Vol. 57 No. 238 Thursday, December 10, 1992 p 58644 (Proposed Rule
1/6187
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-4542-9]
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
____________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: In this document, EPA proposes regulations under section
608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that would establish a recycling
program for ozone depleting refrigerants recovered during the
servicing and disposal of air conditioning or refrigeration
equipment. The proposed regulations would require persons servicing
air conditioning and refrigeration equipment to observe certain
service practices that reduce refrigerant emissions and would
establish equipment and off-site reclaimer certification programs.
In addition, EPA would require that ozone depleting compounds
contained "in bulk" in appliances be removed prior to disposal
of the appliances, and that all air conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, except for small appliances and room air conditioners,
be provided with a servicing aperture that would facilitate
recovery of the refrigerant. These proposed regulations should
significantly reduce emissions of ozone depleting refrigerants
and therefore aid U.S. and global efforts to minimize damage
to the ozone layer.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received
on or before January 22, 1993. A public hearing is scheduled
for December 23, 1992 in the EPA Auditorium, located at 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in duplicate to the
attention of Air Docket No. A-92--01 at: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The Public Docket is located in room M-1500, Waterside Mall
(Ground Floor), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC. Dockets may be inspected from 8
a.m. until 12 noon, and from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debbie Ottinger, Stratospheric
Ozone Protection Branch, Global Change Division, Office of
Atmospheric
and Indoor Air Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, ANR-445,
401 M Street SW., Washington DC 20460. (202) 233-9200. The
Stratospheric
Ozone Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can also be contacted
for further information on weekdays from 10:00 to 4:00, Eastern
Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble
are listed in the following outline:
I. Background
A. Ozone Depletion
B. Montreal Protocol and EPA's Implementing Regulations
C. Excise Tax
D. London Amendments to the Protocol
E. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
III. Today's Proposed Rule
A. Equipment Affected
B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Proposal
C. Overview of Proposed Requirements
D. Public Participation
E. Definitions and Interpretations
F. Required Practices
1. Evacuation of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment
2. Leak repair
3. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant
4. RCRA Regulations Regarding the Management of CFCs and CFC-
Contaminated Wastes
5. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery
Equipment
G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment
1. Standards for recovery and recycling machines intended
for use with air conditioning and refrigeration equipment
except small appliances
a. Recovery efficiency
b. Refrigerant recovery rates
c. Low loss fittings
d. Purge loss
e. Volume-sensitive shut-off
2. Standards for recovery machines intended for use with small
appliances
3. Possible standards for recycling and recovery machines
used with equipment identical to MVACs
4. Testing of recycling and recovery equipment intended for
use on air conditioning and refrigeration equipment except
small appliances
5. Testing of recycling and recovery equipment intended for
use on small appliances
6. Effective Dates and Grand Fathering Provisions
H. EPA Promotion of Service Technician Competence
1. Curriculum or Test Content
2. Administration
3. Possible Need for Mandatory Certification
I. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery of Equipment
J. Certification of Reclaimers
K. Recordkeeping Requirements
L. Safe Disposal Requirements
M. Servicing Apertures
N. Possible exemption from regulatory requirements for
refrigerant
uses for which no high-efficiency recovery technology exists
IV. Possible Future Rulemakings to Implement Section 608
V. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
A. Ozone Depletion
The stratospheric ozone layer protects the earth from the
penetration of harmful ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation. On the
basis of scientific evidence, a national and international
consensus
exists that certain man-made halocarbons, including
chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform,
must be restricted because of the risk of depletion of the
stratospheric
ozone layer through the release of chlorine and bromine. To
the extent depletion occurs, penetration of UV-B radiation
increases,
resulting in potential health and environmental harm including
increased incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts,
suppression
of the immune system, damage to plants including crops and aquatic
organisms, increased formation of ground-level ozone and increased
weathering of outdoor plastics.
The original theory linking CFCs to ozone depletion was first
proposed in 1974. Since then, the scientific community has made
remarkable advances in understanding atmospheric processes
affecting
stratospheric ozone science. Model predictions in the late 1980s
suggested that continued use of CFCs would lead to substantial
ozone depletion in the middle of the next century. Despite the
sophistication of these models, scientists did not predict the
extent of the decrease in stratospheric ozone over Antarctica
that was first reported in 1985. This seasonal loss of ozone
over the south pole became known as the "Antarctic Ozone hole".
More recent studies have continued to deepen concern over
stratospheric ozone loss. In 1988, the results of an international
assessment of ozone trends were published in the Executive Summary
of the Ozone Trends Panel Report. In addition to the ozone hole,
this report stated that analysis of total-column ozone data
showed measurable downward trends from 1969 to 1988 of 3 to
5 percent in the northern hemisphere in the winter. In early
1991, new scientific evidence from satellite data indicated
a year-round loss of stratospheric ozone over the northern mid-
latitudes during the past decade of 3 to 5 percent. This amount
is 2 times greater than past studies suggested and has raised
the concern that ozone depletion appears to be occurring faster
than theoretical models had predicted. A scientific assessment
published in October, 1991 showed for the first time stratospheric
ozone depletion in summertime over the continental United States.
Most recently, analyses of atmospheric chemistry in the northern
hemisphere have indicated that an ozone hole similar to the
one in the antarctic could appear in the arctic. These analyses
also imply that ozone depletion at the northern mid-latitudes
could accelerate.
A more detailed discussion of the background of the ozone
depletion problem, the scientific evidence regarding the issue,
and the health and environmental effects of ozone depletion
can be found at 56 FR 49548 (September 30, 1991).
B. Montreal Protocol and EPA's Implementing Regulations
In September 1987, the United States and 22 other countries
signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer (the Protocol). As originally drafted, the Protocol
called for production and consumption of certain CFCs (CFC-11,
12, 113, 114, 115) and halons (Halon-1211, -1301 and -2402)
to be frozen at 1986 levels beginning July 1, 1989, and January
1, 1992, respectively, and for the CFCs to be reduced to 50
percent of 1986 levels by 1998. To date, 76 nations representing
well over 90% of the world's production capacity for CFCs and
halons have signed the Montreal Protocol. EPA promulgated
regulations
implementing the requirements of the 1987 Protocol through a
system of tradeable allowances. EPA apportioned the allowances
to producers and importers of ozone depleting substances
(controlled
substances) based on their 1986 level of production and
importation.
It then reduced the allowances for the controlled substances
according to the schedule specified in the Protocol. (See 56
FR 49548 (September 30, 1991) for a more detailed discussion
of the Protocol and EPA's regulations to implement the phaseout
of ozone-depleting substances.)
C. Excise Tax
As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989,
the U.S. Congress levied an excise tax on the sale of CFCs and
other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, with specific
exemptions for exports and recycling. The tax has operated as
a complement to EPA's regulations limiting production and
consumption
by increasing the costs of using virgin controlled substances.
As a result of the tax, there is an added incentive for industry
to shift away from controlled substances and to increase recycling
activities. The tax has also stimulated the market for alternative
chemicals and processes. The original excise tax was amended
in 1991 to include methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and
other CFCs regulated by the amended Montreal Protocol and title
VI of the Clean Air Act.
D. London Amendments to the Protocol
Since the signing of the Protocol in 1987, additional scientific
evidence became available indicating that depletion of the
stratospheric
ozone layer was occurring more quickly than had been anticipated.
In response to this evidence (i.e. the 1988 Ozone Trends Panel
Report), the Parties to the Protocol at their meeting in London
in June 1990 amended the Protocol schedule for CFCs and halons
to require a complete phaseout by January 1, 2000. Methyl
chloroform
and carbon tetrachloride were added to the list of ozone depleting
substances, with carbon tetrachloride phased out by January
1, 2000 and methyl chloroform phased out by January 1, 2005.
The parties also passed a non-binding resolution regarding
the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs have been
identified as interim substitutes for CFCs because they add
much less chlorine to the stratosphere than fully halogenated
CFCs. The Parties were concerned, however, that rapid growth
in the amount of use of these chemicals over time would still
pose a threat to the ozone layer. As a result, the resolution
calls for the phaseout of HCFCs by 2020 if feasible and no later
than 2040 in any case.
E. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
On May 1, 1990, EPA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM, 55 FR 18256) addressing issues related to
the development of a national CFC recycling program. This notice
emphasized that recycling is important because it would allow
the continued use of equipment requiring CFCs for service past
the year in which CFC production is phased out, thereby eliminating
or deferring the cost of early retirement or retrofit of such
equipment. The Agency continues to believe that the continued
use of these substances in existing equipment that recycling
would allow can serve as a useful bridge to alternative products
while minimizing disruption of the current capital stock of
equipment.
The ANPRM asked for comment on the feasibility of recycling
in various CFC end uses and also asked for comment on methods,
such as a deposit/refund system, that could be employed to
encourage
recycling. The Agency received 110 public comment letters in
response to the ANPRM. In general, most commenters recognized
the need for recycling to be established to help efforts to
protect the ozone layer and to provide a source of refrigerant
to service existing capital equipment after the phaseout of
CFC production is complete.
F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed November 15,
1990, include requirements for controlling ozone-depleting
substances
that are generally consistent with, but in some cases more
stringent
than those contained in the Montreal Protocol as revised in
1990. For the substances covered by the revised Protocol's control
measures, title VI of the Act calls for a phaseout of CFCs by
January 1, 2000 with deeper interim reductions and, in the case
of methyl chloroform, an earlier phase out date (2002 instead
of 2005). For the HCFCs, title VI requires use restrictions,
a production freeze in 2015 and a phaseout in 2050. EPA issued
a temporary final rule on March 6, 1991 implementing the production
and consumption limits contained in the Act for calendar year
1991. (See 56 FR 9518.) The Agency published proposed regulations
for 1992 and beyond on September 30, 1991 (See 56 FR 49548).
In addition to the phaseout of ozone depleting substances,
title VI includes a variety of other provisions intended to
reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Section 608,
the foundation for the regulations proposed today, provides
for EPA to promulgate regulations to achieve the "lowest achievable
level" of emissions of ozone-depleting substances and to maximize
recycling of such substances. Section 608 also bans the knowing
venting of ozone-depleting substances during the maintenance,
service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process
refrigeration. Section 609 establishes a specific program requiring
the recovery and recycling of refrigerant used in motor vehicle
air conditioners, specifically requires training and certification
of technicians, and restricts the sale of small containers of
CFCs. Other title VI sections call for mandatory labelling,
a ban on nonessential products, and a program to review the
safety of alternatives to class I and class II substances.
II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides
the legal basis for this rulemaking. It requires EPA to establish
a comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone depleting
substances during their use and disposal.
Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief,
the first requires regulations to reduce the use and emission
of class I substances (CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and
methyl chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs) to the lowest
achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of such substances.
The second subsection requires that the regulations promulgated
pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements concerning the
safe disposal of class I and class II substances. Finally, the
third subsection establishes self-effectuating prohibitions
on the venting into the environment of class I or class II
substances,
and eventually their substitutes, during servicing and disposal
of air conditioning or refrigeration equipment.
In particular, subsection (a) of section 608 requires EPA
to promulgate regulations "establishing standards and requirements
regarding the use and disposal" of both class I substances and
class II substances. The regulations required are to "reduce
the use and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable
level" and are to "maximize the recapture and recycling of such
substances." Subsection (a) calls for EPA to promulgate such
regulations with respect to "the use and disposal of class I
substances during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances
and industrial process refrigeration" by January 1, 1992.
(Appliance
is defined by section 601(1) as "any device which contains and
uses a class I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which
is used for household or commercial purposes, including any
air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA believes
that motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) are included within
the scope of the term "appliance" but that the servicing
regulations
promulgated pursuant to section 609 of the Act eliminate the
need to promulgate servicing regulations for MVACs under section
608. MVACs, however, will be subject to disposal regulations
proposed today under section 608.) These regulations were to
become effective by July 1, 1992. Paragraph (2) of subsection
(a) expands the scope of the recycling and emission reduction
regulations by requiring EPA to promulgate additional regulations
by November 15, 1994, that establish standards and requirements
regarding the use and disposal of both class I and class II
substance not covered by the initial set of regulations, i.e.,
all other uses of class I and class II substances. These
regulations
are to go into effect not later than 12 months after their
promulgation.
Subsection (a) further provides that the regulations promulgated
pursuant to it may include requirements to use alternative
substances,
to minimize the use of class I or class II substances, or to
promote the use of safe alternatives to class I and class II
substances.
Subsection (b) of section 608 requires that the regulations
under section 608(a) establish standards and requirements for
the safe disposal of class I and class II substances. These
are to include (1) requirements that such substances contained
"in bulk in appliances, machines, or other goods" be removed
prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery for
recycling;
(2) requirements that "any appliance, machine or other good
containing a class I or class II substance in bulk" be "equipped
with a servicing aperture or an equally effective design feature
which will facilitate the recapture of such substance;" and
(3) requirements that products in which a class I or class II
substance is an "inherent element" be disposed of "in a manner
that reduces, to the maximum extent practicable, the release
of such substance into the environment."
The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) ultimately (by
November, 1994) apply to all uses of class I and class II
substances,
including air conditioning and refrigeration, solvents, foam
blowing, and fire control. However, these subsections focus
first on the use and disposal of refrigerants during the service,
repair, or disposal of air conditioning or refrigeration equipment.
Refrigerants also receive special emphasis in subsection
(c) of section 608, which provides in paragraph (1) that, effective
July 1, 1992, it is "unlawful for any person, in the course
of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance
or industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise
knowingly release or dispose of" class I or class II refrigerants
in a manner that "permits such substances to enter the
environment."
Certain de minimis releases are exempted from this
self-effectuating
prohibition. As discussed below in section III. D, EPA is proposing
that, once the requirements of the regulations proposed today
go into effect, "de minimis releases" be interpreted to mean
releases that occur when the recycling and recovery requirements
of this regulation are followed. Section 608(c)(2) extends the
prohibition on venting to substances that are substitutes for
class I and class II refrigerants effective November 15, 1995,
unless the Administrator determines that such venting or releases
do not pose a threat to the environment. The Agency notes that
since MVACs are covered by the term "appliance," the servicing
and disposal of MVACs is subject to the prohibition on venting.
Today's notice, proposing refrigerant recycling and safe
disposal requirements, is a major step in the implementation
of section 608. EPA research indicates that in all air conditioning
or refrigeration sectors, emissions during servicing and disposal
of equipment account for between 50 and 94 percent of total
emissions during the life cycle of the equipment (Regulatory
Impact Analysis: the National Recycling and Emission Reduction
Program, (RIA)). The recovery and recycling requirements proposed
today should sharply reduce emissions during servicing and
disposal,
bringing total potential emissions from 41,000 metric tons per
year to approximately 15,000 metric tons per year (RIA). (These
figures are weighted by ozone depletion potential; unweighted
figures are higher). In those sectors where leakage during use
accounts for a significant percentage of total emissions, EPA
will evaluate the need to establish standards to minimize emissions
during this life cycle stage. Finally, EPA will evaluate the
need to regulate non-refrigerant applications of class I and
class II compounds under section 608. These regulations may
include requirements for emission-reducing engineering controls
and work practices and/or requirements to use alternative
substances
in those uses for which substitutes exist. In determining whether
or not to take further action under section 608, EPA will consider
the incremental costs and benefits of such action.
III. Today's Proposed Rule
A. Equipment Affected
Today's proposed rule applies to the servicing and disposal
of most air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, including
household air conditioners and refrigerators, commercial air
conditioners and chillers, commercial refrigeration, industrial
process refrigeration, refrigerated transport, and air conditioning
in vehicles not covered by EPA's regulations under section 609
of the Clean Air Act (which apply to the service of motor vehicle
air conditioners, or MVACs). The proposed rule also applies
to the disposal of MVACs. Following is a description of the
major categories of equipment that will be affected by the rule:
Household Refrigeration. This category consists of refrigerators
and freezers intended primarily for household use, though they
may be used outside the home (e.g., in an office). In terms
of the number of units currently in operation, this is the largest
sector affected by this rule, with an estimated 159 million
units. The amount of refrigerant (charge) in each of these units,
however, is quite small relative to the charge in equipment
in other sectors, ranging from six ounces to approximately one
pound of CFC-12. The quantity of refrigerant in this sector
that is available for recycling at servicing and disposal is
estimated to be approximately 6,000 metric tons per year. (This
and other estimates in this section are based on figures from
1990.) This makes up approximately 17% of the total available
from the sectors affected by this rule when these quantities
are weighted by the ozone depletion potentials (or ODPs) of
the refrigerants. Because servicing is relatively rare in this
sector, approximately 90% of this 17% would be recovered at
disposal.
Other Refrigerated Appliances. Other refrigerated appliances
include dehumidifiers, vending machines, ice makers, and water
coolers. These equipment types have charge sizes and service
characteristics similar to those in the Household Refrigeration
sector. The total number of units of these types in current
operation is approximately 43 million units. The quantity of
refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is 700 metric tons per
year, which makes up approximately two percent of the total
available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Residential Air Conditioning. This sector includes window
units, packaged terminal air conditioners, central air
conditioners,
light commercial air conditioners, and heat pumps. There are
approximately 133 million units in this sector, making it the
second largest. The residential air conditioning sector is similar
to the household refrigeration and other appliances sectors
because the equipment stock is large, the equipment is infrequently
serviced, and charge sizes are small (4-7 pounds). The quantity
of refrigerant in this sector that is available for recycling
at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 1600 metric tons
per year (when weighted by the ozone-depletion potential of
the refrigerant), which makes up approximately five percent
of the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
This figure is lower than that for household refrigeration because
residential and light commercial air conditioning relies
exclusively
upon HCFC-22, which has approximately five percent of the ozone-
depletion potential of CFC-12.
Transport Refrigeration. The Transport Refrigeration sector
consists of refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway
freight cars, and other shipping containers. With only
approximately
one million transport refrigeration units currently in use,
this sector is relatively small. Trailers, railway cars, and
shipping containers are commonly charged with CFC-12. Ship holds,
on the other hand, rely on HCFC-22 and ammonia. The average
charge size in this sector is approximately 18 pounds, which
is relatively small compared to all but household sectors. The
quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to
be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 1900
metric tons per year, which makes up approximately five percent
of the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Unlike equipment in the household sectors, equipment in the
transport refrigeration sector is usually serviced every year.
Thus, refrigerant recovered and recycled at servicing would
account for approximately 25% of the total recovered and recycled
in this sector.
Retail Food. The retail food sector includes refrigerated
equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants,
and other food service establishments. The equipment includes
small reach-in refrigerators and freezers, refrigerated display
cases, walk-in coolers and freezers, as well as large parallel
systems. Convenience stores and restaurants typically use stand-
alone refrigerators, freezers, and walk-in coolers. In contrast,
supermarkets usually employ large parallel systems, which connect
many display cases to a central condensing unit by means of
extensive refrigerant piping. Because the piping required to
connect all of the cases may be miles long, these systems can
contain charges of over 500 pounds. Charges are typically CFC-
12, CFC-502, or HCFC-22. The estimated total stock of retail
food equipment is approximately 2.5 million units. The quantity
of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is 9,000 metric tons
per year, which makes up approximately 26% of the total available
from the sectors affected by this rule.
Because of the large charge sizes and frequency of servicing
in the retail food sector, EPA believes that recycling in the
sector is already widespread.
Cold Storage Warehouses. Cold storage warehouses are used
to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable
goods. There are approximately 665 million cubic feet of
refrigerated
space in cold storage warehouses throughout the United States.
This sector is similar to the retail food sector, but its equipment
is serviced even more frequently (up to four times each year)
and can be charged even more frequently (up to four times each
year) and can be charged with even greater quantities of
refrigerant.
The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated
to be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 80
metric tons per year, which makes up less than one percent of
the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
As in the retail food sector, EPA believes that recycling is
already widespread in this sector.
Commercial Comfort Air Conditioning. Chillers are used to
regulate the temperature and humidity in offices, hotels, shopping
centers, and other large buildings. There are approximately
167,000 units currently installed, making this sector the smallest
one affected by the recycling rule in terms of stock size.
There are three major types of chillers: Centrifugal,
reciprocating,
and screw. Each of these is named for the type of compressor
employed. Centrifugal chillers, used to cool areas ranging from
30,000 to 600,000 square feet, are generally the largest and
can be charged with up to 900 kg (about 2000 pounds) of
refrigerant.
These chillers may use CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-500, or HCFC-22.
(Recently, centrigual chillers utilizing HCFC-123 have been
introduced to the market; however, these new chillers currently
have a very small fraction of the market and are therefore not
included in this analysis.) Reciprocating chillers, used to
cool areas of less than 30,000 feet, are generally the smallest
and typically contain charges of about 160 pounds of CFC-12
or HCFC-22. Screw chillers are used to cool areas from 30,000
to 100,000 square feet and are charged with about 500 pounds
of HCFC-22. All of the systems are serviced frequently. The
quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available for
recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 5200
metric tons per year, which makes up approximately 14% of the
total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Chillers are long-lasting relative to most air conditioning
and refrigeration equipment. Most will last over 20 years and
some will last 30 years or more. EPA believes that recovery
and recycling is already common in the chiller sector due to
the large charges of refrigerant involved.
Industrial Process Refrigeration
The industrial process refrigeration sector includes industrial
ice machines and ice rinks, as well as many complex, customized
systems used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical,
and manufacturing industries. Equipment in this sector is often
critical to the continuous production of valuable materials.
As a result, industrial process equipment is usually designed,
manufactured, and installed with special care to minimize down-
time for servicing and repair.
This sector uses a variety of refigerants, including CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-500, CFC-502, and HCFC-22. Charge sizes can
be very large, ranging from 750-3000 lbs for ice rinks, and
rising as high as 20,000 lbs for built-up centrifugal units.
The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 2000
metric tons per year, which makes up approximately six percent
of the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Due to the high reliability of industrial process equipment,
servicing is uncommon, and most recovery will occur at disposal.
EPA believes that recycling is already common in this sector.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs)
Motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) include air conditioners
in automobiles and trucks. These recycling regulations only
affect the disposal of MVACs, because the servicing of MVACs
is covered by regulations implementing section 609 of the Clean
Air Act Amendments. Nevertheless, with approximately 119 million
MVACs currently on the road, this sector is one of the largest
sectors affected by the recycling rule. Most MVACs used CFC-
12, but some now use HFC-134a.
MVACs have the highest leakage rates of refrigerant charges
of any equipment type affected by the Recycling Rule. Only 40
percent of all MVACs still contain a refrigerant charge at
disposal.
The original charge, moreover, is small (two to four pounds).
However, the quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is
available for recycling at disposal is estimated to be 9000
metric tons per year, which makes up approximately 25% of the
total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Comfort Cooling in Vehicles Other Than Trucks and Automobiles
Although the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations
implementing section 609 of the Act, the servicing (and disposal)
of air conditioners in other vehicles, such as trains, airplanes,
ships, buses, construction equipment, and farm vehicles would
be covered by these recycling regulations. Due to the lack of
data available on the cooling systems used in these applications,
these uses were not analyzed. However, the quantity of refrigerant
available for recycling from this sector is expected to comprise
only a small fraction of the total available from the sectors
affected by this rule.
B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Proposal
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act provides the statutory basis
for the standards and requirements contained in these proposed
regulations. The statutory standards against which the regulations
concerning the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances
are to be measured is whether they "reduce the use and emission
of such substances to the lowest achievable level" and "maximize
the recapture and recycling of such substances." EPA believes
that, in the context of recycling, these standards are
complementary,
i.e., that maximizing recycling will also mean reducing the
use and emission of these substances to the lowest achievable
level. EPA also believes that these standards bear a relationship
to the de minimis releases permitted notwithstanding the general
prohibition on venting or other releases contained in section
608(c). In other words, emissions that occur while complying
with EPA's recovery and recycling requirements, which achieve
the lowest achievable level of emissions, will only be de minimis
releases.
In applying the statutory standards concerning use, emissions,
and recycling, EPA is taking into account both technological
and economic factors. The phrases "lowest achievable level"
and "maximize recycling" are not defined in the Act. EPA does
not believe that these standards are solely technological in
nature, but rather contemplate a role for economic factors in
determining the lowest "achievable" level of emissions and maximum
amount of recycling. EPA notes that section 608(a)(3) specifically
refers to the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section 612,
which sets out the policy that "to the maximum extent practicable,
class I and class II substances shall be replaced" by other
chemicals, products, or manufacturing processes. Terminology
such as "maximum extent practicable" allows for the consideration
of economic factors. EPA also notes that in other provisions
of the Clean Air Act, similar terms have been used that contemplate
the incorporation of cost and economic factors. See, e.g., section
202(a)(3)(A)(i) (providing for emissions standards for heavy-
duty vehicles that "reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology which
the Administrator determines will be available * * * giving
appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors");
section 213(a)(3) (using similar language in the context of
emission standards for non-road engines). Thus, in EPA's view,
there is nothing inherent in the use of the terms "achievable"
or "maximize" that precludes the consideration of economic factors.
Furthermore, this view is consistent with the legislative
history of section 608. In a statement made on the floor of
the House of Representatives shortly before passage of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, Representative Ralph Hall stated
that: "In promulgating regulations [under section 608] the
Administrator
shall take into account the extent to which emissions reductions
can be achieved, the costs and benefits of implementing available
controls, and the time before which certain uses may no longer
rely on the covered substances." (Cong. Rec. H 12907 (Oct. 26,
1990).) See also statement of Rep. Walgren (Cong. Rec. 12937
(Oct. 26, 1990).)
The stringency of the regulations promulgated to implement
these standards will also be affected by the amount of leadtime
between their date of promulgation and their effective date.
The longer the leadtime, the more time there will be for
technological
innovations and development to occur, thereby permitting the
establishment of more stringent standards. Conversely, shorter
leadtimes necessitate standards based more on the degree of
emission control and performance achievable by equipment already
available or equipment that will be available in the near future.
With respect to the present set of regulations, the leadtime
is necessarily short as section 608(a)(1) provides for an effective
date of July 1, 1992, for the regulations covering the use and
disposal of class I substances used in appliances and industrial
process refrigeration. (This date also coincides with the effective
date of the venting prohibition contained in section 608(c)
for releases of class I and class II refrigerants from appliances
and industrial process refrigeration.) Moreover, for regulations
authorized by section 608(a)(2), the initial effective date
must be within 12 months of promulgation.
EPA has considered these factors in developing these
regulations,
and the Agency believes that it has designed a program that
will achieve the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximize
recycling, taking into account in an appropriate manner the
technology available, costs, benefits, and the leadtimes involved.
Through extensive discussions with industry representatives
and environmental organizations, EPA has attempted to identify
significant emissions and methods for controlling them during
the repair, service, and disposal of air conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment. In many cases, the proposed requirements would mandate
activity already being undertaken by standard-setting and equipment
certification organizations in the heating, ventilation, air
conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC/R) sector. They are also
very similar to the steps being taken to recycle refrigerant
in MVACs, an area where recycling has been successfully
implemented.
EPA has attempted to develop a regulatory program that
accommodates
the wide variety of sizes and types of equipment subject to
this regulation. In setting its efficiency standards for recycling
and recovery equipment, EPA has considered among other factors
both the charge size and frequency of servicing for different
types of equipment. In general, as charge size and frequency
of servicing increase, potential emissions increase, and higher
recovery efficiencies are justified. For instance, the household
refrigeration and other refrigerated appliances categories that
combine to make up the "small appliances" category in today's
proposed rule have tiny charges and are serviced infrequently.
Under today's proposed rule, recovery equipment in this category
would be subject to a standard that requires recovery of between
80 and 90% of the refrigerant (depending upon whether or not
the compressor of the small appliance is operational). On the
other hand, equipment containing more than 50 lbs of charge
would be subject to a standard that requires recovery of over
99% of the refrigerant. Equipment standards are discussed in
detail in section III.F.
EPA has also considered typical methods of disposal in
developing
these regulations. Under this proposal, equipment that is typically
dismantled on-site before disposal (retail food refrigeration,
cold storage warehouse refrigeration, chillers, and industrial
process refrigeration) must have the refrigerant removed and
recovered in accordance with EPA's proposed requirements for
servicing. For these types of equipment, the persons who perform
servicing usually also perform disposal. This is generally not
the case, however, for smaller items such as household
refrigerators
and freezers, room air conditioners, and motor vehicle air
conditioners.
This equipment is disposed of by consumers and generally enters
the waste stream with the charge intact. EPA is proposing special
safe disposal requirements for this equipment, which would make
the final person in the disposal chain (e.g., a scrap metal
recycler) responsible for ensuring that refrigerant has been
recovered from equipment before the final disposal of the
equipment.
Equipment covered by these requirements also includes
dehumidifiers,
water coolers, and other relatively portable equipment in addition
to household refrigerators and freezers and MVACs. EPA's safe
disposal program is discussed in detail in section III.L.
Although EPA is not expressly required to include class II
substances in the recycling regulations to become effective
on July 1, 1992, EPA is proposing to include class II substances
in today's proposed rule for a number of reasons. First, the
prohibition on venting that became effective on July 1 covers
both class I and class II substances, and EPA considers it
desirable
to provide a clear, consistent framework for fully implementing
the prohibition on venting for all refrigerants. The agency
believes that this framework will minimize confusion and maximize
compliance with the prohibition. Second, the goals of this
regulation,
to minimize refrigerant emissions and to help ensure that a
supply of high-quality refrigerant is available to service
equipment
in the future, apply to both class I and class II refrigerants.
Without specific requirements, recycling may proceed improperly,
leading to excessive HCFC emissions, contamination of refrigerant,
and damage to equipment. Third, most technicians routinely work
with both types of refrigerants and therefore would need the
equipment to handle refrigerants in accordance with the rule
even if class II substances were not included. Industry
representatives
on the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling agreed with this rationale
and with the inclusion of class II substances in the regulation.
While EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) does not now
explicitly
calculate the incremental net benefits of addressing class II
substances in this regulation (as opposed to in a regulation
to be promulgated by November, 1994), the final RIA will address
this issue. EPA requests comment on the costs and benefits of
including class II substances in the regulation.
C. Overview of Proposed Requirements
EPA's proposal has three main elements, which, taken together,
satisfy the criteria of section 608 concerning recycling, emissions
reduction, and disposal. First, the Agency would require
technicians
servicing and disposing of air conditioning and refrigeration
equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
refrigerant
emissions. Second, EPA would establish equipment and reclaimer
certification programs. These would have the goals of verifying
(1) that all recycling or recovery equipment sold was capable
of minimizing emissions and (2) that reclaimed refrigerant on
the market was of known and acceptable quality to avoid equipment
failures from contaminated refrigerant. Third, to implement
the safe disposal requirements of section 608, EPA would require
that ozone depleting refrigerants in appliances, machines, and
other goods be removed from those items prior to their disposal,
and that all air conditioning and refrigeration equipment except
for small appliances and room air conditioners be provided with
a servicing aperture that would facilitate recovery of the
refrigerant.
In addition to the three main elements of its proposal, EPA
is requesting comment on the need for EPA involvement in technician
education.
In order to allow the regulated community sufficient time
to come into compliance with the certification requirements,
EPA proposes to phase them in over a period of twelve months.
In addition, the Agency proposes to "grandfather in" equipment
meeting certain minimum requirements set forth in Section III.
These grandfathering provisions are intended to encourage the
regulated community to begin recycling as soon as possible using
available equipment rather than delaying action until certified
equipment is available.
Section 608(a) of the Act specifies an initial effective
date for these regulations of July 1, 1992. EPA recognizes that,
due to the fact that these regulations have not been proposed
until today, a July 1, 1992 effective date is not possible for
most portions of them. For certain portions of them, however,
a July 1, 1992, effective date would still be possible, albeit
retroactively. EPA believes that a July 1, 1992 effective date
is appropriate for the provision of the proposed regulations
prohibiting the venting of refrigerants because the prohibition
on venting contained in section 608(c) of the Act is
self-effectuating
and went into effect on July 1, 1992, notwithstanding the lack
of final regulations under section 608. For other portions of
the regulations, EPA is proposing various effective dates in
order to allow sufficient lead time for the affected industry
to comply. EPA requests comment on what the appropriate effective
dates would be for the different provisions of the regulations,
taking into account the amount of leadtime necessary to comply
with these new regulatory requirements and the proposed
grandfathering
provisions. EPA also requests comment on the feasibility and
implications of adopting a retroactive effective date in the
final regulations.
D. Public Participation
EPA has worked extensively with outside groups in developing
this proposal. In particular, the Agency has established and
has met repeatedly with the Subcommittee for Recycling and
Emissions
Reduction of EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory
Committee
(STOPAC). The STOPAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered
in 1989 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
section 9(c), to provide independent counsel to EPA on specific
issues affecting the international negotiations and domestic
implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Since the enactment
of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, the STOPAC has also
provided advice on the implementation of Title VI of this
legislation.
The Subcommittee for Recycling has over 50 members representing
air conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufacturers,
wholesalers, services, and users, manufacturers of recycling
and recovery equipment, refrigerant manufacturers and reclaimers,
educational organizations, state and local governments, and
environmentalists. To date, EPA has met with members of the
Subcommittee six times: The Subcommittee as a whole has met
twice, and smaller groups have met to discuss equipment
certification,
technician certification, reclaimer certification and safe
disposal.
Summaries of these meetings are available in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
EPA has also worked with the air conditioning and refrigeration
industry's primary standards-setting organizations, the Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
Inc. (ASHRAE), in developing its proposal. Wherever appropriate,
EPA has incorporated standards and guidelines from these
organizations
into the proposed rule. Examples of incorporated standards include
the ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants,
(Appendix A to the proposed regulations), and the ARI Standard
740-1991, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling, and/or
Reclaim Equipment, (Appendix B to the proposed regulations).
EPA has also considered the ASHRAE Guideline 3, Reducing Emission
of Fully Halogenated Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Refrigerants in
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Applications,
in developing its proposed rule.
In addition to convening the Subcommittee for Recycling,
EPA has met with various industry representatives to gather
data on refrigerant emissions, to better understand current
industry practices, and to discuss a range of technical issues.
The data on refrigerant emissions were used to update EPA's
vintaging analysis, which analyzes emissions by equipment type
and life cycle stage (e.g., manufacturing, use, servicing, or
disposal). This analysis has been used to calculate the potential
costs and benefits of this rule and to identify opportunities
for further emissions reductions. The data used in the analysis
is presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this
proposal, also available in the public docket. Industry groups
that have provided or commented on data include appliance
manufacturers,
chiller manufacturers and services, industrial process
refrigeration
manufacturers and users, commercial refrigeration manufacturers
and users, refrigerated transport manufacturers, servicers and
users, and manufacturers and users of comfort air cooling systems
for commercial vehicles.
E. Definitions and Interpretations
Active Recovery Device
Recovery devices used with refrigerators and freezers and
other small appliances can be divided into two main types: Active
and passive. While active equipment has its own compressor to
pump refrigerant out of the refrigerator system, passive equipment
relies solely upon the compressor in the small appliance and/or
the pressure of the refrigerant in the appliance to recover
the refrigerant. EPA proposes to define these two types of
equipment
accordingly. The distinction is important because active and
passive recovery devices differ in their recovery efficiencies
and other performance characteristics, and EPA is proposing
different certification standards for them.
Appliance
The Act defines "appliance" as "any device which contains
and uses a class I or class II substance as a refrigerant and
which is used for household or commercial purposes, including
any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." In
today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing that this language also
be used in the regulatory definition of appliance.
EPA interprets the Act's definition of appliance to include
all the sectors of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment
described under section III.A. above, including household
refrigerators
and freezers (which may be used outside the home), other
refrigerated
appliances, residential and light commercial air conditioning,
transport refrigeration, retail food refrigeration, cold storage
warehouses, commercial comfort air conditioning, motor vehicle
air conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under
section 609, and industrial process refrigeration. (In sections
608(a) and 608(c) the Act refers specifically to "industrial
process refrigeration," a term that is not defined. EPA believes
that all refrigeration equipment categorized as industrial process
refrigeration in section III.A. above also falls within the
broad statutory definition of "appliance.")
The Act's definition of "appliance" has one minor limitation:
The reference to the use of devices for "household or commercial
purposes." While these purposes encompass virtually all uses
of devices containing and using refrigerants, EPA does not believe
that they encompass devices containing and using refrigerants
that are designed for and used solely in a military application.
Thus, the Act's definition of appliance does not appear to include,
for example, a refrigeration unit designed only for and used
only in a nuclear submarine. If, however, the refrigeration
equipment used in a military application is identical to equipment
used in a commercial application, then it is covered by the
Act's definition. For example, a room air conditioner used on
a military base is still considered an appliance even through
the use of that particular piece of equipment may not be for
commercial or household purposes. Similarly, although a
refrigerator
in some other government facility is not used for household
or commercial purposes, that refrigerator is still considered
an appliance because that identical kind of equipment is used
for household or commercial purposes in other contexts.
This interpretation is consistent with section 118 of the
Act, which provides that "[e]ach department, agency,
instrumentality
of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal
Government * * * shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal,
State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative
authority,
and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement
of air pollution in the same manner, and to the same extent
as any non governmental entity." Section 618 of the Act explicitly
provides that the requirements of Title VI concerning the
protection
of the stratospheric ozone layer "shall be treated as requirements
for the control and abatement of air pollution within the meaning
of section 118."
Although EPA believes that equipment designed and used
exclusively
for military purposes falls outside the definition of "appliance,"
EPA believes that it has the authority under section 608(a)(2)
to regulate the use and emissions of refrigerant from such
equipment.
EPA requests comment on whether it should pursue such regulation.
Approved Equipment Testing Organization
EPA proposes to define Approved Equipment Testing Organization
as any organization which has applied for and received approval
from EPA to test recycling and recovery equipment.
Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment
EPA proposes to define Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment
as equipment certified by an approved testing organization to
meet EPA's final standards or equipment purchased before [6
months after publication of the final rule] that meets EPA's
standards for grandfathered equipment.
High-pressure Appliance
Because the physical properties of high, very high,
intermediate,
and low pressure refrigerants differ, EPA proposes to establish
somewhat different requirements for technicians and equipment
servicing high, very high, intermediate, and low pressure
appliances.
EPA proposes to define high-pressure appliances as appliances
that uses a refrigerant with a boiling point between -50 and
0 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches Hg).
This definition would include equipment using CFCs 12, 500,
and 502, and HCFC 22.
Intermediate-pressure Appliance
EPA proposes to define intermediate-pressure appliances as
appliances that use a refrigerant with a boiling point between
0 and 10 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches
Hg). This definition would include appliances using CFC-114
and possibly blends of CFC-114 and other refrigerants.
Low Loss Fitting
EPA is proposing to require that recovery or recycling machines
manufactured after [6 months after publication of the final
rule], possess low loss fittings or positive shutoff devices.
EPA proposes to define low loss fitting as any device that is
intended to establish a connection between hoses, air conditioning
and refrigeration equipment, or recovery or recycling machines
and that is designed to close automatically when disconnected,
minimizing the release of refrigerant from hoses, air conditioning
or refrigeration equipment, and recovery or recycling machines.
Low-pressure Appliance
EPA proposes to define low-pressure appliances as appliances
that use a refrigerant with a boiling point above 10 degrees
Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches Hg). This
definition
would include appliances using CFCs 11 and 113, and HCFC 123.
Passive Recovery Device
As discussed above in the explanation of the term "active
recovery device," EPA proposes to define a passive recovery
device as a device that relies solely upon the compressor in
a small appliance and/or upon the pressure of the refrigerant
inside a small appliance to remove the refrigerant into an external
container.
Person
EPA is proposing to require that refrigerant transferred
between air conditioning or refrigeration equipment owned by
different persons must be fully reclaimed. EPA proposes to define
person as any individual or legal entity, including an individual,
corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality,
political subdivision of a state, Indian tribe, and any agency,
department, or instrumentality of the United States, and any
officer, agent, or employee thereof. This is identical to the
definition used in the regulations concerning the production
and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (40 CFR 82.3(r)).
Process Stub
EPA is proposing to require that small appliances and room
air conditioners sold after July 1, 1993, be provided with a
process stub to facilitate removal of the refrigerant at servicing.
The Agency is proposing to define process stub as a length of
tubing that provides access to the refrigerant inside a small
appliance or room air conditioner and that can be resealed at
the conclusion of repair or service.
Reclaim
EPA is proposing to adopt a slightly modified form of ASHRAE's
definition of "reclaim." According to ASHRAE, to reclaim
refrigerant
is to:
Reprocess refrigerant to new product specifications by means
which may include distillation. Will require chemical analysis
of the refrigerant to determine that appropriate product
specifications
are met. This term usually implies the use of processes or
procedures
available only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.
EPA is refining this definition to refer specifically to the
ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants
(included as Appendix A to the proposed rule) for the "New product
specifications" and also for the appropriate type of chemical
analysis to ensure that these specifications are met. For the
Agency's purposes, the most important part of the definition
of reclaim is the requirement to chemically analyze the final
product to verify purity. Without such analysis and verification,
the Agency will not consider refrigerant to have been reclaimed.
Recover
EPA also proposes to adopt ASHRAE's definition of "recover:"
to remove refrigerant in any condition from a system without
necessarily testing or processing it in any way.
Recycle
Although the Act's usage of the term "recycle" is very broad,
encompassing, for instance, the term "reclaim" as defined above,
EPA proposes to define the term more narrowly in its regulations.
Once again, EPA is proposing to adopt ASHRAE's definition, with
minor changes. ASHRAE states that to recycle is to:
Clean refrigerant for reuse by oil separation and single
or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable core
filter-driers, which reduce moisture, acidity and particulate
matter. This term usually applies to procedures implemented
at the field job site or at a local service shop.
The key difference between "recycle" and "reclaim" is that the
former does not involve chemical analysis of the product. Recycling
essentially encompasses all types of treatment of refrigerant
that do not involve such chemical analysis. As explained in
a later section of this notice, EPA is proposing to require
that all refrigerant changing hands must be fully reclaimed,
implying that the vast majority of recycling will take place
on site as opposed to at a local service shop.
Small Appliance
EPA is proposing to define as "small appliance" air conditioning
or refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound of
charge during normal operation. Equipment containing less than
one pound of charge includes household refrigerators, household
freezers, dehumidifiers, vending machines, and water coolers.
EPA is also proposing special servicing and safe disposal
requirements
for these items. EPA requests comment on using the one-pound
quantity to define them.
Technician
EPA is proposing a number of requirements that apply to
technicians.
EPA proposes to define technician as any person who performs
maintenance, service, or repair to air conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment that could reasonably be expected to release CFCs
or HCFCs into the atmosphere, e.g., installers, contractor
employees,
in-house service personnel, and in some cases, owners. Technician
also means any person disposing of air conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment except for small appliances.
Very High Pressure Equipment
EPA proposes to define very high pressure equipment as air
conditioning and refrigeration equipment that uses a refrigerant
with a boiling point below 50 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric
pressure. This definition would include equipment using
refrigerants
13 and 503.
F. Required Practices
EPA is proposing to require persons servicing or disposing
of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment to observe certain
service practices that minimize emissions of ozone depleting
refrigerants. The most fundamental of these practices is the
requirement to recover refrigerant rather than vent it to the
atmosphere. As noted above, the knowing venting of class I or
class II refrigerant during servicing or disposal (except for
de minimis releases that accompany a good faith effort to recycle)
is expressly prohibited by section 608(c) of the Act after July
1, 1992.
EPA proposes to define venting as any release to the environment
of a class I or class II substance that takes place with the
knowledge of the technician during the maintenance, servicing,
repairing, or disposal of air conditioning or refrigeration
equipment. De minimis releases, as discussed below, are not
considered venting.
As noted above, section 608(c)(1) of the CAA prohibits the
knowing venting of class I and class II substances from appliances
or industrial process refrigeration during servicing and disposal.
However, that section exempts "de minimis" releases associated
with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely
dispose of these substances from the prohibition. In their
statement
prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the Senate managers explained that, "The exception is included
to account for the fact that in the course of properly using
recapture and recycling equipment, it may not be possible to
prevent some small amount of leakage." (Congressional Record
S16948 (October 26, 1990)). From this statement and the statutory
text, EPA considers it appropriate to conclude that emissions
accompanying the proper use of recapture and recycling equipment
would generally be considered "de minimis." EPA therefore proposes
to define as "de minimis" those emissions that take place at
servicing and disposal when:
(i) The required practices set forth in 82.158 of this proposed
regulation are observed and when recovery or recycling machines
that meet the requirements set forth in 82.158 of this proposed
regulation are used, or
(ii) The requirements of the MVAC regulation (40 CFR part
82 subpart B) are observed.
Such emissions represent the lowest achievable level of
emissions,
but because the requirements for recovery and recycling machines
would vary somewhat from sector to sector and because the charge
sizes involved vary considerably from sector to sector, the
quantities considered de minimis would also vary from sector
to sector.
1. Evacuation of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
EPA proposes that before air conditioning and refrigeration
equipment is opened for maintenance, service, or repair, the
refrigerant in either the entire system or the part to be serviced
(if the latter can be isolated) must be transferred to a system
receiver (a component of the system that is designed to hold
excess refrigerant charge and that can be used to hold the charge
during servicing or repair) or to a certified recycling or recovery
machine. The same requirements would apply to equipment that
is to be disposed of, except for small appliances, room air
conditioners, and MVACs, whose disposal is covered by Section
III.L below. In order to ensure that the maximum amount of
refrigerant
possible is captured rather than released, EPA is proposing
to require that air conditioning and refrigeration equipment
be evacuated to or below specified levels of vacuum. The Agency
has considered a number of factors in developing these levels,
including the technical capabilities, ease of use, and costs
of recycling and recovery equipment, the possible impact of
evacuation on the air conditioning and refrigeration equipment,
the servicing times that would be unnecessary to achieve different
vacuums, and the amounts of refrigerant that would be released
under different evacuation requirements and their predicted
impact on the ozone layer (and indirectly, on human health and
the environment). Characteristics of recycling and recovery
equipment are discussed in more detail in section III.G; servicing
times and the possible impact of evacuation on air conditioning
and refrigeration equipment are discussed in section a. below.
The required level of evacuation would vary depending upon
the type of equipment to be serviced or disposed of and the
date of manufacture of the recovery or recycling machine (i.e.,
whether it met certification requirements for new equipment
or had been grandfathered). For small appliances, the requirements
would also vary depending on the capacities of the recovery
system used under the circumstances (e.g., with an operating
vs. a nonoperating refrigerator compressor).
a. Evacuation requirements for air conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment besides small appliances. When recovery and recycling
machines manufactured or imported after [6 months after publication
of the final rule], are employed for recovery, EPA is proposing
to require evacuation to 0 inches of vacuum, 10 inches of vacuum,
20 inches of vacuum, 25 inches of vacuum, or 29 inches of vacuum,
depending on the size and type of air conditioning or refrigeration
equipment being serviced. If grandfathered recovery or recycling
devices are used, EPA proposes to require evacuation to 0 inches
of vacuum in very high pressure systems, 4 inches of vacuum
in high pressure systems, and 25 inches of vacuum in low pressure
systems and in systems utilizing CFC 114, because the grandfathered
equipment may not be capable of achieving higher levels (see
Section III.G.). The table below lists requirements for evacuation
(pressure readings) for each type of air conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment and for certified and grandfathered recovery and
recycling
machines.
Table 1.-Required Levels of Evacuation for Air Conditioning
or
Refrigeration Equipment Except for Small Appliances
__________________________________________Â___________________________________
³ Inches of
Vacuum
³
Ã________________Â__________________
³ Using recovery
³ Using recovery
³ or recycling
³ or recycling
Type of air conditioning or refrigeration ³ equipment
³ equipment
equipment ³ manufactured
³ manufactured
³ before [6 mos.
³ on or after [6
³ after
³ mos. after
³ publication of
³ publication of
³ final rule]
³ final rule]
______________ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
³
High pressure equipment with a charge of ³ 4
³ 10
less than 50 pounds. ³
³
High pressure equipment with a charge of ³ 4
³ 20
more than 50 pounds. ³
³
Very high pressure equipment ............ ³ 0
³ 0
Intermediate pressure equipment ......... ³ 25
³ 25
Low pressure equipment .................. ³ 25
³ 25
³
³ mm Hg*
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
*Pressures below 25 inches of vacuum are typically measured in
millimeters
(mm) or microns (æ) of mercury absolute rather than in
inches of mercury
vacuum. At standard sea-level atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches
of mercury
absolute), 25 mm of mercury absolute is approximately equal to
one inch of
mercury absolute or 29 inches of mercury vacuum. EPA proposes to
use the
absolute rather than relative measure here not only because this
is the
standard industry practice but because 29 inches of vacuum cannot
physically be attained in areas where atmospheric pressure
typically falls
very near or below 29 inches of mercury absolute (e.g., areas at
high
elevation, such as Denver, Colorado).
i. Impact of vacuums on high-pressure air conditioning or
refrigeration equipment. Some industry representatives on the
STOPAC Subcommittee expressed concern that drawing vacuums on
high-pressure equipment could have two adverse effects: (1)
If air conditioning or refrigeration equipment is leaky, drawing
a vacuum on the equipment may pull air and moisture into the
equipment and from there into the recycling or recovery device,
contaminating refrigerant and in some instances, limiting the
depth of vacuum that can be achieved; and (2) when air conditioning
and refrigeration equipment is opened for service after a vacuum
has been drawn, air and moisture are drawn into the system in
greater amounts than they are if the interior of the system
is at atmospheric pressure. If these contaminants are not removed
from the system, they can corrode equipment and cause it to
fail.
As discussed below in section III.F.1.d., the Agency has
attempted to provide for situations involving leaky equipment.
Influxes of air and moisture caused by opening a system whose
interior pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure may be
addressed in two ways, according to industry sources. First,
such influxes may be prevented by breaking the vacuum with dry
nitrogen. This method, however, requires technicians to carry
heavy nitrogen cylinders, a procedure that may be impractical
for servicing equipment located on rooftops or other difficult
to reach areas. Second, air and moisture may be removed from
a system by drawing a second, deeper vacuum on the system after
it is repaired. However, although drawing a second vacuum is
standard industry practice, the time involved in drawing a deep
vacuum discourages many technicians from achieving a vacuum
deep enough to remove all the air and moisture that may have
entered the system. Thus, a number of service companies recommend
that their technicians evacuate high pressure systems only to
atmospheric pressure, minimizing the intrusion of air and moisture.
EPA requests comment on the option of requiring technicians
who service small high pressure systems, particularly those
utilizing HCFC-22, to evacuate these systems only to atmospheric
pressure. As is discussed further in section III.G. below, the
Agency is generally willing to consider less stringent standards
for equipment utilizing HCFC-22 because HCFC-22 has approximately
five percent of the ozone depletion potential of CFCs 11 and
12. However, EPA believes strongly that larger systems and systems
utilizing high-pressure refrigerants besides HCFC-22 should
be evacuated to levels below atmospheric pressure. Large systems
utilizing CFC-12 in particular may still contain several pounds
of refrigerant at atmospheric pressure; for instance, a bank
of compressors in a grocery store with a charge of 500 pounds
of CFC-12 (a common quantity) will contain over 10 pounds of
refrigerant at atmospheric pressure. For these and similar systems,
EPA believes the quantity of refrigerant recovered by pulling
a deeper vacuum justifies the extra labor required either to
break the vacuum with nitrogen or to pull a second vacuum deep
enough to remove all the air and moisture that may enter a system
below atmospheric pressure. The Agency requests comment on this
rationale and on the levels of vacuum proposed above.
ii. Servicing Times. EPA has also considered the amount of
time technicians would have to spend on the job in order to
achieve certain vacuums. Each additional unit of vacuum takes
longer than the preceding one to achieve. Hence, a recovery
or recycling machine that can achieve a 10 inch vacuum in a
system in 15 minutes may require another 15 minutes to reach
12 inches, then another 15 minutes to reach 13 inches, etc.
However, EPA discussions with industry indicate that in general,
the vacuums specified above can either be achieved within a
reasonable time period while the technician is on the job or
overnight. (Evacuations of large systems are often performed
overnight.) EPA requests comment on this finding.
b. Evacuation requirements for small appliances. For reasons
discussed further in section EPA's proposed evacuation requirements
for small appliances would depend upon whether an active recovery
device (with a pump) or a passive recovery device (without a
pump) were employed for refrigerant recovery.
Technicians using active recovery devices to recover refrigerant
would be required to reduce system pressure to one atmosphere
(0 psig) (equivalent to 90% capture of refrigerant at 70 F)
in the sealed system. Because the recovery efficiency of passive
recovery device is less dependent on a pressure reading than
on a specific procedure, technicians using passive systems would
be required to adhere to the servicing procedure certified for
that recovery system. Certification of passive recovery devices
and recovery procedures are discussed in more detail in section
III.G.
c. Removal of entrained refrigerant from oil. In some cases,
significant amounts of oil are left behind in a system after
refrigerant has been recovered. In these cases, simply drawing
the vacuums specified in table 1 above may not recover a high
percentage of the refrigerant, because a large percentage of
the refrigerant in a system may be entrained in the compressor
oil. For instance, at 80 degrees F and atmospheric pressure,
50% of the volume of oil in a low pressure chiller is typically
made up of refrigerant. EPA has two concerns regarding oil
contaminated
with refrigerant: (1) The refrigerant may be released once the
system is opened and the oil is exposed to the air, and (2)
the eventual combustion of the oil (a common method of disposal)
may create toxic compounds. The latter concern has led EPA to
classify oil containing certain concentrations of CFCs or HCFCs
as an off-specification fuel under its RCRA regulations.
(Classification
of oil as an off-specification fuel is discussed in more detail
in section III.E.3.) The Agency has similar concerns regarding
oil removed from the compressor during an oil change.
There are a number of methods for recovering refrigerant
entrained in oil The ASHRAE Guideline 3 mentions two, recommending:
When removing oil from the compressor, it is recommended
that the crankcase be pumped down to atmospheric pressure to
remove dissolved refrigerant prior to exposing the oil to the
atmosphere. Refrigerant in solution may be further reduced by
use of crankcase heaters (ASHRAE Guideline 3-1990, p. 7).
The Trane company has determined that through the use of heat
and vacuum, refrigerant concentrations in centrifugal chiller
oil can be reduced to one percent or lower.
Recent discussions with industry representatives indicate
that these methods can be time-consuming and therefore costly.
For instance, if a heat pump or air conditioner is not operational,
it can take up to 24 hours for a crankcase heater to warm up
fully, and the Trane method for removing low-pressure refrigerant
from oil can take several days. In addition, the equipment
necessary
for transporting the oil and extracting the refrigerant can
be cumbersome.
EPA requests comment on the potential of oil in the various
industry sectors to emit CFCs and HCFCs during or after servicing,
and on whether it would be appropriate to require technicians
to follow procedures to extract refrigerant from oil before
exposing the oil to the atmosphere or disposing of the oil.
Are there methods for removing most if not all of the refrigerant
that can be implemented relatively quickly? When would such
methods be applied? Should they be required even for operations
such as oil sampling, which involve withdrawing only a small
fraction of the oil in a system? Are any of the current methods
for removing refrigerant from oil powerful enough to reduce
refrigerant concentrations below the levels that trigger
designation
as an off-specification fuel (4,000 ppm)? If so, even a somewhat
complicated refrigerant recovery procedure may be preferable
to generation of material that is difficult to dispose of.
EPA could require that refrigerant be extracted from oil
when ease of recovery, high oil volumes, and/or high refrigerant
concentrations made the effort worthwhile. One relatively simple
approach would be to require technicians to hold the system
at a vacuum for a period of time that would vary depending upon
the type and size of equipment. As refrigerant evaporated out
of the oil, the system pressure would rise. The technician would
then be required to pump the system back down to the specified
vacuum before opening the system for service. (Adding heat to
the system could expedite this process.) Such a requirement
would have the additional benefit of permitting any remaining
liquid refrigerant in the system to evaporate and be recovered.
d. Evacuation of leaky equipment. Industry representatives
on the STOPAC Subcommittee of recycling noted that in some cases,
large leaks made it impossible to draw a deep vacuum on high-
pressure air conditioning or refrigeration equipment. In such
cases, EPA proposes to allow high pressure equipment to be
evacuated
to 0 psig (atmospheric pressure) instead of to the levels above.
A large leak would be defined as one that lowers the pressure
of a high pressure system to less than two atmospheres (60 inches
of mercury absolute). Industry members stated that leaks smaller
than this would not prevent evaluation to the level specified
in Table 1 (Memorandum from Deborah Ottinger to the Record,
"Meeting Between EPA and ASHRAE Representatives," November 19,
1992). EPA requests comment on this proposal.
2. Leak Repair. Although EPA will consider developing
comprehensive
regulations to reduce refrigerant leakage during equipment use
in the next phase of rulemaking under section 608, the Agency
requests comment on whether it should include in this rule a
requirement to repair substantial leaks. Such a provision could
require technicians servicing equipment that leaks more than
35% of its charge per year to find and repair the leak within
some period of time, perhaps 30 days after the leak's discovery.
While technicians would not be required to inspect for leaks
outside of their normal servicing procedures, they would be
required to repair leaks that they become aware of during such
procedures (e.g., by noting that the charge was low by 35% or
more). This provision would be an emergency, stop-gap measure
to ensure that technicians repaired large leaks instead of
repeatedly
"topping off" systems with new refrigerant. A number of industry
representatives have stated that the latter practice remains
common, despite the increasing cost of refrigerant.
The Agency is suggesting the 35% figure because research
on emissions from equipment in different sectors shows that
this is five percentage points above the typical annual leak
rate in the most leak-prone sectors. Rather than adopt a standard
based on the annual leak rates in the leakiest sectors, however,
EPA could establish different criteria for different sectors.
For example, technicians would be required to repair leaks in
chillers if they released more than 15% of the charge annually
(chillers typically leak 10% of their charge per year), but
they would not have to repair leaks in the retail food sector
unless they released more than 35% of the total charge annually
(refrigeration in the retail food sector typically leaks 30%
of the charge per year). By using the typical leak rate of a
given sector as a bench mark, the Agency is assuming that it
represents an industry standard for the amount of leakage from
normally maintained and operated equipment. Leaks that are
significantly
higher than this benchmark should be worth repairing according
to most service technicians in the sector. While this approach
falls short of establishing a lowest achievable level of emissions
to the extent that typical industry practice falls short of
that level, it would reduce leaks until needed additional analysis
can be performed and regulations establishing lowest achievable
levels of emissions during operation of equipment are promulgated.
3. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant. EPA proposes to
allow technicians considerable flexibility in the disposition
of recovered refrigerant. The one restriction (besides the
prohibition
on venting) that EPA proposes to impose is that refrigerant
transferred between equipment owned by different persons must
be reclaimed. As discussed above in the Definitions Section,
"reclaimed" means that the refrigerant is cleaned to the ARI
700-1988 standard of purity (Appendix A) and is chemically analyzed
to verify that it meets this standard. (Technically, the
refrigerant
need not be reprocessed if chemical analysis shows that it already
meets the ARI 700 standard of purity; however, this is seldom
expected to be the case.) EPA proposes to implement this
restriction
by prohibiting the sale or offering for sale of class I and
class II refrigerants that do not meet the ARI 700 Standard.
In this requirement, EPA would codify the industry recommendation
for refrigerant moved off-site. In fact, the requirement would
apply the standard of purity set forth in ARI 700 somewhat less
restrictively than ARI itself, which states that the standard
is intended for refrigerant transferred between any two pieces
of equipment, even if they are owned by the same person. Under
this proposed regulation, refrigerant moved between equipment
owned by the same person, corporation, or governmental entity
would not need to be either tested or treated. Thus, for instance,
grocery store chains could move refrigerant from equipment in
one store to equipment in another without treating it.
EPA proposes to focus on changes in ownership of refrigerant
because such transfers introduce uncertainties into the marketplace
regarding the purity of the refrigerant. Manufacturers of air
conditioning and refrigeration equipment on the STOPAC Subcommittee
for Recycling states that unless used refrigerant were chemically
analyzed, there was a significant risk of contaminated or mixed
refrigerant entering the market and ultimately damaging equipment
on a large scale. Refrigerant reclaimers have reported finding
a wide range of contaminants in used refrigerants delivered
to them. Many of these contaminants (including other refrigerants)
are not removed by standard recycling machines. EPA is concerned
not only with the damage that contaminated refrigerant could
cause, but with the reduction of consumer confidence in the
quality of recycled refrigerant that might result. Slackened
demand could lead to the stockpiling (and ultimately, the venting)
of unwanted used refrigerant.
When refrigerant is moved from one piece of equipment to
another but ownership does not change, the risks to equipment
are still present, but a single owner is in the position to
evaluate those risks and they do not present a problem for a
market in which other consumers are purchasing the used
refrigerant.
EPA is particularly concerned that, in the absence of a
requirement
to reclaim refrigerant before selling it to a new owner, these
recycling requirements could encourage the development of
"recycling
centers" that accepted used refrigerant from a wide variety
of sources without analyzing it. In such cases, uncertainty
regarding the origin and purity of the refrigerant would be
compounded by the participation of an intermediate party. In
addition, if a recycler unknowingly mixed contaminated refrigerant
into a larger batch, the potential for harm would be multiplied
accordingly. Consolidation of batches also increases the likelihood
of mixing different refrigerants. In either of these cases,
the recycled refrigerant would be rendered unusable, making
its release (either through damage to equipment or deliberate
venting) far more likely. EPA requests comment on the likelihood
that without regulation, recycling centers would arise and lead
to the release of refrigerants into the environment.
EPA recognizes that private parties will continue to face
strong incentives to ensure adequate refrigerant purity in the
absence of any federal regulation. Purchasers of refrigerant
have always had the incentive to ensure refrigerant purity;
yet with the expected increase in refrigerant recycling, the
cost of ensuring purity might increase. The risks by contaminated
refrigerant may consist of damage to private property,
specifically,
potential harm to equipment caused by moisture-, acid-, or oil-
contaminated refrigerant, decreases in equipment operating
efficiency
caused by mixed refrigerant, and loss of refrigerant caused
by system rupture or irreversible contamination (e.g., mixture
of CFC-12 and HCFC-22). These types of risks impose potential
costs upon the private parties that would purchase reclaimed
refrigerant, and so these parties would be expected to take
steps to ensure purity to a level adequate for the intended
use. Equipment owners, for example, could undertake a range
of actions to ensure adequate refrigerant purity: Purchase used
refrigerants only from reputable suppliers or technicians, insist
upon contract provisions specifying technician or supplier
guarantees
to repair any equipment damaged by contaminated refrigerant,
insist that used refrigerant meet some purity standard less
stringent than ARI 700, or only use refrigerant that is fully
certified to meet ARI 700.
The degree to which the purchasers of used refrigerant would
undertake these actions will depend upon their awareness of
the risks posed by contaminated or mixed refrigerants. Because
the potential damage to equipment might only occur after months
or years of operation, consumer awareness of the risks could
trail actual equipment damage. This problem of inadequate
information
could, however, be addressed through EPA and industry efforts
to educate potential consumers of refrigerants. EPA solicits
public comment on the adequacy of the private party actions
described above and potential EPA and industry educational efforts
in minimizing the harm that may result from damage to private
equipment from contaminated or mixed refrigerants.
Some members of the STOPAC subcommittee for recycling suggested
that EPA address cross-contamination concerns through a less
stringent requirement than requiring reclamation of all refrigerant
transferred between owners. One alternative would be to require
reclamation only when refrigerant was moved between equipment
of different types. Such a restriction would allow contractors
servicing a single type of equipment to consolidate and transport
the refrigerant to their shops for "off-site" recycling. The
contractors could then sell the refrigerant to other customers
using the same type of equipment, but sales of recycled refrigerant
to anyone but end-users would be prohibited. This requirement
would be especially advantageous for contractors who service
small equipment, for instance, home unitary air conditioners
(central air conditioning units) utilizing HCFC-22. While recycling
machines are capable of processing 50 pounds of refrigerant
at once, the charge in home unitary air conditioners ranges
between four and seven pounds. Thus, allowing contractors to
consolidate refrigerant would permit them to use their recycling
machines more efficiently than they could if they were required
to process each owner's refrigerant separately. Moreover, because
1-2 pounds of refrigerant is usually left behind in recycling
equipment after each job is complete, substantial mixing occurs
even with on-site recycling. The purity gained by allowing only
on-site recycling may therefore not justify the additional expense
that this option entails.
However, although transfers of refrigerant between similar
pieces of equipment are less likely to lead to cross-contamination
than transfers between different types of equipment, EPA has
several concerns about this option. First, if limited off-site
recycling is permitted, it may be difficult to distinguish between
legitimate and illegal use of the recycling machines. Recycling
centers selling refrigerant to walk-in customers may find it
easy to masquerade as contractors recycling refrigerant only
to recharge their customer's equipment. Second, defining "types"
of equipment within which transfers of refrigerant could proceed
may present problems. Should distinctions be based on size,
possession of hermetic vs. open-drive compressors, or some other
characteristic? Third, there is no industry standard for the
ability of recycling machines to clean refrigerant. While the
ARI 740 Standard for Recycling Equipment includes a test for
cleaning ability, it does not set any minimum level of performance
in this area. Thus, there is currently no guarantee that an
individual recycling machine is capable of removing even those
contaminants, such as acid and water, that recycling machines
are theoretically capable of removing. In the future a "clean-
up" standard may be developed; with EPA's encouragement, ARI
has taken preliminary steps in this direction. If and when such
a standard is developed, EPA will view off-site recycling with
more confidence.
EPA requests comment on the option of permitting limited
off-site recycling. Could the Agency design its program in such
a way as to prevent the development of "Recycling centers" that
do not analyze the refrigerant they sell? How? What criteria
would EPA use to distinguish between equipment types? Finally,
should even limited off-site recycling be permitted in the absence
of a "clean-up" standard for recycling equipment?
Some members of the STOPAC argued that EPA should allow sales
of recycled (as opposed to reclaimed and therefore, chemically
analyzed) refrigerant as long as the refrigerant is labelled
as such. However, since the label would only indicate that the
refrigerant had been used, not what its chemical contents were,
EPA does not believe that a labelling requirement would
sufficiently
inform the purchaser of refrigerant of the risks associated
with its use. This rule will dramatically increase the volume
of used refrigerant on the market, and many purchasers will
not be familiar with the hazards that may be associated with
used refrigerants that have not been analyzed, e.g., residuals
from hermetic motor burnouts, improper identification,
incompatibility
of lubricants, etc. Thus, EPA believes that the integrity of
the market for used refrigerant is best served by requiring
that the purity of the refrigerant be chemically verified before
refrigerant is sold to a new owner.
Refrigerant that is not sold to a new owner would not have
to meet any standard of purity under section 608. When refrigerant
is returned to the equipment from which it is removed, it is
frequently not necessary either to test or to treat the
refrigerant.
ASHRAE Guideline 3-1990 states, "refrigerant withdrawn from
equipment so that routine service or major overhaul can be
performed
can usually be returned to the equipment without reprocessing,"
and this guidance was confirmed by several members of the STOPAC
Subcommittee for Recycling. As long as recovered refrigerant
does not change hands, therefore, EPA considers it reasonable
to leave treatment to the discretion of the service technician.
4. RCRA Regulations Regarding the Management of CFCs and
CFC-Contaminated Wastes. This section is intended to give an
overview of EPA's hazardous waste regulations as they affect
refrigerant recovery, recycling, and reclamation. Throughout
this section the terms recovery, recycling, and reclamation
are used as defined previously in section III.D. of today's
proposed rule and not as defined in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).{1} The regulations described in this
section are not part of this rulemaking. Individuals with questions
regarding them should call the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346
or 701-920-9810.
³{1} As stated in RCRA regulations, material is
"recycled"
³if it is used, reused, or reclaimed (40 CFR
261.1(c)(7).
³A material is "used or reused" if it is either employed
³as an ingredient (including use as an intermediate) in
³an industrial process to make a product or employed in
³a particular function or application as an effective
³substitute for a commercial product (40 CFR
261.1(c)(5)).
³A material is "reclaimed" if it is processed to recover
³a usable product, or if it is regenerated (40 CFR
261.1(c)(4)).
a. Refrigerants. Due to a previous rulemaking (see 56 FR
5910, February 13, 1991) and the July 28, 1989, Federal Register
notice clarifying the applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulations
to CFC refrigerants (54 FR 31335), used CFC refrigerants from
totally enclosed heat transfer equipment, including mobile air
conditioning systems, mobile refrigeration, and commercial and
industrial air conditioning and refrigeration systems that use
chlorofluorocarbons as the heat transfer fluid in a refrigeration
cycle are not hazardous wastes provided the refrigerant is recycled
or reclaimed for further use. If these CFCs are not recycled
or reclaimed, it is the generator's responsibility to test the
waste or apply knowledge of the waste to determine whether the
waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
Part 262 for standards applicable to generators of hazardous
waste, especially 40 CFR 262.11, "Hazardous waste determination").
In the July 28, 1989, notice, EPA concluded that, in circumstances
where something outside the realm of normal practice may cause
a CFC refrigerant to exhibit a characteristic (e.g., compressor
burnout), generators may need to determine, using testing or
knowledge, whether the waste is hazardous. EPA was concerned
that CFCs may break down at high compressor temperatures, forming
hydrochloric acid, and may exhibit the characteristic of
corrosivity.
If the spent refrigerant is mixed with a listed or characteristic
hazardous waste (e.g., degreasing fluid or solvent), then the
mixture may also be hazardous.
b. Byproducts of Refrigerant Recovery and Recycling. Two
of the byproducts of refrigerant recovery and recyling may be
hazardous waste: Used oil and used replaceable core filter driers.
Generators of single and multiple pass through devices such
as replaceable core filter-driers are subject to the RCRA hazardous
waste determination requirement (40 CFR 262.11). If the generator
determines that the spent pass through device is a hazardous
waste, then it must be managed in accordance with RCRA Subtitle
C requirements.
As part of the CFC recycling process, used oil is separated
from the CFCs. Used oils that are removed from refrigeration
units and that are contaminated with CFCs are exempt from the
rebuttable presumption of mixing with hazardous waste. The
rebuttable
presumption of mixing, however, applies to used oil contaminated
with CFCs that have been mixed with used oil from processes
other than refrigeration units. (See 40 CFR 279.10(b)(ii)(B)
and 40 CFR 279.44(c)(2). Thus, generators of used oil that is
contaminated with CFCs from refrigeration units may wish to
keep this oil separate from other used oil and retain records
documenting the source of the oil. (Such recordkeeping, however,
is not required.)
Used oil separated from CFCs during refrigerant recycling
is subject to the newly finalized part 279 requirements for
recycled used oil management standards (57 FR 41566, September
10, 1992). If used oil is destined for disposal, the generator
has the responsibility to test or apply knowledge to determine
whether the used oil exhibits one or more of the characteristics
of hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR part 279, subpart I, Standards
for use as a Dust Suppressant and Disposal of Used Oil.)
Used oils that remain after the CFC recovery step and that
are recycled are subject to 40 CFR part 279 requirements as
applicable. Under RCRA subtitle C regulations, used oil that
is recycled by being burned for energy recovery is subject to
40 CFR part 266, subparts E and H. The 40 CFR part 266, subpart
E requirements are included in new part 279 of 40 CFR. (See
40 CFR part 279, subparts B, G, and H.)
(1) Used Oil Fuel Specifications. Used oil that fails to
meet used oil fuel specifications in the new 40 CFR 279.11 and
279.60(c) (current 40 CFR 266.40(e){2}) may be burned only in
industrial boilers and furnaces, as defined in 40 CFR 261.10
and 266.41(b). Under the new 40 CFR 279.63(b) (current 40 CFR
266.40)c)), used oil to be burned for energy recovery that contains
more than 1,000 ppm of total halogens is presumed to be hazardous
waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste
listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D (e.g., F001, which includes
chlorinated fluorocarbons used as solvents). Used oil that contains
greater than 1,000 ppm total halogens for which the presumption
cannot be rebutted or used oil for which the generator chooses
not to rebut the presumption is subject to regulation under
subpart H of 40 CFR part 266, Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces. The presumption may be rebutted by
showing that the used oil does not contain concentrations in
excess of 1,000 ppm of halogenated hazardous constituents listed
in 40 CFR part 261, appendix VIII or that the constituents are
only hazardous waste generated by conditionally exempt small
quantity generators subject to 40 CFR 261.5.
³{2} Used oil that exceeds any of the following
specification
³levels is considered to be "off-specification" used oil
³under 40 CFR 266.40(e): Arsenic-5 ppm, Cadmium-2 ppm,
³Chromium-10 ppm, Lead-100 ppm, Flash Point-100øF
minimum,
³Total Halogens-4000 ppm.
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 identifies CFCs used as
solvents as a hazardous constituent. Thus, a chemical analysis
may indicate that used oil containing a spent CFC (in
concentrations
exceeding 1,000 ppm) used as a refrigerant (rather than as a
solvent), is a hazardous waste under the rebuttable presumption
at 40 CFR 279.11 and 279.60(c), (current 40 CFR 266.40(e)) when,
in fact, the CFCs are not derived from a listed hazardous waste.
Demonstrating that the CFCs in the used oil result from a
refrigerant
use rather than from mixture with a listed hazardous waste may
rebut the presumption. Once used oil from refrigeration units
is mixed with used oil from other sources, one way to rebut
the presumption could be to maintain records of chemical analysis
for each generated wastestream, although EPA does not require
this chemical analysis and recordkeeping. Then, non-refrigerant
wastestreams containing CFCs could be eliminated from acceptance
for commingling with used oil destined for burning for energy
recovery as a used oil fuel.
(2) Used Oil Fired Space Heaters. As discussed in 40 CFR
278.23 (a) and 40 CFR 279.62 (a) and (b) (current 40 CFR
266.44(b)),
owners and operators of used oil-fired space heaters that burn
used oil fuel under the provisions of 266.41(b)(2) are exempt
from notification requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA. Off-
specification used oil fuel may be burned for energy recovery
in used oil-fired space heaters provided that: the heater burns
only used oil that the owner or operator generates or used oil
received from do-it-yourself oil changers who generate used
oil as household waste; the heater is designed to have a maximum
capacity of not more than 0.5 million Btu per hour; and the
combustion gases from the heater are vented to the ambient air.
For example, the generator could be the owner of the refrigeration
equipment as well as the service person or company who, in
servicing
the equipment, collects the used oil. Than, the service person
or company may burn the used oil provided that the owner or
operator can successfully rebut the presumption at 40 CFR 279.66(a)
(current 40 CFR 266.40(c)).
c. Refrigerant Reclamation. Used oil separated from CFCs
during reclamation is managed in the same manner as used oil
separated from CFCs during recycling (see Refrigerant Recycling
section). The generator has the responsibility to determine
whether residuals (including used oil) generated during reclamation
are hazardous. If the residuals consist of a mixture of CFCs,
used as refrigerants, and other solvents listed in 40 CFR part
261, subpart D, then the residuals from CFC reclamation would
be a listed hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)). If
the residuals from CFC reclamation exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, then the residuals are a
characteristic hazardous waste (see 40 CFR part 261, subpart
C).
d. Used Refrigerant Oil. Thus far, this portion of the preamble
has provided an overview of RCRA regulations with respect to
refrigerant CFCs that have been recovered or will be recycled
or reclaimed. Used oils, drained from refrigeration units, will
be subject to the same regulations discussed above for used
oils separated from CFCs during recycling and reclamation. For
an additional discussion of regulations applicable to used oil
and used oil filters, see 57 FR 21524, May 20, 1992.
5. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery
Equipment. Under ordinary circumstances, one to two pounds of
refrigerant may be left behind in a recycling or recovery device
after the device is discharged back into the original equipment
or into another container. Unless it is removed from the recovery
or recycling machine using special methods, this refrigerant
will contaminate the next batch of refrigerant recovered by
the machine. If the first and second refrigerants are different
(e.g., HCFC-22 and CFC-12), this mixture will become unusable,
and will have to be disposed of.
EPA requests comment on whether or not it should require
technicians to remove residual refrigerant from recycling and
recovery machines when these machines are switched between
refrigerants.
Methods that may be used to remove residual refrigerant include
evacuation using a second recovery device, heating the condenser
of the recovery or recycling machine using a heat gun, or cooling
the container (and/or tubing to it) to which the recovery or
recycling machine is evacuated. Another option that would prevent
mixture of refrigerants would be to require separate condensers
for each refrigerant on recovery or recycling machines intended
for use with multiple refrigerants. This, however, would increase
the cost of the recovery or recycling machines. EPA requests
comment on the effectiveness and practicality of procedures
for evacuating refrigerants from recycling and recovery devices.
G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment
In order to ensure that recycling and recovery equipment
on the market is capable of limiting emissions of CFCs and HCFCs,
EPA is proposing that recovery and recycling equipment manufactured
or imported on or after [6 months after publication of the final
rule], be tested and certified by an EPA-approved laboratory
or organization. The Agency proposes to require verification
of performance in two areas that affect total recovery efficiency:
(1) Vapor recovery efficiency and (2) efficiency of noncondensable
purge devices on recycling machines. In addition, EPA is proposing
to require that equipment and hoses be fitted with shutoff valves
or low-loss fittings.
In addition to the initial testing, manufacturers would have
to have their equipment models tested or inspected at least
once every three years to ensure that no changes had been made
to the design that might prevent the equipment from meeting
EPA requirements. Such "follow-up" programs are standard in
equipment testing programs throughout industry. Manufacturers
and importers would also have to place a label on each piece
of certified equipment indicating that it is certified and showing
which organization tested and certified it. This label would
inform both consumers (technicians) and EPA enforcement personnel
that the equipment met EPA standards.
1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended for
Use With Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except
Small Appliances
a. Recovery efficiency. In developing proposed levels of
evacuation, EPA has considered the technical capabilities, ease
of use, and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the
servicing
times that would be necessary to achieve different vacuums,
and the amounts of refrigerant that would be released under
different evacuation requirements and their predicted impact
on the ozone layer (and therefore, on human health and the
environment).
The Agency has attempted to evaluate these factors in both the
short and the long term, considering the capabilities of both
existing and possible future equipment. Often the factors are
interrelated; for instance, more powerful recovery and recycling
machines are often more expensive, but they also reduce the
time that the technician must spend evacuating the system.
The relationship between the depth of vacuum drawn and the
percentage of refrigerant that is recovered by recycling or
recovery equipment varies from refrigerant to refrigerant. For
HCFC-22, a vacuum of approximately 9 inches of mercury must
be drawn in order to recover 99 percent of the refrigerant in
the system. For CFC-12, vacuum of approximately 17 inches must
be drawn to recover 99 percent of the refrigerant. For low-pressure
refrigerants, such as CFC-11 and HCFC-123, much deeper vacuums
must be drawn in order to achieve 99 percent recovery; for
instance,
a vacuum of 28 inches must be achieved in order to recover 99
percent of the CFC-11 in a system.
EPA surveyed manufacturers of recovery and recycling machines
in order to ascertain the technical capabilities, prices, and
availability of the equipment. Recycling and recovery machines
can be divided into six major categories, depending upon the
type of air conditioning or refrigeration equipment that they
are intended to service. These categories include recovery or
recycling machines intended to service: (1) Small appliances
(discussed in section III.F.2 below), (2) high-pressure equipment
with a charge of less than 50 pounds (e.g., residential and
light commercial air conditioning), (3) high-pressure equipment
with a charge of more than 50 pounds, (4) intermediate pressure
equipment, (5) low-pressure equipment and (6) very high pressure
equipment. Each of these categories varies in price and ability
to draw vacuum. In addition, portability is of steadily lessening
importance as one moves from the first to the fifth categories.
EPA's survey indicated that currently available recovery
and recycling machines intended for use with small high-pressure
equipment are capable of drawing vacuums of between 9.9 and
29.8 inches of Hg vacuum. The more efficient equipment appears
to be competitively priced; while models drawing approximately
10 inches of mercury ranged in price between $4,180 and $17,493,
models drawing over 29 inches of mercury ranged in price between
$1,316 and $6,700 (RIA). (The price of recovery and recycling
machines appears to depend more on recovery rates, capacity,
and number of refrigerants handled than on recovery efficiency.)
However, the survey showed that the more efficient equipment
probably could not be available in large quantities by the time
the equipment certification requirements become effective. This
result has been confirmed by a number of representatives of
industry on the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling, who have
stated that most models of recovery and recycling machines
currently
on the market are incapable of drawing more than 10 inches of
vacuum without risking damage to the machine's compressor.
According
to these representatives, the relatively light, small recovery
and recycling machines intended for use with small high pressure
systems usually have hermetic compressors, which tend to overheat
when drawing deep vacuums. This equipment also has difficulty
working against the large difference in pressures (compression
ratio) that must be overcome in order to achieve deeper vacuums.
Thus, EPA is proposing to require that recovery or recycling
machines intended for use with small high-pressure systems are
able to draw a 10-inch vacuum.
Some industry representatives have stated that most recovery
or recycling machines currently available would have difficulty
drawing more than a 4-inch vacuum on equipment using HCFC-22,
because compression ratios at deeper vacuums become quite large
for HCFC-22. The Agency requests comment on the alternative
of requiring recovery or recycling machines intended for use
with small systems using HCFC-22 to draw a 4-inch vacuum. EPA
is willing to consider a less stringent standard for recycling
and recovery machines used with small systems utilizing HCFC-
22 not only because of technical limitations but because HCFC-
22 has only approximately five percent of the ozone-depletion
potential of CFC-11 and CFC-12.
If more efficient equipment becomes widely available, EPA
may evaluate the need for a higher standard for small, high-
pressure equipment in the more distant future. EPA requests
comment on the possible future availability of portable, cost-
effective recovery and recycling machines able to draw more
than 10 inches of vacuum and the costs of requiring such equipment.
Not only does EPA's survey indicates that the technology exists,
but some industry members have stated that recovery and recycling
machines utilizing open-drive, two-stage compressors would be
able to achieve deep vacuums without significantly compromising
portability or increasing cost.
Recovery and recycling machines used to evacuate larger high-
pressure systems are capable of drawing vacuums of between 15
and 29 inches, according to EPA's survey. These machines are
typically larger and more powerful than machines used with
residential
equipment because larger charge sizes necessitate both higher
recovery rates and higher recovery efficiencies. In addition,
portability is of somewhat less importance for large commercial
than for residential applications because technicians in large
commercial applications are less likely to have to carry recycling
and recovery equipment up ladders and through narrow doorways.
Because EPA's survey indicated that the majority of equipment
currently available in this application draws vacuums closer
to 20 inches than to 29 inches, EPA is proposing to require
equipment in this application to draw a vacuum of 20 inches.
EPA requests comment on this proposal and on the current and
future availability of recovery or recycling machines intended
for use with large high pressure equipment that can draw vacuums
of more than 20 inches. As with recovery and recycling machines
intended for use with smaller equipment, EPA may consider setting
a stricter standard for recovery and recycling machines used
with large equipment in the future.
EPA's survey indicated that recovery and recycling machines
used to service low-pressure centrifugal chillers are capable
of drawing vacuums between 25.5 and 29.8 inches. The survey
examined equipment in the two most common capacities for this
application, 1,600 pounds and 3,400 pounds. For both the 1,600
and 3,400 pound capacities, the most efficient equipment is
somewhat more expensive than the least efficient equipment;
however, in both cases it possesses other features besides high
efficiency that are probably important to price (e.g., a high
horsepower motor and a high recovery rate). More important,
the social costs avoided by using the more efficient equipment
(i.e., the damage to human health and the environment that would
be caused by refrigerant released by the less efficient equipment)
outweigh the price difference (Regulatory Impact Analysis).
Thus, EPA is proposing to require that recovery or recycling
machines intended for use with low pressure equipment reduce
the system pressure to 25 mm of Hg (generally equivalent to
a vacuum of 29 inches). EPA requests comment on this proposed
level of evacuation.
EPA considered defining low-pressure equipment to include
equipment utilizing CFC-114, but the physical characteristics
and special applications of this refrigerant appear to justify
a separate classification, "intermediate pressure equipment."
CFC-114 has a vapor pressure between those of low-pressure
refrigerants
and those of high-pressure refrigerants. At a given level of
evacuation, therefore, a higher percentage of 114 is recovered
than would be recovered of CFC 11. Evacuation to 25 inches of
Hg vacuum represents recovery of over 99% of the refrigerant
in a 114 chiller. EPA is therefore proposing that CFC-114 and
other intermediate pressure refrigerants (e.g., blends of CFCs-
114 and -12) be evacuated to 25 inches of vacuum. The Agency
requests comment on this proposal.
The requirements described above for high-pressure equipment
would apply to equipment utilizing refrigerants 12, 22, 500,
and 502. Refrigerants 13 and 503 are used in very low temperature
applications and have very high pressures at ambient temperatures
(e.g., 500 psia at 75 degrees F). Evacuating these refrigerants
to the vacuums proposed for high pressure refrigerants would
require recycling and recovery equipment to work against very
high compression ratios, and over 99% of a very high pressure
refrigerant can be recovered by evacuating it to atmospheric
pressure. Thus, the standards and equipment appropriate for
the recovery and recycling of the high pressure refrigerants
are not appropriate for very high pressure refrigerants. ARI
has recommended that EPA require evacuation of R-13 and 503
to atmospheric pressure (At 75 degrees F), and EPA is proposing
to adopt this recommendation. ARI has also noted that an especially
strong recovery container will be needed to recover these very
high pressure refrigerants. EPA requests comment on the procedures,
equipment, and level of evacuation appropriate for recovering
or recycling very high pressure refrigerants.
Following is a table listing the evacuation levels that must
be achieved by the various types of recovery and recycling
equipment.
Table 2.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by
Recovery or
Recycling Machines Intended for Use With Air Conditioning or
Refrigeration
Equipment
[Except for Small Appliances]
[Manufactured on or after (6 months after publication of the
final rule)]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Type of air conditioning or refrigeration equipment with ³
Inches of
which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used ³
vacuum
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of Less than 50 ³
10
Pounds. ³
High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of More than 50 ³
20
Pounds. ³
Very High Pressure Equipment.............................. ³ 0
Intermediate Pressure Equipment........................... ³
25
Low-pressure Equipment.................................... ³
25 mm Hg
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
A few types of recycling and recovery equipment do not use
an on-board compressor to remove refrigerant from the air
conditioning
or refrigeration equipment. One model that has been brought
to EPA's attention relies on the system compressor to evacuate
the refrigerant, similar to the passive recovery devices used
to evacuate refrigerators and freezers (discussed below). Another
model uses an inert gas to push refrigerant out of the system
and into the recovery device. EPA requests comment on how to
evaluate the recovery efficiency of these two and other possible
devices.
The Agency is concerned that it would not be possible to
ensure the performance of the first type of equipment because
that performance would depend upon the system compressor, which
would vary from job to job. The worst case would arise when
the system compressor was not operating at all, in which case
the efficiency of the equipment would probably be quite low.
Although the technician in such a situation could theoretically
return to his shop to pick up a recovery or recycling machine
with an on-board compressor, EPA is concerned that this process
would prove too time-consuming to depend upon in practice. EPA
requests comment on these issues.
Because the second type of equipment does not depend upon
any external equipment during the recovery process, it should
be possible to use laboratory tests to gauge its recovery
efficiency
in the field. One method of measuring the efficiency might be
to use a mass-balance approach, weighing the recovery equipment
and the air conditioning or refrigeration equipment before and
after the recovery procedure and subtracting the mass of the
introduced inert gas. Such a method would require that the
refrigerant
be distinguishable from the inert gas. EPA could approve the
equipment if it achieved at least the recovery efficiency of
comparable compressor-bearing equipment (between 98.5-99.5%).
Although EPA is not proposing this method at this time, the
Agency requests comment on this method of ensuring the recovery
efficiency of this and other types of recovery or recycling
equipment.
b. Refrigerant recovery rates. Some representatives of industry
on the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling have encouraged EPA
to set minimum standards for liquid and vapor recovery rates,
arguing that technicians will be less tempted to interrupt a
swift recovery than a slow one (Letter from Bruce Siebert, the
Trane Company, to Deborah Ottinger, Office of Air and Radiation,
August 14, 1991). EPA is not proposing minimum recovery rates
as a lead option in today's proposed rule. The Agency believes
that, given the proposed requirements for evacuation and the
growing value of refrigerant, contractors and technicians have
sufficient incentive to purchase equipment with recovery rates
adequate for their needs. However, EPA requests comment on the
need for minimum recovery rates and on what those recovery rates
might be for different types of air conditioning and refrigeration
equipment.
c. Low loss fittings. Low loss fittings or positive shutoff
connections prevent refrigerant from escaping from hoses and
equipment during connection and disconnection of recovery and
recycling machines. EPA analysis indicates that shutoff valves
for both high-pressure and low-pressure systems are cost-effective,
and in the case of low-pressure systems, actually save the user
money (RIA). EPA is therefore proposing to require that hoses
on recovery and recycling machines be equipped with low loss
fittings. EPA requests comment on this proposal.
d. Purge loss. Most recycling machines (but not recovery
machines) are equipped with air purge devices, wh![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Ozone Layer Depletion - Regulatory Programs
- You are here: EPA Home
- Ozone Layer Depletion
- Regulatory Programs
- 57 FR 58644