragraph Sec. 82.156(g) or (h), as applicable. The signed statement,
even if presented in the form of a sticker or tag, must include the
name and address of the person who recovered the refrigerant, and the
date that the refrigerant was recovered.
I. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment
EPA requires persons who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of
appliances containing a refrigerant consisting of a class I or class II
ODS to submit a signed statement to the appropriate EPA Regional office
stating that they possess refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment and
are complying with the applicable requirements of the rule. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed to extend these provisions to persons who maintain,
service, repair, or dispose of appliances containing HFCs or PFCs, by
revising the regulatory text of Sec. 82.162(a). EPA also proposed that
persons who had already submitted such a signed statement for work on
appliances containing CFCs or HCFCs would not need to submit a new
statement for work on HFCs or PFCs. Therefore, only businesses coming
into existence 60 days after the date of publication of this action
would have been affected by the proposed provision.
EPA received no comments in opposition to the extension of the
certification requirement to persons who maintain, service, repair, or
dispose of appliances containing HFCs or PFCs. However, EPA is not
finalizing the proposal to extend the certification requirement to
those who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances
containing HFC or PFC refrigerants. EPA is extending these provisions
to those who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances
containing substitutes that contain a class I or class II ODS.
While EPA is not finalizing certification requirements for
refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment intended for use with HFC and
PFC refrigerants, the Agency is aware that industry standards currently
exist for certification of HFC recovery/recycling equipment. EPA
supports the industry's efforts to certify and promote the use of
refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment intended for use with SNAP-
approved substitute refrigerants.
J. Servicing Apertures and Process Stubs
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. In the NPRM, EPA had
proposed to extend this prohibition to the sale and distribution of
appliances containing HFCs or PFCs. With today's action, EPA is
finalizing the proposed requirement and is prohibiting the sale or
distribution of any appliance containing an HFC, PFC, or substitute
refrigerant consisting in whole or in part of a class I or class II ODS
that is 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 received a comment stating that the Act only prohibits
``knowingly venting'' a substitute refrigerant when servicing,
maintaining, or disposing of a refrigeration appliance, but does not
require new appliances to have servicing apertures or similar design
features.
The rationale for requiring servicing apertures or process stubs on
appliances containing a substitute refrigerant 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. In the absence of an aperture or process stub
requirement, there would not be a means of recovering refrigerant from
appliances without suffering large refrigerant losses, and there would
not be an easy means for those maintaining, servicing, repairing, or
disposing of appliances to stay in compliance with the venting
prohibition.
EPA is finalizing the aperture/process stub requirement for HFC and
PFC appliances in order to complement industry efforts to properly
recover them. EPA is aware that such industry standards have existed
for several years and many manufacturers of recovery/recycling
equipment have already marketed and distributed equipment certified to
the industry standard. EPA hopes that such equipment will continue to
be manufactured and is implementing the aperture requirement to
facilitate recovery of HFC and PFC refrigerants.
K. Prohibition on the Manufacture or Import of One-Time Expansion
Devices That Contain Other Than Exempted Refrigerants
In the NPRM, EPA proposed a prohibition on the manufacture or
import of one-time expansion devices that contain other refrigerants
than EPA has exempted from the venting prohibition because their
release does not pose a threat to the environment.
On March 3, 1999, EPA published a final rule (64 FR 10373) under
SNAP finding that self-chilling cans using R-134a or R-152a are
unacceptable substitutes (new or retrofit) for R-12, R-502, and R-22 in
the following end-uses: household refrigeration, transport
refrigeration, vending machines, cold storage warehouses, and retail
food refrigeration. EPA believes that a prohibition on manufacturing or
importing one-time expansion devices (which include 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, and has created Sec. 82.154(o) accordingly.
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. 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. The following
provides EPA's rationale.
First, the prohibition on manufacturing or importing the devices is
not too burdensome. One-time expansion devices function only by
venting; hence, 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 would not exist, because perfect implementation of the
venting prohibition would prevent the manufacture of the cans. Thus,
any burden placed on the manufacturer by a ban on manufacturing should
be discounted.
Second, prohibiting the manufacture or import of cans containing
other than exempted refrigerants is both more effective and more
efficient than
[[Page 11974]]
attempting to prevent the use of such cans by millions of potential
consumers. EPA estimates that the total market for canned beverages in
the U.S. is 100 billion units per year. Thus, if self-chilling cans
captured even a small percentage of this market, very large numbers of
cans could be used. For instance, if self-chilling cans captured just 1
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. 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. At the same time,
enforcement would be very difficult due to the large numbers 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.
Thus, a ban on manufacture and import of cans containing other than
exempted refrigerants is the only practical way to implement the
venting prohibition as it applies to them. Moreover, there are a number
of precedents for prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and/or
distribution of appliances, other equipment, and refrigerants under
section 608 in order to reduce refrigerant emissions. Sections
82.154(j) and (k) prohibit the sale or distribution of appliances
unless they possess servicing apertures or process stubs, and Sec.
82.154(c) prohibits the manufacture or import of recycling or recovery
equipment that is not certified. Section 82.154(g) prohibits the sale
of used ozone-depleting refrigerants that have not been reclaimed (with
minor exceptions), and Sec. 82.154(m) prohibits the sale of ozone-
depleting refrigerants to uncertified individuals (again with minor
exceptions). Sales restrictions were more appropriate than
manufacturing bans in the latter cases because (1) a manufacturing ban
could not apply to used refrigerants, and (2) purchase and use of
ozone-depleting refrigerants by some individuals, in this case
certified technicians, is legal.
L. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
In order to implement the section 608 and 609 requirements, EPA
requires reporting and recordkeeping, under Sec. 82.166, from a number
of persons and entities. In the NPRM, EPA proposed 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 testing organizations that certify recovery/
recycling equipment for use with HFC or PFC refrigerants; and to
technician certification programs that certify technicians who
maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances containing HFC or
PFC refrigerants.
EPA received comments concerning the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the proposed leak repair requirements. EPA
has decided to defer action on the leak repair components of the NPRM
to a future rulemaking dedicated to finalizing the proposed leak repair
requirements. Additional comments that were deemed outside of the scope
of today's rulemaking are addressed in the ``Response to Comments''
document, which is available in Air Docket No. A-92-01.
EPA is finalizing such recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
but only as they apply to substitute refrigerants with a class I or
class II ODS component. The rationale for requiring these records for
persons who handle substitute refrigerants or equipment is the same as
that for requiring such records for persons who handle CFC or HCFC
refrigerants or equipment, as discussed below. In all cases, the
records are necessary to ensure compliance with the regulatory program
implementing the section 608(c)(2) prohibition on venting and the
provisions in this action authorized by section 608(a), and hence are
necessary to implement and enforce section 608(c)(2) and section
608(a). These requirements make it possible for EPA to monitor
compliance and enforce against violators of the Act.
1. Persons Who Sell or Distribute Refrigerant
Persons who sell or distribute or offer to sell or distribute any
substitute refrigerant consisting of an ODS must retain invoices that
indicate the name of the purchaser, the date of sale, and the quantity
of refrigerant purchased. Distribution or offers to distribute
refrigerant include persons who give refrigerant to someone else (e.g.,
a technician who recovers refrigerant from appliances that the
technician services and gives it to another person) or who exchanges
refrigerant for something else without receiving remuneration or the
offer of remuneration.
Persons purchasing any substitute refrigerant consisting of an ODS
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 maintain this information
and is allowed to sell refrigerant to the purchaser or his authorized
representative even if the authorized representative is not a properly
certified technician. The purchaser must notify the wholesaler in the
event that the purchaser no longer employs at least one properly
certified technician, at which time the wholesaler is prohibited from
selling refrigerant to the purchaser until the purchaser once again
provides evidence that he or she employs at least one certified
technician.
2. Technicians
Certified technicians who service, repair, maintain, or dispose of
appliances must keep a copy of their certificate at their place of
business where they perform service, maintenance, or repair of
appliances in accordance with Sec. 82.166(l). It has always been EPA's
intention that technician certification cards be kept onsite at the
technician's place of business where they perform maintenance, service,
or repair. EPA understands that many technicians work onsite at their
customers' facilities. While technicians certainly may wish to keep a
copy of their certification on their person, EPA will require that a
copy be kept at the technician's place of business. EPA intends this to
mean that technician certification cards are maintained at the
technician's dispatch facility or home base, and not at a remote
business site such as a headquarters location which is physically
removed from the technician's home base.
3. Appliance Owners and Operators
Owners and operators of appliances containing 50 or more pounds of
any refrigerant consisting in whole or in part of a class I or class II
substance must keep service records documenting the date and type of
service in accordance with Sec. 82.166(k).
4. Refrigerant Reclaimers
EPA-certified 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
[[Page 11975]]
refrigerants. This information enables EPA to verify reclaimers'
compliance with refrigerant 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 (Sec. 82.166(g)).
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.
5. Recovery and Recycling Equipment Testing Organizations
Recovery/recycling equipment testing organizations must apply to
EPA for approval in order to certify refrigerant recovery/recycling
equipment intended for use with any substitute refrigerant consisting
in whole or in part of an ODS. This application process is necessary to
ensure that all approved testing organizations and their associated
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 scheduled
certification test. This information is required to ensure that
recycling and recovery equipment meets the performance standards of the
regulation (Sec. 82.160 and Sec. Sec. 82.166(c), (d), and (e)).
6. Disposers
Persons who take the final step in the disposal process (including
but not limited to scrap recyclers and landfill operators) of a small
appliance, room air conditioner, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliance 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 verify that
refrigerant is recovered at some point during the disposal process even
if the final disposer does not have recovery equipment (Sec.
82.166(i)). Stickers, tags, or identifying marks on appliances would
not satisfy this recordkeeping requirement unless all of the
requirements of Sec. 82.156(f)(2) are followed.
7. Programs Certifying Technicians
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.
M. Economic Analysis
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 of the Clean Air Act, and before
the implementation of the final rule.
The provision of the Act that must be considered when defining the
baseline for these regulations is the prohibition on venting contained
in section 608(c)(2), which is self-effectuating. This prohibition
makes it illegal to knowingly vent (during the maintenance, service,
repair, or disposal of an appliance) any substitute for a class I or
class II ODS used as a refrigerant. EPA interprets this to mean that
all HFC and PFC refrigerants, including those consisting of a class I
or class II ODS, must not be vented to the atmosphere in the course of
maintaining, repairing, servicing, or disposing of appliances.
2. Costs
Since the regulatory language of the National Recycling and
Emission Reduction Program and the statutory language of Section 608 of
the Clean Air Act largely address the requirements of the Substitutes
Recycling Rule, it is assumed that compliance with refrigerant
recovery, technician certification, equipment certification, and leak
repair requirements is 100 percent in the baseline. Compliance with the
sales restriction is assumed to be 99 percent in the baseline. As such,
this rule serves primarily as a clarification, unequivocally extending
these requirements to all refrigerants containing class I or class II
ODS, in whole or in part.
Finally, it is assumed that most members of the regulated community
are in full compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
the baseline, with the exception of 20 percent of refrigerant
wholesalers and owners of industrial process refrigeration equipment
that deal with ODS-containing refrigerant blends.
The costs of the substitutes recycling rule consist of the costs of
the sales restriction requirements and the reporting and record-keeping
requirements. The Agency estimates that the cost for this regulatory
program for the period 2004-2015, is approximately $3.1 million at a 2
percent discount rate, and $2.6 million at a 7 percent discount rate.
Annualized costs are estimated to be approximately $269 thousand at a 2
percent discount rate, and $295 thousand at a 7 percent discount rate.
3. Benefits
The benefits of the provisions discussed above consist of avoided
damage to human health and the environment that would occur if, without
regulation, environmentally harmful refrigerants were released rather
than recovered.
The EPA's estimates of human health and environmental benefits were
developed using a similar methodology as that used in the 1993 RIA.
Specifically, the amount of avoided refrigerant emissions from the
equipment certification and sales restriction rule components was
calculated, and the associated number of avoided health effects (e.g.,
cataract incidence and skin cancer incidence and mortality) was
estimated. Once the number of avoided health effects was estimated,
benefits were monetized based on the estimated value of a saved life
(VSL) and the cost of treating cataracts and non-fatal skin cancers.
The regulatory impact analysis assumes that the rule increases
compliance with the sales restriction component of the rule. The
benefits associated with equipment certification were also assessed in
this analysis, as they were not quantified in the 1993 RIA. The Agency
estimates the benefits to be nearly $150,000 at a 2 percent discount
rate, or approximately $20,000 at a 7 percent discount rate.
[[Page 11976]]
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the 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 result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, 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
entitlements, 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 that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to EO 12866 review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule were submitted
for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR
No.1626.07, and OMB Control number: 2060-0256) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; by e-mail at [email protected]; or by calling
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at
www.epa.gov/icr.
OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained
in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0256.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. EPA does not expect
this rule to be a burden on time or financial resources.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by Small Business
Administration size standards (see table below); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA has considered the economic impacts of today's final rule on small
entities. Specifically, this rule economically impacts small entities
that manufacture, distribute, or sell ODS-containing refrigerant
blends, as well as those that maintain and repair equipment containing
those blends. EPA has determined that today's rulemaking will
potentially affect approximately 819 small entities. These small
entities will experience an impact ranging from 0.001 percent to 0.163
percent, based on their estimated annual sales and revenues. EPA has
also concluded that no small entities will experience an economic
impact of greater than 1 percent.
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), and its associated
Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 1626.07/OMB No. 2060-0256. In
addition, EPA has prepared a Small Business Screening Analysis for this
final rulemaking (Docket Number A-92-01). A summary of the small
entities and their associated economic impact is summarized below
according to the following North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA has
reconsidered portions of the NPRM in part due to the small business
concerns raised by the public. Today's action also removes duplicative
regulation by exempting certain substitute refrigerants from the
statutory venting prohibition on the basis that their releases are
covered under other laws, regulations, or statutes.
2004 Compliance Costs per Small Company by NAICS Code and Rule Component
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
NAICS codes NAICS description & number of Sales Recordkeeping cost
affected small companies restriction (2004)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
325120.................................. Industrial Gas Manufacturing... $1,112 $0 $5,560
Affected Small Companies: 5....
42111................................... Automobiles & Other Motor 0 400 35,200
Vehicle Wholesalers.
Affected Small Companies: 88...
42114................................... Motor Vehicle Supplies & New 0 400 39,600
Parts Wholesalers.
Affected Small Companies: 99...
42193................................... Recyclable Material Wholesalers 0 105 11,235
[[Page 11977]]
Affected Small Companies: 107..
4226901................................. Industrial Gas Wholesalers..... 30 400 3,910
Affected Small Companies: 37
(sales restriction); 7
(recordkeeping).
441310.................................. Automotive Parts & Accessories 10 400 20,720
Stores.
Affected Small Companies: 232
(sales restriction); 46
(recordkeeping).
541380.................................. Environmental Test Laboratories/ 0 0 0
Services.
Affected Small Companies: 1....
81131................................... Commercial/Industrial Machinery 0 1,250 313,750
& Equipment Repair &
Maintenance.
Affected Small Companies: 251..
--------------
Total Number Affected............... ............................... 274 598 819
==============
Total Cost.......................... ............................... 8,990 420,985 429,975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' 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. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government Agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
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 the private
sector in any one year. This rule supplements the statutory self-
effectuating prohibition against venting refrigerants by ensuring that
certain service practices are conducted that reduce emissions,
establish equipment and reclamation certification requirements. These
standards are amendments to the recycling standards under section 608
of the Clean Air Act. Many of these standards involve reporting
requirements and are not expected to be a high cost issue. Thus,
today's 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 rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The regulations promulgated
under today's action are done so under Title VI of the Act which does
not grant delegation rights to the States. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's
rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. This final rule amends the refrigerant
recycling standards which have been developed to protect the
stratospheric ozone layer. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health & Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule
that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety
risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect
on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency
must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of
[[Page 11978]]
the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This
rule amends the recycling standards for refrigerants to protect the
stratosphere from ozone depletion, which in turn protects human health
and the environment from increased amounts of UV radiation.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 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, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
the ARI Standard 700-1995 into Appendix A of 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.
The standard was created by one of the refrigeration industry's primary
standards-setting organization, the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute (ARI).
ARI is a national trade association representing manufacturers of
more than 90 percent of North American produced central air-
conditioning and commercial refrigeration equipment. ARI develops and
publishes technical standards for industry products, including
standards for reclaimed refrigerant. Since many ARI standards are
accepted as American National Standards, EPA feels that an earnest
effort has been made to comply with the requirements of of NTTAA.
J. The Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). It will become effective May 11, 2004.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 17, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
Title 40 chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 82, is
amended as follows:
PART 82--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
0
2. Section 82.150 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 82.150 Purpose and scope.
(a) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce emissions of class I
and class II refrigerants and their substitutes to the lowest
achievable level by maximizing the recapture and recycling of such
refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of
appliances and restricting the sale of refrigerants consisting in whole
or in part of a class I and class II ODS in accordance with Title VI of
the Clean Air Act.
(b) This subpart applies to any person servicing, maintaining, or
repairing appliances. This subpart also applies to persons disposing of
appliances, including small appliances and motor vehicle air
conditioners. In addition, this subpart applies to refrigerant
reclaimers, technician certifying programs, appliance owners and
operators, manufacturers of appliances, manufacturers of recycling and
recovery equipment, approved recycling and recovery equipment testing
organizations, persons selling class I or class II refrigerants or
offering class I or class II refrigerants for sale, and persons
purchasing class I or class II refrigerants.
0
3. Section 82.152 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ``Medium-pressure appliance,'' ``One-time expansion
device,'' ``Refrigerant,'' ``Substitute,'' and by revising the
definitions for ``Appliance,'' ``High-pressure appliance,'' ``Low-
pressure appliance,'' ``Opening,'' ``Technician,'' and ``Very high-
pressure appliance'' to read as follows:
Sec. 82.152 Definitions.
Appliance means any device which contains and uses a refrigerant
and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including any
air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.
* * * * *
High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant
with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 170 psia and 355 psia
at 104 [deg]F. This definition includes but is not limited to
appliances using R-401A, R-409A, R-401B, R-411A, R-22, R-411B, R-502,
R-402B, R-408A, and R-402A.
* * * * *
Low-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant
with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 [deg]F.
This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using R-11,
R-123, and R-113.
* * * * *
Medium-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a
refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 45 psia and
170 psia at 104 [deg]F. This definition includes but is not limited to
appliances using R-114, R-124, R-12, R-401C, R-406A, and R-500.
* * * * *
One-time expansion device means an appliance that relies on the
one-time release of its refrigerant charge to the environment in order
to provide a cooling effect.
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 was 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
[[Page 11979]]
the appliance shall not be considered ``opening.''
* * * * *
Refrigerant means, for purposes of this Subpart, any substance
consisting in part or whole of a class I or class II ozone-depleting
substance that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a
cooling effect, or any substance used as a substitute for such a class
I or class II substance by any user in a given end-use, except for the
following substitutes in the following end-uses:
(1) Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in
absorption units;
(2) Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
hydrocarbons);
(3) Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
chlorine and chlorine compounds);
(4) Carbon dioxide in any application;
(5) Nitrogen in any application; or
(6) Water in any application.
* * * * *
Substitute means any chemical or product, whether existing or new,
that is used by any person as an EPA approved replacement for a class I
or II ozone-depleting substance in a given refrigeration or air-
conditioning end-use.
* * * * *
Technician means any person who performs maintenance, service, or
repair, that could be reasonably expected to release refrigerants from
appliances, 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 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, rewiring an external
electrical circuit, replacing insulation on a length of pipe, or
tightening nuts and bolts on the appliance are not reasonably expected
to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit. Performing
maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances that have been
evacuated pursuant to Sec. 82.156 could not be reasonably expected to
release refrigerants from the appliance unless the maintenance,
service, or repair consists of adding refrigerant to the appliance.
Technician includes but is not limited to installers, contractor
employees, in-house service personnel, and in some cases owners and/or
operators.
Very high-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a
refrigerant with a critical temperature below 104 [deg]F or with a
liquid phase saturation pressure above 355 psia at 104 [deg]F. This
definition includes but is not limited to appliances using R-13 or R-
503.
0
4. Section 82.154 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)
introductory text, and (c); by adding new paragraph (p) and removing
the undesignated text at the end of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.154 Prohibitions.
(a) Effective May 11, 2004, no person maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or otherwise
release into the environment any refrigerant from such appliances. The
knowing release of refrigerant subsequent to its recovery from an
appliance shall be considered a violation of this prohibition. De
minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or
recover refrigerants are not subject to this prohibition. Releases
shall be considered de minimis only if they occur when:
(1) The required practices set forth in Sec. 82.156 are observed,
recovery or recycling machines that meet the requirements set forth in
Sec. 82.158 are used, and the technician certification provisions set
forth in Sec. 82.161 are observed; or
(2) The requirements set forth in subpart B of this part are
observed.
(b) No person may open appliances except MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances for maintenance, service, or repair, and no person may
dispose of appliances except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances:
* * * * *
(c) No person may manufacture or import recycling or recovery
equipment for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of
appliances except MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, and no person may
manufacture or import recycling or recovery equipment for use during
the disposal of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-
like appliances, unless the equipment is certified pursuant to Sec.
82.158 (b) or (d), as applicable.
* * * * *
(p) No person may manufacture or import one-time expansion devices
that contain other than exempted refrigerants.
0
5. Section 82.156 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text, Table 1, and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.156 Required practices.
(a) All persons disposing of appliances, except for small
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must evacuate the
refrigerant, including all the liquid refrigerant, in the entire unit
to a recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158.
All persons opening appliances except for MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances for maintenance, service, or repair must evacuate the
refrigerant, including all the liquid refrigerant (except as provided
in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section), in either the entire unit
or the part to be serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system
receiver (e.g., the remaining portions of the appliance, or a specific
vessel within the appliance) or a recovery or recycling machine
certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158. A technician must verify that the
applicable level of evacuation has been reached in the appliance or the
part before it is opened.
* * * * *
[[Page 11980]]
Table 1.--Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances
[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard
atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)
-------------------------------------------
Using recovery or Using recovery or
Type of appliance recycling equipment recycling equipment
manufactured or manufactured or
imported before imported on or after
November 15, 1993 November 15, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance 0 0
High-pressure appliance, or 0 0
isolated component of such
appliance, normally
containing less than 200
pounds of refrigerant......
High-pressure appliance, or 4 10
isolated component of such
appliance, normally
containing 200 pounds or
more of refrigerant........
Medium-pressure appliance, 4 10
or isolated component of
such appliance, normally
containing less than 200
pounds of refrigerant......
Medium-pressure appliance, 4 15
or isolated component of
such appliance, normally
containing 200 pounds or
more of refrigerant........
Low-pressure appliance...... 25 25 mm Hg absolute
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(b) All persons opening appliances except for small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, service, or repair and
all persons disposing of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances must have at least one piece of certified, self-
contained recovery or recycling equipment available at their place of
business. Persons who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of only
appliances that they own and that contain pump-out units are exempt
from this requirement. This exemption does not relieve such persons
from other applicable requirements of this section.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 82.161 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 82.161 Technician certification.
(a) * * *
(2) Technicians who maintain, service, or repair medium-, high-, or
very high-pressure appliances, except small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances, or dispose of medium-, high-, or very high-
pressure appliances, except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances, must be properly certified as Type II technicians.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 82.162 is amended by revising the EPA regional addresses in
paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.162 Certification by owners of recycling or recovery
equipment.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
Vermont must send their certifications to: CAA section 608 Enforcement
Contact; EPA Region I; Mail Code SEA; JFK Federal Building; One
Congress Street, Suite 1100; Boston, MA 02114-2023.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and Virgin
Islands must send their certifications to: CAA section 608 Enforcement
Contact; EPA Region II (2DECA-AC); 290 Broadway, 21st Floor; New York,
NY 10007-1866.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia must send their
certifications to: CAA section 608 Enforcement Contact; EPA Region
III--Wheeling Operations Office; Mail Code 3AP12; 303 Methodist
Building; 11th and Chapline Streets; Wheeling, WV 26003.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee must send
their certifications to: CAA section 608 Enforcement Contact; EPA
Region IV(APT-AE); Atlanta Federal Center; 61 Forsyth Street, SW.;
Atlanta, GA 30303.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin must send their certifications to: CAA section 608
Enforcement Contact, EPA Region V (AE17J); 77 West Jackson Blvd.;
Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas must send their certifications to: CAA section 608 Enforcement
Contact; EPA Region VI (6EN-AA); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas,
Texas 75202.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska must send
their certifications to: CAA section 608 Enforcement Contact; EPA
Region VII; Mail Code APCO/ARTD; 901 North 5th Street; Kansas City, KS;
66101.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming must send their certifications to: CAA section 608
Enforcement Contact, EPA Region VIII, Mail Code 8ENF-T, 999 18th
Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam,
Hawaii, and Nevada must send their certifications to: CAA section 608
Enforcement Contact; EPA Region IX; Mail Code AIR-5; 75 Hawthorne
Street; San Francisco, CA 94105.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having their
places of business in: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington must send
their certifications to: CAA section 608 Enforcement Contact; EPA
Region X (OAQ-107); 1200 Sixth Avenue; Seattle, WA 98101.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 82.164 is amended by revising the introductory text and
[[Page 11981]]
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.164 Reclaimer certification.
Effective May 11, 2004, all persons reclaiming used refrigerant for
sale to a new owner, except for persons who properly certified under
this section prior to May 11, 2004, 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, which includes the
primary methodologies included in the appendix to the ARI Standard 700-
1995;
* * * * *
(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 (which
includes the primary methodologies included in the appendix to the ARI
Standard 700-1995), 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, that the owner or
responsible officer of the reclaimer will maintain records and submit
reports in accordance with Sec. 82.166(g) and (h), and that the
information given is true and correct. The certification should be sent
to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Global
Programs Division (6205J); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460; Attn: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager--Reclaimer
Certification.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 82.166 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) All persons who sell or distribute or offer to 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.
* * * * *
0
10. Appendix A to subpart F is revised to read as follows:
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART F OF PART 82--SPECIFICATIONS FOR FLUOROCARBONS
AND OTHER REFRIGERANTS
This appendix is based on the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute Standard 700-1995.
Section 1. Purpose
1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to evaluate and
accept/reject refrigerants regardless of source (i.e., new, reclaimed
and/or repackaged) for use in new and existing refrigeration and air-
conditioning products as required under 40 CFR part 82.
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 R-113; R-123; R-11; R-114; R-124; R-12; R-401C;
R-406A; R-500; R-401A; R-409A; R-401B; R-411A; R-22; R-411B; R-502; R-
402B; R-408A; R-402A; R-13; R-503 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 Environmental Protection Agency;
Office of Air and Radiation Docket; 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room
B108; Washington, DC 20460.
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
appendix 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 700-1995:
Analytical Procedures for ARI Standard 700-1995, 1995, Air-Conditioning
and Refrigeration Institute. Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995 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, Environmental Protection Agency,
[[Page 11982]]
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460 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 R-11, R-113, and R-123
have normal boiling points at or above room temperature, non-
condensable determination is not required for these refrigerants.
5.2.2.1 Connection. The sample cylinder shall be connected to an
evacuated gas sampling bulb by means of a manifold. The manifold should
have a valve arrangement that facilitates evacuation of all connecting
tubing leading to the sampling bulb.
5.2.2.2 Equalizing Pressures. After the manifold has been
evacuated, close the valve to the pump and open the valve on the
system. Allow the pressure to equilibrate and close valves.
5.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample is required for
all tests listed in this standard except the test for non-condensables.
5.2.3.1 Preparation. Place a clean, empty sample cylinder with the
valve open in an oven at 110[deg]C (230[deg]F) for one hour. Remove it
from the oven while hot, immediately connect to an evacuation system
and evacuate to less than 1 mm mercury (1000 microns). Close the valve
and allow it to cool. Weigh the empty cylinder.
5.2.3.2 Manifolding. The valve and lines from the unit to be
sampled shall be clean and dry. The cylinder shall be connected to an
evacuated gas sampling cylinder by means of a manifold. The manifold
should have a valve arrangement that facilitates evacuation of all
connecting tubing leading to the sampling cylinder.
5.2.3.3 Liquid Sampling. After the manifold has been evacuated,
close the valve to the pump and open the valve on the system. Take the
sample as a liquid by chilling the sample cylinder slightly. Accurate
analysis requires that the sample container be filled to at least 60%
by volume, however under no circumstances should the cylinder be filled
to more than 80% by volume. This can be accomplished by weighing the
empty cylinder and then the cylinder with refrigerant. When the desired
amount of refrigerant has been collected, close the valve(s) and
disconnect the sample cylinder immediately.
5.2.3.4 Record Weight. Check the sample cylinder for leaks and
record the gross weight.
5.3 Refrigerant Characterization.
5.3.1 Primary Method. The primary method shall be gas
chromatography (GC) as described in Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-
1995. 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 700-1995. 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 (ppm) 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 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 700-1995. 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 700-1995. This test may not be suitable for determination of
high molecular weight organic acids; however these acids will be found
in the high boiling residue test outlined in 5.7. The test requires a
100 to 120 gram sample and has a detection limit of 0.1 ppm by weight
calculated as HCl.
5.6.2 Limits. The maximum permissible acidity is 1 ppm by weight as
HCl.
5.7 High Boiling Residue.
5.7.1 Method. High boiling residue shall be determined by measuring
the residue of a standard volume of refrigerant after evaporation. The
refrigerant sample shall be evaporated at room temperature or at a
temperature 45[deg]C (115[deg]F) for all refrigerants, except R-113
which shall be evaporated at 60[deg]C (140[deg]F), using a Goetz bulb
as specified in Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995. 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 700-1995.
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
[[Page 11983]]
method, refer to Part 3 of Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995.
5.9 Non-Condensables.
5.9.1 Sample. A vapor phase sample shall be used for determination
of non-condensables. Non-condensable gases consist primarily of air
accumulated in the vapor phase of refrigerants. The solubility of air
in the refrigerants liquid phase is extremely low and air is not
significant as a liquid phase contaminant. The presence of non-
condensable gases may reflect poor quality control in transferring
refrigerants to storage tanks and cylinders.
5.9.2 Method. The test method shall be gas chromatography with a
thermal conductivity detector as described in Appendix C to ARI
Standard 700-1995.
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 700-1995.
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.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 11984]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR04.000
[[Page 11985]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR04.001
[[Page 11986]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR04.002
[[Page 11987]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR04.003
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C?
[[Page 11988]]
Appendix A. References--Normative
Listed here are all standards, handbooks, and other publications
essential to the formation and implementation of the standard. All
references in this appendix are considered as part of this standard.
ASHRAE Terminology of Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and
Refrigeration, American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, 1992, 1791 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA
30329-2305; U.S.A.
ASHRAE Standard 34-1992, Number Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants, American Society of Heating
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1992, 1791 Tullie Circle
NE., Atlanta, GA 30329-2305; U.S.A.
Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-1995: Analytical Procedures to ARI
Standard 700-1995, Specifications for Fluorocarbon and Other
Refrigerants, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 1995, 4301
North Fairfax Drive, Suite 425, Arlington, VA 22203; U.S.A.
Federal Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, BB-F-1421-B,
dated March 5, 1992, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives
and Records Administration, 1992, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20402; U.S.A.
0
11. Appendix A1 to subpart F is added to read as follows:
Appendix A1 to Subpart F of Part 82--Generic Maximum Contaminant Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant Reporting units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air and Other Non-condensables............ 1.5% by volume @ 25[deg]C (N/
A for refrigerants used in
low-pressure appliances
\1\).
Water..................................... 10 ppm by weight 20 ppm by
weight (for refrigerants
used in low-pressure
appliances \1\).
Other Impurities Including Refrigerant.... 0.50% by weight.
High boiling residue...................... 0.01% by volume.
Particulates/solids....................... visually clean to pass.
Acidity................................... 1.0 ppm by weight.
Chlorides (chloride level for pass/fail is No visible turbidity.
3ppm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Low-pressure appliances means an appliance that uses a refrigerant
with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 [deg]F.
Blend Compositions (Where Applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable
Nominal composition (by weight%) composition
(by weight%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component constitutes 25% or more....................... 2.0
Component constitutes less than 25% but greater than 10% 1.0
Component constitutes less than or equal to 10%......... 0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 04-3817 Filed 3-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P