Vol. 58 No. 92 Friday, May 14, 1993 p 28660 (Rule)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-4625-3]
RIN 2060-AC80
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA promulgates regulations under Section
608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that establish a recycling
program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the
servicing and disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration
equipment. Together with the prohibition on venting during
servicing,
repair, and disposal of class I and class II substances that
took effect on July 1, 1992, these regulations should substantially
reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The regulations
require persons servicing air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
refrigerant
emissions and establish equipment and off-site reclaimer
certification
programs, as well as a technician certification program. A sales
restriction on refrigerant is included, whereby only certified
technicians will legally be authorized to purchase such
refrigerant.
EPA's regulations also require repair of significant leaks,
based on annual leak rates of equipment. In addition, these
regulations require that ozone-depleting compounds contained
"in bulk" in appliances be removed prior to disposal of the
appliances, and that all air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, except for small appliances, be provided with a
servicing
aperture that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1993.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained
in Air Docket No. A-92-01 at: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Docket
is located in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC. Dockets may be inspected from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, and
from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone
Information
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can be contacted for further information
on weekdays from 10 to 4, Eastern Time. Debbie Ottinger, Program
Implementation Branch, Global Programs Branch, Office
of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, can also
be contacted at Mail Code: 6205-J, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 233-9200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble
are listed in the following outline:
I. Background
A. Ozone Depletion
B. Montreal Protocol
C. London Amendments to the Protocol
D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
E. Excise Tax
F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
G. Accelerated Phaseout
H. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
III. This Final Rule
A. Equipment and Refrigerants Affected
B. Overview of Requirements
C. Factors Considered in the Development of This Rule
D. Public Participation
E. Definitions and Interpretations
F. Required Practices
1. Evacuation of Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment
a. Evacuation Requirements for Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Equipment Besides Small Appliances
b. Evacuation of Leaky Equipment
c. Removal of Entrained Refrigerant From Oil
d. Evacuation Requirements for Small Appliances
2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant
3. Leak Repair
4. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery
Equipment
G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment
1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended
for Use with Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment
Except Small Appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like Appliances
a. Recovery Efficiency
b. Passive or System-dependent Recovery Equipment
c. Refrigerant Recovery Rates
d. Low-loss Fittings
e. Purge Loss
f. Volume-sensitive Shutoff
2. Standards for Recovery Machines Intended for Use with Small
Appliances
3. Standards for Recycling and Recovery Machines Used with
Equipment Identical to MVACs
4. Testing of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for
Use with Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except
Small Appliances
5. Testing of Recovery Machines Intended for Use with Small
Appliances
6. Effective Dates and Grandfathering Provisions
H. Certification of Technicians
1. Description of Proposed Voluntary Technician Training and
Certification
2. Decision to Establish a Mandatory Program
a. Overwhelming Technician Response
b. Lessened Burden to EPA and Technicians
c. Better Environmental Protection
d. Improved Productivity
3. Program Elements
a. A Mandatory Program
b. A National Program
c. Personnel to be Certified
d. Types of Certification
e. Test Content
f. Test Bank
g. Test Conditions
h. Proof of Certification
i. Additional Requirements
j. Approval Process
k. Grandfathering
I. Restriction on Sales of Refrigerants to Certified Technicians
1. Description of Proposal And Final Requirement
2. Response to Major Comments
J. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment
1. Description of Proposal and Final Rule
2. Response to Major Comments
K. Certification of Reclaimers
1. Description of Proposed and Final Requirement
2. Response to Major Commenters
L. Recordkeeping Requirements
M. The Safe Disposal Program
N. Servicing Apertures
O. Exemption from Regulatory Requirements for Refrigerant
Uses for Which No High-Efficiency Recovery Technology Exists
IV. Summary of Changes to Proposed Rule
V. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
A. Ozone Depletion
The stratospheric ozone layer protects the Earth from the
penetration of harmful ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation. On the
basis of substantial scientific evidence, a national and
international
consensus exists that certain man-made halocarbons, including
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and
methyl chloroform, must be restricted because of the risk of
depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer through the release
of chlorine and bromine (WMO/UNEP Science Assessment). To the
extent depletion occurs, penetration of UV-B radiation increases,
resulting in potential health and environmental harm including
increased incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts,
suppression
of the immune system, damage to plants including crops and aquatic
organisms, increased formation of ground-level ozone and increased
weathering of outdoor plastics. (See 53 FR 30566 for more
information
on the effects of ozone depletion.)
The original theory linking CFCs to ozone depletion was first
proposed in 1974. Since then, the scientific community has made
considerable advances in measuring and understanding the
atmospheric
processes affecting stratospheric ozone science. Repeatedly,
these scientific advances have indicated that the impact of
man-made ozone-depleting substances on the stratosphere was
more severe than previously thought. As discussed below, the
U.S. and the international community have adopted increasingly
stringent policies regarding the manufacture and use of ozone-
depleting substances in response to this evolving scientific
understanding.
B. Montreal Protocol
In response to the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica
and to growing evidence that chlorine and bromine could destroy
stratospheric ozone on a global basis, many members of the
international
community came to the conclusion that an international agreement
to reduce global production of ozone-depleting substances was
needed. Because releases of CFCs from all areas mix in the
atmosphere
to affect stratospheric ozone globally, efforts to reduce emissions
from specific products by only a few nations could quickly be
offset by increases in emissions from other nations, leaving
the risks to the ozone layer unchanged. EPA evaluated the risks
of ozone depletion in Assessing the Risks of Trace Gases That
Can Modify the Stratosphere (1987) and concluded that an
international
approach was necessary to effectively safeguard the ozone layer.
In September 1987, the United States and 22 other countries
signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the
Ozone Layer (the Protocol). As originally drafted, the Protocol
called for production and consumption of certain CFCs (CFC-11,
12, 113, 114, 115) and halons (Halon-1211, -1301 and -2402)
to be frozen at 1986 levels beginning July 1, 1989, and January
1, 1992, respectively, and for the CFCs to be reduced to 50
percent of 1986 levels by 1998. To date, over 90 nations
representing
approximately 95% of the world's production capacity for CFCs
and halons have signed the Montreal Protocol. EPA promulgated
regulations implementing the requirements of the 1987 Protocol
through a system of tradeable allowances. EPA apportioned the
allowances to producers and importers of ozone-depleting substances
(controlled substances) based on their 1986 level of production
and importation. It then reduced the allowances for the controlled
substances according to the schedule specified in the Protocol.
(See 56 FR 49548 (September 30, 1991)) for a more detailed
discussion
of the Protocol and EPA's regulations to implement the phaseout
of ozone-depleting substances.)
C. London Amendments to the Protocol
Under Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties are
required to assess the science, economics and alternative
technologies
related to protection of the ozone layer every two years. In
response to this requirement, the Parties issued their first
scientific assessment in 1989 (Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion). During this assessment, scientists examined the
data from land-based monitoring stations and the total ozone
mapping spectrometer (TOMS) satellite instrument and found that
there had been global ozone depletion over the northern hemisphere
as well as over the southern hemisphere. The scientific assessment
also reported that a three to five percent decrease in
stratospheric
ozone levels had occurred between 1969-1986 in the northern
hemisphere in the winter months that could not be attributed
to known natural processes.
At the Second Meeting of the Protocol Parties, held in London
on June 29, 1990, the Parties responded to this new evidence
by tightening the restrictions placed on these chemicals. The
Parties to the Protocol passed amendments and adjustments which
called for a full phaseout of the already regulated CFCs and
halons by 2000, a phaseout of carbon tetrachloride and "other
CFCs" by 2000 and a phaseout of methyl chloroform by 2004. The
parties also passed a non-binding resolution regarding the use
of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs have been identified
as interim substitutes for CFCs because they add much less chlorine
to the stratosphere than fully halogenated CFCs. The Parties
were concerned, however, that rapid growth in the amount of
use of these chemicals over time would still pose a threat to
the ozone layer. As a result, the resolution called for the
phaseout of HCFCs by 2020 if feasible and no later than 2040
in any case.
D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
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 help protect the ozone layer and to
provide a source of refrigerant to service existing capital
equipment after the phaseout of CFC production is complete.
E. Excise Tax
As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989,
the U.S. Congress levied an excise tax on the sale of CFCs and
other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, with specific
exemptions for exports and recycling. The tax has operated as
a complement to EPA's regulations limiting production and
consumption
by increasing the costs of using virgin controlled substances.
The original excise tax was amended in 1991 to include methyl
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and other CFCs regulated by
the amended Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air
Act. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 1931 of Public Law
102-486, revised and further increased the excise tax, effective
January 1, 1993. By raising the cost of virgin controlled
substances,
the tax has created an additional incentive for industry to
shift out of these substances and increase recycling activities,
and it has encouraged the development of a market for alternative
chemicals and processes.
F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed November 15,
1990, include requirements for controlling ozone-depleting
substances
that are generally consistent with, but in some cases more
stringent
than those contained in the Montreal Protocol as revised in
1990. For the substances covered by the revised Protocol's control
measures, Title VI of the Act calls for a phaseout of CFCs by
January 1, 2000 with deeper interim reductions and, in the case
of methyl chloroform, an earlier phaseout date (2002 instead
of 2005). For the HCFCs, Title VI requires use restrictions,
a production freeze in 2015 and a phaseout in 2030. EPA issued
a temporary final rule on March 6, 1991 implementing the production
and consumption limits contained in the Act for calendar year
1991. (See 56 FR 9518.) The Agency published proposed regulations
for 1992 and beyond on September 30, 1991 (See 56 FR 49548).
As discussed below, on January 19, 1993, EPA proposed regulations
to implement an accelerated phaseout of class I substances and
some class II substances.
In addition to the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances,
title VI includes a variety of other provisions intended to
reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Section 608,
the foundation for the regulations promulgated today, provides
for EPA to promulgate regulations to achieve the "lowest achievable
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 labeling, a
ban on nonessential products, a program to review the safety
of alternatives to class I and class II substances, and
requirements
of federal entities to conform to Title VI regulations and to
maximize the use of safe alternatives.
G. Accelerated Phaseout
Based on new scientific evidence developed since the passage
of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the issuance of implementing
regulations, the international community, led by the United
States, has agreed to further accelerate the phaseout of already
regulated ozone-depleting substances. Virtually all class I
substances will be phased out in less than three (3) years (by
January 1, 1996) and halons will be phased out by January 1,
1994. The following section describes the most recent scientific
and international developments regarding ozone depletion.
1. New Scientific Data Regarding Ozone Depletion
Significant scientific advances have occurred since the initial
Protocol assessments in 1989. Several subsequent reports since
that time have indicated a more rapid rate of ozone depletion
than previously believed. The most recent Montreal Protocol
Scientific Assessment, issued December 17, 1991, contains
information
from ground-based monitoring instruments, as well as from satellite
instruments, from the years 1979-1991. The data indicate
significant
decreases in total-column ozone have occurred in winter, and
for the first time, also show decreases in spring and summer,
in both the northern and southern hemispheres at middle and
high latitudes. The data further show no significant depletion
has occurred in the tropics. TOMS data indicate that for the
period 1979 to 1991, decreases in total ozone at 45 degrees
south latitude ranged between 4.4 percent in the fall to as
much as 6.2 percent in the summer, while depletion at 45 degrees
north latitude ranged between 1.7 percent in the fall to 5.6
percent in the winter. Data from the ground-based Dobson network
confirm these losses in total column ozone during the thirteen-
year period. These findings show almost twice as much depletion
as the average rate measured by the ground-based network over
a twenty-year period. Based on this new data, scientists have
concluded that the ozone in the stratosphere during the 1980s
disappeared at a much faster rate than experienced in the previous
decade.
The recent UNEP Science Assessment also includes new data
on the estimated ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) of ozone-
depleting substances. The assessment placed the ODP of methyl
bromide, a chemical previously thought to have an insignificant
effect on stratospheric ozone, at 0.6, with a range of uncertainty
between 0.44-0.69. On November 25, 1992, the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol agreed to assign methyl bromide an ODP of
0.7 (based on an update of the science assessment).
On February 3, 1992, NASA released preliminary data acquired
by the ongoing Arctic Airborne Stratospheric Experiment-II (AASE-
II), a series of high-altitude instrument-laden plane flights
over the northern hemisphere (see Interim Findings: Second Airborne
Arctic Stratospheric Expedition). Additional data were also
obtained from the initial observations by NASA's Upper Atmosphere
Research Satellite (UARS), launched in September 1991. The
measurements
show higher levels of chlorine monoxide (ClO) (the key agent
responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion) over Canada and
New England than were observed during any previous series of
aircraft flights. In fact, the ClO levels over the United States
and Canada and as far south as the Caribbean were many times
greater than gas phase models had predicted. These levels are
only partially explainable by enhanced aerosol surface reactions
due to emissions from the volcanic eruptions of Mount Pinatubo.
The expedition also found that the levels of hydrogen chloride
(Hcl), a chemical species that stores atmospheric chlorine in
a less reactive state, to be low, providing new evidence for
the existence of chemical processes that convert stable forms
of chlorine into ozone-destroying species.
In addition, the levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were also
observed to be low, providing evidence of reactions that take
place on the surface of aerosols that diminish the ability of
the atmosphere to control the buildup of chlorine radicals.
New observations of Hcl and nitrogen oxide (NO) imply that chlorine
and bromine are more effective in destroying ozone than previously
believed.
The NASA findings indicate that in late January of 1992,
the Arctic air was chemically "primed" for the potential formation
of a springtime ozone "hole" similar to that formed each spring
over Antarctica. These findings also are consistent with theories
that ozone depletion may occur at an accelerated rate on aerosol
surfaces in the stratosphere anywhere around the globe, and
not only on polar stratospheric clouds as was previously believed.
After collecting more data, NASA released an April 30, 1992
"End of Mission Statement," which indicated that while a rise
in stratospheric temperatures in late January prevented severe
ozone depletion from occurring in the Arctic this year, observed
ozone levels were nonetheless lower than had previously been
recorded for this time of year. This information has further
increased the Agency's concern that significant ozone loss may
occur over populated regions of the earth, thus exposing humans,
plants and animals to harmful levels of UV-B radiation, and
adds support to the need for further efforts to limit emissions
of anthropogenic chlorine and bromine.
In response to the preliminary findings, President Bush
announced
on February 11, 1992, that the United States would unilaterally
accelerate the phaseout schedule for ozone-depleting substances,
and he called upon other nations to agree to an accelerated
phaseout schedule as well. The President also asked U.S. producers
to reduce voluntarily 1992 output of class I substances to half
of the 1986 baseline levels. In addition, the President directed
EPA to re-evaluate the phaseout schedule for HCFCs, and to consider
the phaseout of methyl bromide.
2. Copenhagen Revisions to the Montreal Protocol
On November 25, 1992, the Fourth Meeting of the Montreal
Protocol was convened. In this meeting, the Parties took a number
of actions, including accelerating the phaseout schedule of
CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform and
added HCFCs and methyl bromide to the list of chemicals to be
controlled under the Montreal Protocol.
The following adjustments to the phaseout schedules of
previously-
controlled substances were adopted at the Copenhagen meeting:
(a) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for the originally-
controlled CFCs (class I, group I substances) to require a 75%
reduction in production and consumption (production plus imports
minus exports) from 1986 baseline levels for 1994 and 1995,
and a complete phaseout by 1996;
(b) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for halons (class
I, group II substances) to require a complete phaseout in
production
and consumption by 1994:
(c) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for other fully
halogenated
CFCs (class I, group III substances) to require a reduction
from 1989 levels, 75% in 1994 and 1995, and a complete phaseout
of production and consumption by 1996;
(d) Accelerating the reduction schedules for carbon
tetrachloride
(class I, group IV) by requiring a reduction from 1989 levels
of 85% in 1995, and a complete phaseout in 1996;
(e) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for methyl chloroform
(class I, group V) by reducing production and consumption to
50% of 1989 levels in 1994, and phasing out completely by 1996.
(f) Establishing criteria for identifying essential uses
and a process for excepting limited production and consumption
of the above chemicals following their phaseout (see below).
These adjustments go into effect in approximately six months.
In addition, the Parties adopted the following amendments
to the Protocol:
(a) Freezing consumption of HCFCs (class II substances)
beginning
in 1996 to a baseline ceiling of: 100% of 1989 the ozone depletion
potential (ODP) weighted level of HCFC consumption, plus 3.1%
of the ODP-weighted 1989 CFC consumption, followed by reductions
in the baseline to 65% by 2010, 90% by 2015, and 99.5% by 2020;
and completely phasing out consumption by 2030;
(b) Adding hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the list of
controlled substances, specifying their ozone depletion potential,
and phasing their production and consumption out completely
by 1996;
(c) Listing methyl bromide as a controlled substance with
an ozone depletion potential of 0.7, and freezing production
and consumption beginning in 1995 at 1991 consumption levels;
(not including amounts used for quarantine and preshipment uses);
(d) Establishing a procedure for the approval by the Parties
for continued production and consumption after phaseout to meet
essential use requirements; essential uses are defined as those
necessary for health or safety, or critical to the functioning
of society, and where there are no available alternatives or
existing stocks of banked or recycled material;
(e) Establishing reporting requirements for HCFCs, HBFCs,
and methyl bromide;
(f) Establishing reporting requirements for imports and exports
of controlled substances to and from non-parties to the Protocol;
and
(g) Extending the prohibitions on trade with respect to foreign
states not party-specified, which include banning imports from
foreign states not a party of Annex C, Group II ozone-depleting
substances (HBFCs) and banning exports to foreign states not
a party of HBFCs, commencing 1 year of the Copenhagen Amendments
entry into force.
The Amendments will enter into force under the Protocol
following
their ratification by at least twenty Parties. This is projected
to be accomplished by January 1, 1994.
The Parties also made a number of procedural and definitional
changes that affect implementation of the Protocol and that
are included in the proposed accelerated phaseout regulation.
The changes include:
(a) The approval of destruction technologies and the requirement
that Parties that plan to operate destruction facilities do
so in accordance with Good Housekeeping Procedures developed
by the Parties or with their equivalent;
(b) Clarification of the definition of controlled substances
to exclude insignificant quantities under defined circumstances,
and to encourage Parties to minimize emissions of such excluded
substances;
(c) Clarification of the reporting requirements and treatment
of international transshipments;
(d) Clarification of the definition of controlled substance
to exclude the import and export of recycled and used controlled
substances from the calculation of consumption, but to require
reporting of data concerning these imports and exports.
3. The Proposed Accelerated Phaseout Regulation
In July 1992, EPA issued its final rule and regulatory program
implementing section 604 of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Section
604 limits the production and consumption of ozone-depleting
chemicals. EPA controls production and consumption by issuing
allowances or permits that are expended in the production or
importation of these chemicals. Trading of these allowances
is permitted.
The regulation requires producers of class I substances to
gradually reduce their production of these chemicals and to
phase them out completely as of January 1, 2000 (2002 for methyl
chloroform). In addition to the production limits, the rule
requires a similar reduction in consumption.
In February 1992, the President requested that U.S. producers
voluntarily reduce their production of CFCs by half of the baseline
year levels and phase out CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl
chloroform and halons by January 1, 1996. He also announced
that the U.S. would revisit the phaseout schedule for HCFCs.
Several months earlier, EPA had received a petition from
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) and Friends of the Earth (FOE), requesting
earlier phaseouts of ozone-depleting substances and that EPA
add methyl bromide to the list of class I substances and also
phase out its production. Another petition was submitted by
the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy that also supported
earlier phaseouts of CFCs and certain HCFCs.
Based on these national and international developments, EPA
proposed on January 19, 1993, to accelerate the phaseout of
CFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, halons, HCFC-
141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22. The Agency is also proposing to
add methyl bromide and HBFCs to the list of major class I
substances
and phase them out by 2000 and 1996, respectively. In addition,
the proposal addresses various trade provisions required by
the Montreal Protocol.
H. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
On December 10, 1992, EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM, 57 FR 238). In that notice, EPA proposed
regulations
under section 608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that would
have established a recycling program for ozone-depleting
refrigerants
recovered during the servicing and disposal of air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment. The proposed regulations would have
required persons servicing air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
refrigerant
emissions and would have established equipment and off-site
reclaimer certification programs. The proposal did not include
a mandatory program for certifying technicians; however, comments
were solicited on the need and prudence of such a mandatory
program. In addition, EPA would have required that ozone-depleting
compounds contained "in bulk" in appliances be removed prior
to disposal of the appliances, and that all air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment, except for small appliances and
room air conditioners, be provided with a servicing aperture
that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant.
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 and class II
substances. The regulations required are to "reduce the use
and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level"
and are to "maximize the recapture and recycling of such
substances."
Subsection (a) calls for EPA to promulgate such regulations
with respect to "the use and disposal of class I substances
during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances and
industrial
process refrigeration" by January 1, 1992. (Appliance is defined
by section 601(1) as "any device which contains and uses a class
I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is used for
household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner,
refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA believes that motor
vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) are included within the scope
of the term "appliance" but that the servicing regulations
promulgated
pursuant to section 609 of the Act eliminate the need to promulgate
servicing regulations for MVACs under section 608. MVACs, however,
are subject to disposal regulations promulgated today under
section 608.) These regulations were to become effective by
July 1, 1992.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) expands the scope of the
recycling and emission reduction regulations by requiring EPA
to promulgate additional regulations by November 15, 1994, that
establish standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal
of both class I and class II substances not covered by the initial
set of regulations, i.e., all other uses of class I and class
II substances. These regulations are to go into effect not later
than 12 months after their promulgation. Subsection (a) further
provides that the regulations promulgated pursuant to it may
include requirements to use alternative substances, to minimize
the use of class I or class II substances, or to promote the
use of safe alternatives to class I and class II substances.
Subsection (b) of section 608 requires that the regulations
under section 608(a) establish standards and requirements for
the safe disposal of class I and class II substances. These
are to include (1) requirements that such substances contained
"in bulk in appliances, machines or other goods" be removed
prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery for
recycling;
(2) requirements that "any appliance, machine or other good
containing a class I or class II substances in bulk" be "equipped
with a servicing aperture or an equally effective design feature
which will facilitate the recapture of such substance;" and
(3) requirements that products in which a class I or class II
substance is an "inherent element" be disposed of "in a manner
that reduces, to the maximum extent practicable, the release
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 will
consider releases to be de minimis when they occur while the
recycling and recovery requirements of this regulation are
followed.
Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition on venting to substances
that are substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants
effective
November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that
such venting or releases do not pose a threat to the environment.
The Agency notes that since MVACs are covered by the term
"appliance,"
the servicing and disposal of MVACs are subject to the prohibition
on venting.
The refrigerant recycling and safe disposal requirements
promulgated today are a major step in the implementation of
section 608. EPA research indicates that in all air-conditioning
or refrigeration sectors, emissions during servicing and disposal
of equipment account for between 50 and 94 percent of total
emissions during the life cycle of the equipment (Regulatory
Impact Analysis: the National Recycling and Emission Reduction
Program, (RIA)). The recovery and recycling requirements published
today should significantly reduce emissions during servicing
and disposal. In those sectors where leakage during use accounts
for a significant percentage of total emissions, EPA is
establishing
a program for requiring the repair of such leaks. EPA will consider
in the future the regulation of non-refrigerant applications
of class I and class II compounds under section 608. These
regulations
may include requirements for emission-reducing engineering controls
and work practices and/or requirements to use alternative
substances
in those uses for which substitutes exist. In determining what
further actions to take under section 608, EPA will consider
the accelerated phaseout dates for class I substances, the expected
costs, and environmental benefits of further regulation.
III. This Rule
A. Equipment and Refrigerants Affected
1. Equipment Affected
Today's final rule applies to the servicing and disposal
of most air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, including
household air conditioners and refrigerators, commercial air
conditioners and chillers, commercial refrigeration, industrial
process refrigeration, refrigerated transport, and air-conditioning
in vehicles not covered by EPA's regulations under section 609
of the Clean Air Act (which apply to the service of motor vehicle
air conditioners, or MVACS). As mentioned above, the rule also
applies to the disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, including MVACs. Following is a description of the
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 when
weighted by the ozone-depletion potential of the refrigerant.
(This and other estimates in this section are based on figures
from 1990.) This makes up approximately 19% of the total available
from the sectors affected by this rule when these quantities
are weighted by the ozone depletion potentials (or ODPs) of
the refrigerants. Because servicing is relatively rare in this
sector, approximately 90% of this 17% would be recovered at
disposal.
Other Refrigerated Appliances. Other refrigerated appliances
include dehumidifiers, vending machines, ice makers, and water
coolers. These equipment types have charge sizes and service
characteristics similar to those in the Household Refrigeration
sector. The total number of units of these types in current
operation is approximately 23 million units. The quantity of
refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is 700 metric tons per
year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately two percent
of the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Residential Air-conditioning. This sector includes window
units, packaged terminal air conditioners, central air
conditioners,
light commercial air conditioners, and heat pumps. There are
approximately 85 million units in this sector, making it the
second largest. The residential air-conditioning sector is similar
to the household refrigeration and other appliances sectors
because the equipment stock is large, the equipment is infrequently
serviced, and charge sizes are small (4-7 pounds). The quantity
of refrigerant in this sector that is available for recycling
at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 1800 metric tons
per year (when weighted by the ozone-depletion potential of
the refrigerant), which makes up approximately six percent of
the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
This figure is lower than that for household refrigeration because
residential and light commercial air-conditioning relies
exclusively
upon HCFC-22, which has approximately five percent of the ozone-
depletion potential of CFC-12.
Transport Refrigeration. The Transport Refrigeration sector
consists of refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway
freight cars, and other shipping containers. With less than
one million transport refrigeration units currently in use,
this sector is relatively small. Trailers, railway cars, and
shipping containers are commonly charged with CFC-12. Ship holds,
on the other hand, rely on HCFC-22 and ammonia. The average
charge size in this sector is approximately 18 pounds, which
is relatively small compared to all but household sectors. The
quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to
be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 1900
metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately
six percent of the total available from the sectors affected
by this rule. Unlike equipment in the household sectors, equipment
in the transport refrigeration sector is usually serviced every
year. Thus, refrigerant recovered and recycled at servicing
would account for approximately 25% of the total recovered and
recycled in this sector.
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 1.6 million units. The quantity
of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is 9,000 metric tons
per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately 28% of
the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Cold Storage Warehouses. Cold storage warehouses are used
to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable
goods. There are approximately 665 million cubic feet of
refrigerated
space in cold storage warehouses throughout the United States.
This sector is similar to the retail food sector, but its equipment
is serviced even more frequently (up to four times each year)
and can be charged with even greater quantities of refrigerant.
The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated
to be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 83
metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up less than
one percent of the total available from the sectors affected
by this rule.
Commercial Comfort Air-conditioning. Chillers are used to
regulate the temperature and humidity in offices, hotels, shopping
centers, and other large buildings. There are approximately
170,000 units currently installed, making this sector one of
the smallest affected by the recycling rule in terms of stock
size.
There are three major types of chillers: centrifugal,
reciprocating,
and screw. Each of these is named for the type of compressor
employed. Centrifugal chillers, used to cool areas ranging from
30,000 to 600,000 square feet, are generally the largest and
can be charged with up to 900 kg (about 2000 pounds) of
refrigerant.
These chillers may use CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-500, or HCFC-22.
(Recently, centrifugal chillers utilizing HCFC-123 have been
introduced to the market; however, these new chillers currently
have a very small fraction of the market and are therefore not
included in this analysis.) Reciprocating chillers, used to
cool areas of less than 30,000 feet, are generally the smallest
and typically contain charges of about 160 pounds of CFC-12
or HCFC-22. Screw chillers are used to cool areas from 30,000
to 100,000 square feet and are charged with about 500 pounds
of HCFC-22. All of the systems are serviced frequently. The
quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available for
recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 5200
metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately
16% of the total available from the sectors affected by this
rule.
Chillers are long-lasting relative to most air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment. Most will last over 20 years and
some will last 30 years or more. EPA believes that recovery
and recycling is already common in the chiller sector due to
the large charges of refrigerant involved.
Industrial Process Refrigeration. The industrial process
refrigeration sector includes industrial ice machines and ice
rinks, as well as many complex, customized systems used in the
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 refrigerants, including CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-500, CFC-502, and HCFC-22. Charge sizes can
be very large, ranging from 750-3000 lbs for ice rinks, and
rising as high as 20,000 lbs for built-up centrifugal units.
The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 2000
metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately
six percent of the total available from the sectors affected
by this rule. Due to the high reliability of industrial process
equipment, servicing is uncommon, and most recovery will occur
at disposal. EPA believes that recycling is already common in
this sector.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs). Motor vehicle air
conditioners (MVACs) include air conditioners in automobiles
and trucks. These recycling regulations only affect the disposal
of MVACs, because the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations
implementing section 609 of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Nevertheless,
with between 120 and 140 million MVACs currently on the road,
this sector is one of the largest sectors affected by the recycling
rule. Most MVACs use CFC-12, but some now use HFC-134a.
MVACs have the highest leakage rates of refrigerant charges
of any equipment type affected by the recycling rule. Limited
studies suggest that only 40 percent of all MVACs still contain
a refrigerant charge at disposal. The original charge, moreover,
is small (two to four pounds). However, the quantity of refrigerant
in this sector that is available for recycling at disposal is
estimated to be 5000 metric tons per year, which makes up
approximately
17% of the total available from the sectors affected by this
rule.
Comfort Cooling in Vehicles Other Than Trucks and Automobiles.
Although the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations
implementing
section 609 of the Act, the servicing (and disposal) of air
conditioners in other vehicles, such as trains, airplanes, ships,
buses, construction equipment, and farm vehicles would be covered
by these recycling regulations. Due to the lack of data available
on releases from the cooling systems used in these applications,
these uses were not analyzed. However, the quantity of refrigerant
available for recycling from this sector is expected to comprise
only a small fraction of the total available from the sectors
affected by this rule.
2. Refrigerants Affected
Although EPA is not expressly required to include class II
substances in the recycling regulations to become effective
on July 1, 1992, EPA proposed to include class II substances
in today's rule for a number of reasons. First, the prohibition
on venting that became effective on July 1 covers both class
I and class II substances, and EPA considered it desirable to
provide a clear, consistent framework for fully implementing
the prohibition on venting for all refrigerants. The Agency
believed that this framework would minimize confusion and maximize
compliance with the prohibition. Second, the goals of this
regulation,
to minimize refrigerant emissions and to help ensure that a
supply of high-quality refrigerant is available to service
equipment
in the future, apply to both class I and class II refrigerants.
Without specific requirements, recycling could proceed improperly,
leading to excessive HCFC emissions, contamination of refrigerant,
and damage to equipment. Third, most technicians routinely work
with both types of refrigerants and therefore would need the
equipment to handle refrigerants in accordance with the rule
even if class II substances were not included. Industry
representatives
on the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling agreed with this rationale
and with the inclusion of class II substances in the regulation.
A number of commenters also supported the inclusion of class
II substances in the regulation, citing the reasons above. Several
of these stated that including class II substances would result
in a more consistent and less confusing regulatory structure
for the industry, especially since the prohibition on venting
affects both class I and class II substances. Commenters believed
that compliance with the prohibition on venting and with the
regulations would be diminished if only class I substances were
covered by the rule. Commenters also noted that most recycling
and recovery equipment handles both class I and class II
substances,
implying that the cost of purchasing certified equipment to
process class II substances would be negligible. One commenter
noted that inclusion of class II substances in the regulation
would provide additional protection to human health and the
environment.
Commenters who opposed including class II substances in the
regulation argued that efforts to comply with Section 608 for
class I substances would consume significant industry resources
and that users of both class I and class II substances would
probably recycle class II substances if they were complying
with regulations for class I substances. Commenters also stated
that a delay in regulating class II substances could encourage
borderline uses to convert from class I to class II based on
the savings realized from avoiding the cost of complying with
the regulation. However, one commenter believed that EPA should
examine other possibilities for making the conversion from class
I to class II substances economically attractive, for instance
by easing equipment certification and recordkeeping standards.
After reviewing the comments, EPA continues to believe that
the inclusion of class II substances in this regulation is
warranted.
The positive consequences of regulating class II substances
at this time far outweigh the possible negative consequences.
As a number of commenters observed, the prohibition on venting
requires persons servicing and disposing of appliances containing
class II substances to recover or recycle the refrigerant in
any event, and the cost of the recycling and recovery procedure
itself is by far the most important component of the costs of
this rule. By extending this rule to class II substances, EPA
expects to facilitate compliance with the venting prohibition
by providing: (1) Clear guidance to technicians recovering class
II substances on what releases do and do not constitute violations
of the prohibition, (2) information on the performance of recycling
and recovery equipment intended for use with class II substances
through the equipment certification program, and (3) information
on how to recycle effectively and efficiently through the
technician
certification program. EPA believes that this will both reduce
emissions and increase the quality of recycled refrigerant.
At the same time, the rule will provide incentives for moving
from class I to class II substances because it establishes somewhat
less stringent requirements for HCFCs (such as HCFC-22) than
for CFCs. EPA further notes that section 608(a)(2) requires
EPA to promulgate regulations concerning the recovery and recycling
of class II substances by November 15, 1994, approximately 18
months after the promulgation of this rule. This relatively
short period before regulations are mandated minimizes any possible
benefits of delaying the regulations.
B. Overview of Requirements
EPA's final rule has five main elements, which, taken together,
satisfy the criteria of section 608 concerning recycling, emissions
reduction, and disposal. First, the Agency requires technicians
servicing and disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
refrigerant
emissions. Second, EPA requires technicians servicing
air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment to obtain certification through
an EPA-approved testing organization and restricts sales of
refrigerant to these certified technicians. Third, EPA establishes
equipment and reclaimer certification programs. These would
have the goals of verifying: (1) That all recycling or recovery
equipment sold was capable of minimizing emissions and (2) that
reclaimed refrigerant on the market was of known and acceptable
quality to avoid equipment failures from contaminated refrigerant.
Fourth, EPA requires repair of substantial leaks, based on annual
leak rates which vary according to two categories of refrigeration
equipment. Fifth, to implement the safe disposal requirements
of section 608, EPA requires that ozone-depleting refrigerants
in appliances, machines, and other goods be removed from those
items prior to their disposal, and that all air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment except for small appliances and
room air conditioners be provided with a servicing aperture
that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant. Small appliances
will require a process stub for easy access.
In order to allow the regulated community sufficient time
to come into compliance with the requirements, EPA will phase
them in over a period of one to eighteen months. In addition,
the Agency will "grandfather in" equipment meeting certain minimum
requirements set forth in Section III, as well as "grandfather"
technicians who have fulfilled certain requirements. These
grandfathering
provisions are intended to encourage the regulated community
to begin recycling as soon as possible using available equipment
rather than delaying action until certified equipment is available.
C. Factors Considered in the Development of this Rule
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act provides the statutory basis
for the standards and requirements contained in these regulations.
The statutory standards against which the regulations concerning
the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances are to be
measured is whether they "reduce the use and emission of such
substances to the lowest achievable level" and "maximize the
recapture and recycling of such substances." EPA believes that,
in the context of recycling, these standards are complementary,
i.e., that maximizing recycling will also mean reducing the
use and emission of these substances to the lowest achievable
level. EPA also believes that these standards bear a relationship
to the de minimis releases permitted, notwithstanding the general
prohibition on venting or other releases contained in section
608(c). In other words, emissions that occur while complying
with EPA's recovery and recycling requirements, which achieve
the lowest achievable level of emissions, will only be de minimis
releases.
In applying the statutory standards concerning use, emissions,
and recycling, EPA is taking into account both technological
and economic factors. The phrases "lowest achievable level"
and "maximize recycling" are not defined in the Act. EPA does
not believe that these standards are solely technological in
nature, but rather contemplate a role for economic factors in
determining the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximum
amount of recycling. As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA's
program takes into account in an appropriate manner the technology
available, costs, benefits, and leadtimes involved. EPA believes
that the language of the Clean Air Act and the legislative history
of section 608 both support its approach.
In jointly-submitted comments, two environmental organizations
(Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Friends of the
Earth (FOE)) contended that EPA's consideration of costs and
benefits in this rulemaking was unlawful. The organizations
stated that they "do not assert that the statutory language
totally precludes any economic considerations. But we do insist
that the legally permissible scope for such considerations is
far more limited than the broad cost-benefit test EPA has
asserted."
The commenters then assert that the "term `lowest achievable
emission level' clearly reflects the term `lowest achievable
emission rate,' or `LAER,' used since 1977 in part D of title
I" and proceed to argue that a variant of this standard, described
as "the most stringent test for technology-based standards under
the Act" controls EPA's standard-setting authority under section
608 of the Act. According to NRDC/FOE, "standards under section
608 should be set at levels reflecting the best controlled sources
in each relevant sector of the air-conditioning and refrigeration
industry. As long as those levels have been achieved by some
members of a given sector, they must be considered achievable
across the sector. The only basis for lessening the stringency
of such requirements would be if they are so costly that typical
firms in that sector could not bear them."
Other commenters, however, supported the method used by EPA
to analyze costs and benefits in determining what standards
to propose.
EPA has carefully considered the comments of NRDC and FOE
on this issue, as well as those of other parties, and continues
to believe that its approach to the analysis of costs and benefits
is appropriate and permissible under section 608. EPA first
notes that, in determining the appropriate standards, EPA has
not applied a strict cost-benefit test. Rather, EPA has focussed
primarily on the state of recovery technology and only secondarily
considered costs and benefits, along with the varied applications
of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment and the structure
of the equipment service and disposal industry. The Agency is
allowing use of less than the most efficient technology available
only when the costs of using this technology in the field far
outweigh the benefits.
The Agency believes that it has fulfilled its statutory
obligation
to establish "the lowest achievable level of emissions" and
that in many cases its standards represent the best that can
be technologically achieved. The standards proposed by EPA
generally
reflect the performance of the "best controlled source" in each
sector under commonly encountered conditions in the field. The
variability of these conditions is considerably greater in each
air-conditioning and refrigeration industry sector than it is
in most other industry sectors, particularly those affected
by LAER. Thus, for instance, the fact that a recovery device
removing R-12 from an appliance at 70 degrees F can achieve
a twenty-inch vacuum does not imply that EPA should set its
evacuation requirements at this level, because the same recovery
device would scarcely be able to reach a ten-inch vacuum on
R-502 at 90 degrees F.
Where the performance of the best controlled sources is not
the standard, EPA has found that the costs of implementing the
controls far outweigh the benefits. For instance, according
to appliance manufacturers, between 80 and 90 percent of firms
in the small appliance sector make fewer than 10 repairs a year
that require recovery of refrigerant. The most efficient recovery
devices intended for use in this sector may recover between
5 and 10 percent more refrigerant from a small appliance than
the least efficient, but they also cost approximately four times
as much ($900 vs. $215). For a firm performing 10 recovery jobs
per year on refrigerators charged with 6 ounces of refrigerant,
this difference results in the recovery of no more than 6
additional
ounces of refrigerant per year. At the same time, the cost of
the more efficient equipment could have an appreciable impact
on firms in this sector, approximately 37 percent of which EPA
estimates are in poor financial condition prior to imposition
of the regulation (RIA). Thus, EPA is permitting the use of
the less efficient recovery equipment. This is in accord with
the comments of NRDC and FOE, which acknowledge that if controls
are "so costly that typical firms in that sector could not bear
them," then less stringent controls are warranted.
Nevertheless, as discussed further in the response to the
comments document, to the extent that there is a difference
between EPA's approach and the approach suggested by NRDC and
FOE, EPA does not believe that it is legally compelled to adopt
the approach to economic considerations suggested by NRDC/FOE.
In sum, the Agency believes that its approach of focusing primarily
on the technological feasibility and only secondarily on economic
issues is authorized by section 608.
The stringency of the regulations promulgated to implement
these standards are affected by the amount of leadtime between
their date of promulgation and their effective date. The longer
the leadtime, the more time there would have been for technological
innovations and development to occur, thereby permitting the
establishment of more stringent standards. Conversely, shorter
leadtimes necessitate standards based more on the degree of
emission control and performance achievable by equipment already
available or equipment that will be available in the near future.
With respect to the present set of regulations, the leadtime
is necessarily short as section 608(a)(1) provides for an effective
date of July 1, 1992, for the regulations covering the use and
disposal of class I substances used in appliances and industrial
process refrigeration. Because the effective date has passed,
these regulations as they pertain to recovery/recycling of class
I and class II substances will go into effect thirty days following
publication of this rule (unless stated otherwise). For regulations
authorized by section 608(a)(2), the initial effective date
must be within 12 months of promulgation.
EPA has considered these factors in developing these
regulations,
and the Agency believes that it has designed a program that
will achieve the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximize
recycling, taking into account in an appropriate manner the
technology available, costs, benefits, and the leadtimes involved.
Through extensive discussions with industry representatives
and environmental organizations, EPA has attempted to identify
significant emissions and methods for controlling them during
the repair, service, and disposal of air-conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment. In many cases, the requirements will mandate activity
already being undertaken by standard-setting and equipment
certification
organizations in the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning,
and refrigeration (HVAC/R) sector. They are also very similar
to the steps being taken to recycle refrigerant in MVACs, an
area where recycling has been successfully implemented.
EPA also took into consideration the over 15,000 comments
requesting that a mandatory technician certification be included
in the final rule. EPA views a mandatory technician certification
program as instrumental in facilitating a workable recovery
and recycling program. Commenters expressed the need of technicians
for a level playing field, as well as for consistent knowledge
with which to perform recovery and recycling properly.
EPA has attempted to develop a regulatory program that
accommodates
the wide variety of sizes and types of equipment subject to
this regulation. In setting its efficiency standards for recycling
and recovery equipment, EPA has considered among other factors
both the charge size and frequency of servicing for different
types of equipment. In general, as charge size and frequency
of servicing increase, potential emissions increase, and higher
recovery efficiencies are justified. For instance, the household
refrigeration and other refrigerated appliances categories that
combine to make up the "small appliances" category in today's
rule have small charges and are serviced infrequently. Under
today's final rule, recovery equipment in this category would
be subject to a standard that requires recovery of between 80
and 90% of the refrigerant (depending upon whether or not the
compressor of the small appliance is operational). On the other
hand, equipment containing more than 200 lbs of charge would
be subject to a standard that requires recovery of over 99%
of the refrigerant. Equipment standards are discussed in detail
in section III.G.
EPA additionally considered average leak rates of average-
maintained equipment in setting the three levels of annual leak
rates that would trigger mandatory repair of such leaks. EPA
also considered the numerous comments that requested EPA to
include a mandatory provision in this rulemaking for repairing
substantial leaks.
EPA has also considered typical methods of disposal in
developing
these regulations. Under this proposal, equipment that is typically
dismantled on-site before disposal (retail food refrigeration,
cold storage warehouse refrigeration, chillers, and industrial
process refrigeration) must have the refrigerant removed and
recovered in accordance with EPA's proposed requirements for
servicing. For these types of equipment, the persons who perform
servicing usually also perform disposal. This is generally not
the case, however, for smaller items such as household
refrigerators
and freezers, room air conditioners, and motor vehicle air
conditioners.
This equipment is disposed of by consumers and generally enters
the waste stream with the charge intact. EPA is proposing distinct
safe disposal requirements for this equipment, which would make
the final person in the disposal chain (e.g., a scrap metal
recycler) responsible for ensuring that refrigerant has been
recovered from equipment before the final disposal of the
equipment.
Equipment covered by these requirements also includes
dehumidifiers,
water coolers, and other relatively portable equipment in addition
to household refrigerators and freezers and MVACs. EPA's safe
disposal program is discussed in detail in section III.M.
D. Public Participation
EPA has worked extensively with outside groups in developing
this proposal. In particular, the Agency established and met
repeatedly with the Subcommittee for Recycling and Emissions
Reduction of EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory
Committee
(STOPAC). The STOPAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered
in 1989 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
section 9(c), to provide independent counsel to EPA on specific
issues affecting the international negotiations and domestic
implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Since the enactment
of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, the STOPAC has also
provided advice on the implementation of Title VI of this
legislation.
The Subcommittee for Recycling has over 50 members representing
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufacturers,
wholesalers, servicers, and users, manufacturers of recycling
and recovery equipment, refrigerant manufacturers and reclaimers,
educational organizations, state and local governments, and
environmental groups. To date, EPA has met with members of the
Subcommittee six times: The Subcommittee as a whole met twice,
and smaller groups met to discuss equipment certification,
technician
certification, reclaimer certification and safe disposal. Summaries
of these meetings are available in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
EPA also worked with the air-conditioning and refrigeration
industry's primary standards-setting organizations, the Air-
conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
Inc. (ASHRAE), in developing its rule. Wherever appropriate,
EPA has incorporated standards and guidelines from these
organizations
into the proposed rule. Examples of incorporated standards include
the ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants,
and the ARI Standard 740-1993 (an update of 700-1991), Performance
of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling, and/or Reclaim Equipment.
EPA also considered the ASHRAE Guideline 3, Reducing Emission
of Fully Halogenated Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Refrigerants in
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Applications,
in developing its rule.
In addition to convening the Subcommittee for Recycling,
EPA met with various industry representatives to gather data
on refrigerant emissions, to better understand current industry
practices, and to discuss a range of technical issues. The data
on refrigerant emissions were used to update EPA's vintaging
analysis, which analyzes emissions by equipment type and life
cycle stage (e.g., manufacturing, use, servicing, or disposal).
This analysis has been used to calculate the potential costs
and benefits of this rule and to identify opportunities for
further emissions reductions. The data used in the analysis
is presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this
proposal, also available in the public docket. Industry groups
that have provided or commented on data include appliance
manufacturers,
chiller manufacturers and servicers, industrial process
refrigeration
manufacturers and users, commercial refrigeration manufacturers
and users, refrigerated transport manufacturers, servicers and
users, and manufacturers and users of comfort air cooling systems
for commercial vehicles.
Following proposal of the rule, EPA held a public hearing
on December 23, 1992. During the comment period, over 20,000
comments were submitted to EPA. All of these comments were
considered
in the development of the final rule. Major comments are addressed
in the preamble to this rulemaking. All other comments are
addressed
in the "Response to Comments Document" that can be found in
Air Docket A-92-01.
E. Definitions and Interpretations
Appliance
As was proposed, EPA is adopting the Act's definition of
"appliance". The Act defines "appliance" as "any device which
contains and uses a class I or class II substance as a refrigerant
and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including
any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA
interprets this definition to include all air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment except that designed and used exclusively
for military applications. Thus, the term "appliance" includes
all the sectors of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment
described under Section III.A. above, including household
refrigerators
and freezers (which may be used outside the home), other
refrigerated
appliances, residential and light commercial air-conditioning,
transport refrigeration, retail food refrigeration, cold storage
warehouses, commercial comfort air-conditioning, motor vehicle
air conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under
section 609, and industrial process refrigeration. (In sections
608(a) and 608(c), the Act refers specifically to "industrial
process refrigeration," a term that is not defined. EPA believes
that all refrigeration equipment categorized as industrial process
refrigeration in Section III.A. above also falls within the
broad statutory definition of "appliance.")
In the proposal, the Agency requested comment on using its
authority under section 608(a)(2) to adopt a broader definition
of appliance that would include equipment designed and used
exclusively for military applications. EPA received comments
both favoring and opposing the inclusion of military equipment
in the term "appliance." Commenters favoring inclusion noted
that the military is a large user of CFCs and argued that military
equipment should be exempt from the regulation only in time
of war or when compliance with the regulations would lessen
the military effectiveness of the equipment. Commenters opposing
inclusion (the Department of Defense, or DOD) argued that
regulation
of equipment designed and used exclusively for military
applications
was not necessary, because DOD was committed to meeting recovery
and recycling standards at least as stringent as those in the
commercial sector, "except where the unique design and use of
the equipment or other mission critical operations preclude
this." In cases in which commercial standards could not be met,
DOD stated that it would set its own standards to minimize
environmental
hazards while ensuring mission accomplishment. DOD also stated
that "equipment designed and used exclusively for military
applications"
comprised a relatively small percentage of their equipment,
further reducing environmental concerns.
EPA agrees that there may be situations in which the unique
design and use of military equipment makes it impossible to
recover or recycle refrigerant during the servicing, maintenance,
repair, or disposal of the equipment. However, the Agency
reemphasizes
that if the air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment used
in a military application is identical to equipment used in
a commercial application, then it is covered by the Act's
definition
(and hence by these regulations). For example, a room air
conditioner
used on a military base is still considered an appliance even
though the use of that particular piece of equipment may not
be for commercial or household purposes. Similarly, although
a refrigerator in some other government facility is not used
for household or commercial purposes, that refrigerator is still
considered an appliance because that identical kind of equipment
is used for household or commercial purposes in other contexts.
For purposes of enforcing these regulations, EPA will consider
"identical equipment" to include air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment whose system of working parts (e.g., compressor, motor,
evaporator, and condenser) is identical to that in equipment
used for a household or commercial purpose. Equipment that has
been modified only externally for a military application (e.g.,
painted or encased in a new cabinet) will still be considered
"identical" to equipment used for household or commercial purposes
and will therefore be subject to these regulations.
Approved Equipment Testing Organization
EPA defines Approved Equipment Testing Organization as any
organization which has applied for and received approval from
EPA to test recycling and recovery equipment.
Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment
EPA defines Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment as
equipment certified by an approved testing organization to meet
EPA's final standards on equipment purchased before November
15, 1993, that meets EPA's standards for grandfathered equipment.
Commercial Refrigeration
As is discussed in more detail in section III.F.3, EPA is
establishing a maximum allowable leak rate of 35% per year for
industrial process and commercial refrigeration. EPA is defining
commercial refrigerant as the refrigeration appliances utilized
in the retail food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail
food includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets,
convenience stores, restaurants and other food service
establishments.
Cold storage includes the equipment used to store meat, produce,
dairy products, and other perishable goods. All of the equipment
contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds.
Disposal
EPA is defining "disposal" as the process leading to and
including:
(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded
appliance into or on any land or water,
(2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit,
dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or
on any land or water, or
(3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component
parts.
High-Pressure Appliance
Because the physical properties of high, very high, and low-
pressure refrigerants differ, EPA is establishing somewhat
different
requirements for technicians and equipment servicing high, very
high, and low-pressure appliances. EPA defines high-pressure
appliances as appliances that use a refrigerant with a boiling
point between -50 and 10 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure
(29.9 inches Hg). This definition would include equipment using
CFCs -12, -114, -500, and -502, and HCFC-22. EPA has changed
this definition since the proposal to include CFC-114 in response
to comments stating that the physical differences between CFC-
114 and the other high-pressure refrigerants did not warrant
a special category for the latter. The proposed intermediate-
pressure appliance category has consequently been eliminated.
Industrial Process Refrigeration
As is discussed in more detail in section III.F.3, EPA is
establishing a maximum allowable leak rate of 35% per year for
industrial process and commercial refrigeration. EPA is defining
industrial process refrigeration as complex customized appliances
used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical and
manufacturing
industries. The sector is also defined to include industrial
ice machines and ice rinks.
Low-Loss Fitting
EPA is requiring that recovery or recycling machines
manufactured
after November 15, 1993, possess low-loss fittings. EPA had
proposed that the term "low-loss" fitting include only
automatically
closing fittings. A number of commenters disagreed with this
definition, noting that automatically closing fittings can restrict
refrigerant flow in some cases, slowing the recovery process,
and that automatic fittings sometimes open or close unexpectedly,
releasing refrigerant. These commenters recommended that EPA
expand its definition of low-loss fitting to include fittings
that can be closed manually, such as manual ball valve fittings.
The commenters noted that "manual ball valves are in wide use
in the refrigeration industry and have proven themselves to
be safe and reliable." In response to these comments, EPA is
defining a low-loss fitting as any device that is intended to
establish a connection between hoses, air-conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment, or recovery or recycling machines and that is designed
to close automatically or manually when disconnected, minimizing
the release of refrigerant from hoses, air-conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment, and recovery or recycling machines.
Low-Pressure Appliance
EPA defines low-pressure appliances as appliances that use
a refrigerant with a boiling point above 10 degrees Centigrade
at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches Hg). This definition includes
appliances using CFCs -11 and -113, and HCFC-123.
Major Maintenance, Service, or Repair
EPA is permitting persons servicing appliances to evacuate
(or, in the case of low-pressure appliances, to pressurize)
appliances to atmospheric pressure when the maintenance, service,
or repair is not major and when an evacuation of the appliance
to the environment is not performed after the servicing or repair
is completed. As is discussed in section III.F.1.b, many non-
major repairs involve uncovering only a small opening in the
appliance and take place in only a few minutes, limiting both
the quantity of refrigerant that escapes and the quantity of
air and moisture that enter the system. However, major repairs
involve uncovering larger openings in the system and are more
time consuming, allowing refrigerant to escape and air to enter.
This in turn necessitates an evacuation of the appliance to
the environment at the conclusion of service. EPA is defining
"major maintenance, service, or repair" as maintenance, service,
or repair that involves removal of the appliance compressor,
condenser, evaporator, or auxiliary heat exchanger coil.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC)
Although the servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners
(MVACs) is covered by the MVAC refrigerant recycling rule, 40
CFR part 82 subpart B, the disposal of motor vehicle air
conditioners
is covered by this rule. EPA is adopting the definition of MVAC
in the MVAC refrigerant recycling rule as the definition of
MVAC in this rule. In the MVAC rule, MVAC is defined as mechanical
vapor compression refrigeration equipment used to cool the driver's
or passenger's compartment of any motor vehicle. Motor vehicle
is in turn defined as "any vehicle which is self-propelled and
designed for transporting persons or property on a street or
highway, including but not limited to passenger cars, light
duty vehicles, and heavy duty vehicles." Transport refrigeration
and air conditioning systems using HCFC-22 are excluded from
the definition of MVAC.
MVAC-like Appliance
Some of the air conditioners that are covered by this rule
are identical to MVACs, but they are not covered by the MVACs
refrigerant recycling rule (40 CFR part 82 subpart B, 57 FR
31241) because they are used in vehicles that are not defined
as "motor vehicles." These air conditioners include many systems
used in construction equipment and farm vehicles. Like MVACs
in cars and trucks, these air conditioners typically contain
two to three pounds of CFC-12 and use open-drive compressors
to cool the passenger compartments of vehicles. As is discussed
in section III.G.3, EPA is adopting the requirements regarding
the certification and use of recycling and recovery equipment
in the MVACs rule for MVAC-like appliances covered by this rule.
EPA is also allowing technicians who service MVAC-like appliances
to be certified by a certification program approved under the
MVAC rule, if they wish. EPA is defining MVAC-like appliance
as mechanical vapor compression, open-drive compressor appliances
used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of a non-
road vehicle, including agricultural and construction vehicles.
The definition excludes appliances using HCFC-22.
Normally Containing
EPA is establishing stricter evacuation requirements for
high pressure appliances or appliance components "normally
containing"
more than 200 pounds of refrigerant. As is discussed in section
III.G, EPA considered the environmental impact of the refrigerant
that remains in the large appliance or appliance component after
recovery is complete in setting the more stringent standards.
(During disposal and during many service procedures, this remaining
refrigerant is ultimately released to the environment). The
quantity of refrigerant that remains in an appliance or appliance
component is related to two variables: (1) The internal pressure
of the appliance or appliance component, and (2) the internal
volume of the appliance or appliance component. The internal
volume is in turn related to the mass of refrigerant that is
inside the appliance or appliance component when the appliance
is operating with a full charge of refrigerant. Thus, EPA is
defining "normally containing" as containing the quantity of
refrigerant within the appliance or appliance component when
the appliance is operating with a full charge of refrigerant.
It is important to note that although the mass of refrigerant
in an appliance or appliance component can be changed through
leakage or system pump-down, only the quantity of refrigerant
normally contained by the appliance or appliance component can
be considered in determining whether or not the stricter
requirements
apply.
Opening
EPA is requiring that technicians recover refrigerant from
appliances before "opening" them for maintenance, service or
repair. EPA defines "opening" an appliance as any service,
maintenance,
or repair on an appliance that could be reasonably expected
to release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere
unless the refrigerant were previously recovered from the
appliance.
Person
EPA is requiring that refrigerant transferred between air-
conditioning or refrigeration equipment owned by different persons
must be fully reclaimed. EPA defines person as any individual
or legal entity, including an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, state, municipality, political subdivision of a
state, Indian tribe, and any agency, department, or instrumentality
of the United States, and any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
This is identical to the definition used in the regulations
concerning the production and consumption of ozone-depleting
substances (40 CFR 82.3(r)).
Process Stub
EPA is requiring that small appliances and room air conditioners
sold after November 15, 1993 be provided with a process stub
to facilitate removal of the refrigerant at servicing. The Agency
defines process stub as a length of tubing that provides access
to the refrigerant inside a small appliance or room air conditioner
and that can be resealed at the conclusion of repair or service.
Reclaim
EPA is adopting a slightly modified form of ASHRAE's definition
of "reclaim." According to ASHRAE, to reclaim refrigerant is
to:
Reprocess refrigerant to new product specifications by means
which may include distillation. Will require chemical analysis
of the refrigerant to determine that appropriate product
specifications
are met. This term usually implies the use of processes or
procedures
available only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.
EPA is refining this definition to refer specifically to the
ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants
(included as Appendix A to the proposed rule) for the "new product
specifications" and also for the appropriate type of chemical
analysis to ensure that these specifications are met. For the
Agency's purposes, the most important part of the definition
of reclaim is the requirement to chemically analyze the final
product to verify purity. Without such analysis and verification,
the Agency will not consider refrigerant to have been reclaimed.
Recover
EPA also is adopting ASHRAE's definition of "recover:" to
remove refrigerant in any condition from a system without
necessarily
testing or processing it in any way.
Recycle
Although the Act's usage of the term "recycle" is very broad,
encompassing, for instance, the term "reclaim" as defined above,
EPA defines the term more narrowly in its regulations. Once
again, EPA is adopting ASHRAE's definition, with minor changes.
ASHRAE states that to recycle is to:
Clean refrigerant for reuse by oil separation and single
or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable core
filter-driers, which reduce moisture, acidity and particulate
matter. This term usually applies to procedures implemented
at the field job site or at a local service shop.
The key difference between "recycle" and "reclaim" is that the
former does not involve chemical analysis of the product. Recycling
essentially encompasses all types of treatment of refrigerant
that do not involve such chemical analysis. As explained in
a later section of this notice, EPA is requiring for two years
that all refrigerant changing hands must be fully reclaimed,
implying that the vast majority of recycling will take place
on site as opposed to at a local service shop.
Self-contained Recovery Equipment
Recovery equipment can be divided into two main types: Self-
contained and system-dependent. EPA referred to these two types
of equipment as "active" and "passive" respectively in the
proposal,
but has changed the terminology in response to comments indicating
that "self-contained" and "system-dependent" are the more common
terms used in the industry. While self-contained equipment has
its own means to draw refrigerant out of the refrigerator system,
system-dependent equipment relies solely upon the compressor
in the appliance and/or the pressure of the refrigerant in the
appliance to recover the refrigerant. EPA defines these two
types of equipment accordingly.
Small Appliance
EPA proposed to define as a "small appliance" air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound of
charge during normal operation. This classification was intended
to include household refrigerators, household freezers,
dehumidifiers,
vending machines, and water coolers, for which EPA proposed
to establish special servicing and safe disposal requirements.
The rule establishes separate requirements for small appliances
in three areas. First, small appliances, unlike other appliances,
can be evacuated using equipment certified under Appendix C.
Second, technicians servicing small appliances can be certified
by taking an unproctored rather than proctored test. Third,
small appliances can be manufactured with a process stub rather
than a servicing aperture. The rationale for establishing somewhat
less stringent requirements for the servicing and disposal of
small appliances is that they contain smaller quantities of
refrigerant and are serviced less often than other appliances.
EPA received a number of comments stating that the use of
the one-pound limit to define "small appliances" was inappropriate.
These comments stated that the one-pound limit excluded some
household refrigerators and freezers, and also excluded equipment,
such as room air conditioners, that had the same technical
attributes
and was serviced by the same work force as household refrigerators
and freezers. The commenters suggested that EPA adopt a definition
that would include room air conditioners, packaged terminal
air conditioners, and packaged terminal heat pumps in addition
to household refrigerators and freezers, dehumidifiers, vending
machines, and drinking water coolers. The commenters argued
that the former types of equipment, like the latter, are charged
and sealed at the factory, contain relatively small quantities
of refrigerant (particularly when that quantity is weighted
by the relatively low ozone-depletion potential of HCFC-22),
and are serviced infrequently by the same technicians who service
household refrigerators and freezers. Thus, they should be treated
the same way in the rule as household refrigerators and freezers.
EPA believes that the commenters are correct that room air
conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs), and
packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) are sufficiently similar
in these respects to household refrigerators and freezers to
justify inclusion in the definition of "small appliance." EPA
is therefore revising its proposed definition of "small appliance"
to:
Small appliance means any of the following products that
are fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in
a factory with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant:
Refrigerators
and freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners
(including
window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners),
packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under-the-counter
ice makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.
System-dependent Recovery Equipment
As discussed above in the explanation of the term
"self-contained
equipment," EPA defines a system-dependent recovery device as
a device that relies upon the compressor in an appliance to
remove the refrigerant into an external container.
Technician
EPA is establishing in today's rule a number of requirements
that apply to technicians. EPA defines technician as any person
who performs maintenance, service, or repair to air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment that could reasonably be expected
to release CFCs or HCFCs into the atmosphere, e.g., installer,
contractor employee, in-house service personnel, and in some
cases, owner. Technician also means any person disposing of
air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment except for small
appliances and MVACs.
Very High-Pressure Equipment
EPA defines very high-pressure equipment as air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment that uses a refrigerant with a boiling
point below -50 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure.
This definition includes equipment using refrigerants 13 and
503.
F. Required Practices
EPA is requiring persons servicing or disposing of
air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment to observe certain service practices
that minimize emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The
most fundamental of these practices is the requirement to recover
refrigerant rather than vent it to the atmosphere. As noted
above, the knowing venting of class I or class II refrigerant
during servicing or disposal (except for de minimis releases
associated with a good faith attempt to recapture, recycle,
or safely dispose of the refrigerant) has been expressly prohibited
by section 608(c) of the Act since July 1, 1992.
Knowing venting is any release that permits a class I or
class II substance to enter the environment and that takes place
with the knowledge of the technician during the maintenance,
servicing, repairing, or disposal of air-conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment. Two commenters argued that EPA was interpreting "knowing
release" too narrowly. These commenters asserted that a technician
who fills a leaking system is knowingly venting refrigerant.
As discussed below in Section III.F.3, this rule requires repair
of leaks above a certain size in equipment normally containing
more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. However, the venting
prohibition
itself, which applies to the maintenance, service, repair, and
disposal of equipment, does not prohibit "topping off" systems,
which leads to emissions of refrigerant during the use of
equipment.
The provision on knowing releases does, however, include the
situation in which a technician is practically certain that
his or her conduct will cause a release of refrigerant during
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of equipment.
Knowing releases also include situations in which a technician
closes his or her eyes to obvious facts or fails to investigate
them when aware of facts that demand investigation.
Section 608(c)(1) of the CAA exempts "de minimis" releases
associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle
or safely dispose of these substances from the prohibition.
In their statement prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, the Senate managers explained that, "The
exception is included to account for the fact that in the course
of properly using recapture and recycling equipment, it may
not be possible to prevent some small amount of leakage."
(Congressional
Record S16948, October 26, 1990). From this statement and the
statutory text, EPA considers it appropriate to conclude that
emissions accompanying the proper use of recapture and recycling
equipment would generally be considered "de minimis." EPA is
therefore interpreting as "de minimis" those emissions that
take place at servicing and disposal when:
(i) The required practices set forth in 82.158 of this
proposed regulation are observed and recovery or recycling machines
that meet the requirements set forth in 82.158 of this proposed
regulation are used, or
(ii) The requirements of the MVAC regulation (40 CFR part
82, subpart B) are observed.
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 is requiring that before air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment is opened for maintenance, service, or repair, the
refrigerant in either the entire system or the part to be serviced
(if the latter can be isolated) must be transferred to a system
receiver (a component of the system that is designed to hold
excess refrigerant charge and that can be used to hold the charge
during servicing or repair) or to a certified recycling or recovery
machine. The same requirements apply to equipment that is to
be disposed of, except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-
like appliances, whose disposal is covered by Section III.M.
below. In order to ensure that the maximum amount of refrigerant
possible is captured rather than released, EPA is requiring
that air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment be evacuated
to or below specified levels of vacuum. As discussed in the
proposal, the Agency has considered a number of factors in
developing
these levels, including the technical capabilities, ease of
use, and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the possible
impact of evacuation on the air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, the servicing times that would be necessary to achieve
different vacuums, and the amounts of refrigerant that would
be released under different evacuation requirements and their
predicted impact on the ozone layer (and indirectly, on human
health and the environment). Since the rule was proposed, the
Agency has reviewed numerous public comments regarding the proposed
evacuation levels and has refined its analysis. As a result,
some of the proposed requirements have been changed. These changes
are discussed below.
As was proposed, the required levels of evacuation vary
depending
upon the type of equipment to be serviced or disposed of and
the date of manufacture of the recovery or recycling machine
(i.e., whether it met certification requirements for new equipment
or had been grandfathered). However, some of the distinctions
between different types of equipment have been changed since
the rule was proposed. For small appliances, the requirements
also vary depending on the capacities of the recovery system
used under the circumstances (e.g., with an operating vs. a
nonoperating refrigerator compressor).
Technicians repairing MVAC-like appliances are not subject
to the evacuation requirements below, but are subject to a
requirement
to "properly use" (as defined at 40 CFR 82.32(e)) recycling
and recovery equipment approved pursuant to 82.36(a). As is
discussed in more detail in section III.G.3, EPA is adopting
the equipment certification and use requirements of the MVACs
refrigerant recycling rule (40 CFR part 82, subpart B) for MVAC-
like appliances.
The required evacuation levels and equipment standards (for
"grandfathered" equipment) become effective 60 days after
publication
of this rule. Although EPA had proposed that these requirements
become effective 30 days after publication of the rule, some
commenters believed that 30 days would not constitute sufficient
time for technicians to become aware of EPA's requirements and
to acquire equipment that met EPA's grandfathering standards.
Upon reconsideration of the issue, EPA agreed. The Agency again
notes, however, that the prohibition on venting refrigerants
during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances
has been in effect since July 1, 1992.
a. Evacuation requirements for air-conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment besides small appliances. When recovery and recycling
machines manufactured or imported after November 15, 1993, are
employed for recovery, EPA is requiring evacuation to 0 inches
of vacuum, 10 inches of vacuum, 15 inches of vacuum, or 29 inches
of vacuum, depending on the size and type of air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment being serviced. If grandfathered
recovery or recycling devices are used, EPA proposes to require
evacuation to 0 inches of vacuum in very high-pressure systems
and in small systems using HCFC-22, 4 inches of vacuum in high-
pressure systems, and 25 inches of vacuum in low-pressure systems,
because the grandfathered equipment may not be capable of achieving
higher levels (see Section III.G.). The table below lists
requirements
for evacuation (pressure readings) for each type of
air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment and for certified and grandfathered
recovery and recycling machines.
Table 1.-Required Levels of Evacuation for Air-Conditioning
or
Refrigeration Equipment
[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
equipment]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ Inches of vacuum
(relative to
³ standard
atmospheric pressure
³ of 29.9
inches Hg) {1}
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ Using recovery
³ Using recovery
Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration ³ or recycling
³ or recycling
equipment ³ equipment
³ equipment
³ manufactured
³ manufactured
³ before
³ on or after
³ November 15,
³ November 15,
³ 1993
³ 1993
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component ³ 0
³ 0
of such equipment, normally containing ³
³
less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. ³
³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component ³ 4
³ 10
of such equipment, normally containing ³
³
200 pounds or more of refrigerant. ³
³
Other high-pressure equipment, or ³ 4
³ 10
isolated component of such equipment, ³
³
normally containing less than 200 pounds ³
³
of refrigerant. ³
³
Other high-pressure equipment, or ³ 4
³ 15
isolated component of such equipment, ³
³
normally containing 200 pounds or more ³
³
of refrigerant. ³
³
Very high-pressure equipment ............ ³ 0
³ 0
Low-pressure equipment .................. ³ 25
³ 29
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
{1} EPA is explicitly defining the required evacuation levels in
relation
to standard, as opposed to local, atmospheric pressure. A number
of
commenters noted that because local atmospheric pressure drops
with
elevation, it is difficult (and sometimes physically impossible)
for
persons working at high elevations to attain the required vacuums
if they
are measured relative to local atmospheric pressure. Because the
quantity
of refrigerant remaining in a piece of air-conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment is related to its absolute rather than relative
pressure,
pulling a shallower gauge vacuum at a higher elevation has the
same impact
on the environment as pulling a deeper vacuum at sea level.
Persons
performing appliance repair, maintenance, service or disposal at
high
elevations should make appropriate adjustments to the above chart
to
account for the difference between standard and local atmospheric
pressure.
i. High-pressure air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
There are a number of differences between the above evacuation
levels and those that were proposed. The most significant of
these is the distinction now made between high-pressure air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment utilizing HCFC-22 and
other high-pressure equipment. In the proposal, EPA requested
comment on establishing less stringent evacuation standards
for equipment utilizing HCFC-22. The Agency noted that the high
saturation pressure of HCFC-22 makes it difficult (and in some
cases, impossible) to draw deep vacuums on this refrigerant
but, at the same time, permits a high percentage of this
refrigerant
to be recovered at relatively shallow vacuums. EPA stated that
the latter consideration, along with the relatively low ozone-
depletion potential of HCFC-22 (compared to those of the CFCs)
may make deeper vacuums unnecessary. A number of commenters
concurred with this reasoning. Many commenters emphasized the
difficulty of pulling deep vacuums on air-conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment using R-22 (HCFC-22), particularly in the high ambient
temperatures typically found on rooftops during the summer months.
Under these conditions, commenters noted, only recovery equipment
with high-quality compressors would be able to attain the
compression
ratio necessary to draw a 10-inch vacuum, and even this equipment
would not be able to achieve a 20-inch vacuum. Moreover, the
discharge temperature of the refrigerant in these situations
would often be high enough to burn the oil in the recovery device
compressor, leading to its failure.
EPA has performed an analysis that attempts to determine
appropriate evacuation levels for various types of refrigerants
and equipment, considering the physical characteristics of the
refrigerants (e.g., saturation pressure, which is related both
to the compression ratio necessary to achieve a certain vacuum
level and to the percentage of refrigerant that is recovered
at that vacuum level), their ozone-depletion potentials, the
costs of recycling and recovery equipment, and labor costs.
This analysis indicates that recovery of HCFC-22 into a vacuum
is justified only for large charge sizes (greater than 200 pounds).
For smaller charges, the avoided damage to human health and
the environment do not appear to justify the time and expense
of drawing a vacuum even if a vacuum were attainable, which
it often would not be. It should be noted that because HCFC-
22 has one of the highest saturation pressures of the high-pressure
refrigerants, evacuating HCFC-22 systems to atmospheric pressure
recovers approximately 98.5 percent of the refrigerant at 75
degrees F (more at higher temperatures). Although temperature
was not considered in the analysis, HCFC-22 equipment (or isolated
components thereof) with charges of 200 pounds or more is generally
found in equipment rooms, where ambient temperatures are low
enough to make a ten-inch vacuum feasible.
Some commenters argued that EPA should not set less stringent
standards for HCFC-22 because the ODP of HCFC-22 is not
significantly
different from that of the CFCs in the short term, when the
most serious ozone depletion is expected to occur. As noted
above, the physical characteristics of HCFC-22 and the conditions
under which repair and disposal of appliances using HCFC-22
are likely to occur (e.g., on hot rooftops) were the primary
considerations in setting less stringent standards for HCFC-
22 than for the CFC refrigerants; however, EPA also considered
the impact on human heath and the environment of the HCFC-22
that would escape under the less stringent standards. In estimating
this impact, EPA accounted for both the short- and long-term
effects of HCFC-22 on stratospheric ozone, examining health
and environmental effects over the next 150 years. As discussed
above, the Agency found that these effects were not severe enough
to warrant setting more stringent standards for HCFC-22 recovery,
which would be difficult (and, in some cases, impossible) to
meet. The method that EPA used to calculate the impact of HCFC-
22 on human health and the environment and the relationship
of this method to the ODP of HCFC-22 is discussed in more detail
in the RIA.
Another significant change from the proposal is the provision
that allows the charge in an isolated component of the system,
rather than the charge of the system as a whole, to be used
to determine appropriate levels of evacuation. Several commenters
stated that large air-conditioning and refrigeration systems
often contain isolation valves that allow individual system
components to be repaired without requiring evacuation of the
entire system. In many cases, the quantity of refrigerant left
in the component is considerably less than 200 (or even 50)
pounds, even if the system as a whole contains several hundred
pounds. In these cases, EPA agrees that drawing a deep vacuum
on the system component is not necessary.
The other significant changes from the proposal are the
alteration
of the maximum evacuation level for high-pressure refrigerants
from 20 inches to 15 inches, and the raising of the cutoff for
"small" high-pressure equipment to 200 pounds. A number of
commenters
criticized the 20-inch evacuation requirement, stating that
achieving this level of evacuation would place a strain on recovery
equipment, recover little additional refrigerant, be
time-consuming,
and in some cases (e.g., with equipment using R-502) be impossible.
In its analysis of evacuation levels, the Agency found that
evacuation levels between approximately 15 and 23 inches of
vacuum (depending upon compressor clearance) were appropriate
for large equipment using R-12 (CFC-12), while evacuation levels
between 5 inches and 17 inches of vacuum (depending upon compressor
clearance) were appropriate for large equipment using R-502.
EPA's analysis confirmed that achievement of a 20-inch vacuum
on equipment utilizing R-502 would be very difficult without
substantial modification of existing recycling and recovery
equipment. (See Section G.1. below.) Rather than set separate
standards for each high-pressure refrigerant, which could lead
to excessive confusion, the Agency has decided to establish
a single standard based on both of the above ranges, 15 inches
of vacuum. (R-12 and R-502 represent the commonly used CFC high-
pressure refrigerants with the lowest and highest saturation
pressures, respectively. Therefore, an evacuation level that
falls into the range of appropriate levels for both refrigerants
should be appropriate for all high-pressure CFC refrigerants.)
Similarly, EPA found that evacuation levels between
approximately
10 and 22 inches of vacuum (again, depending upon compressor
clearance) were appropriate for small equipment using R-12,
while evacuation levels between atmospheric pressure and 14
inches of vacuum were appropriate for small equipment using
R-502. The Agency selected 10 inches as an appropriate evacuation
level for all high-pressure CFC refrigerants.
Supermarkets and chemical manufacturers were concerned that
the proposed levels of evacuation, particularly the 20-inch
requirement for large, high-pressure equipment, would be too
time-consuming, leading to food spoilage or costly shutdowns
of industrial processes. As discussed above, EPA is now requiring
that large, high-pressure systems be evacuated to 15 rather
than 20 inches of vacuum. EPA believes that this change and
the new provision that permits the charge of an isolated component
to be used as the basis for determining evacuation requirements
will address concerns about excessive time spent evacuating
retail food and industrial process refrigeration systems.
One other change from the proposal is the elimination of
the "intermediate-pressure refrigerants" category and the inclusion
of CFC-114 in the "high-pressure refrigerants" category. Several
commenters stated that the physical differences between CFC-
114 and the high-pressure refrigerants did not warrant special
treatment of the former. Other commenters noted that evacuating
CFC-114 to 25 inches of vacuum, as was proposed, would be very
time-consuming. The proposed requirement to evacuate CFC-114
to 25 inches of vacuum was based on information from the Department
of Defense (one of the largest users of CFC-114), which stated
that 25 inches was the maximum depth of vacuum that its pumpout
equipment could achieve. Other users of CFC-114, however, such
as gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants, have stated
that their current (built-in) recovery equipment cannot evacuate
their 114 systems to this level and that it would be very difficult
and expensive to obtain recovery equipment that could. In
consideration
of these comments, the Agency has decided to classify CFC-114
as a high-pressure refrigerant.
ii. Very high-pressure equipment. Commenters uniformly supported
EPA's proposal to require evacuation of very high-pressure
equipment
(used with refrigerants -13 and -503) to atmospheric pressure.
Several of these commenters noted that passive equipment could
be used to evacuate very high-pressure systems, many of which
contain only a few pounds of vapor easily captured by a 50-lb.
recovery cylinder. (Note that ordinary refrigerant cylinders
are not suited for use with very high-pressure refrigerants,
but higher-pressure cylinders are available.) EPA's own analysis
indicates that chilling a cylinder with dry ice would even permit
the recovery of some of the very high-pressure refrigerant as
a liquid ("Very High Pressure Refrigerant Recovery and
Reclamation,"
September 28, 1992, memorandum from Gene Troy, Bernard Eydt,
and John Wasson to David Lee and Debbie Ottinger). Some commenters
stated that using compressor-bearing equipment to compress and
liquefy very high-pressure refrigerants could pose a safety
risk, because of the very high pressures required. Because of
this concern and because compressor-bearing equipment currently
available for use with very high-pressure refrigerants is extremely
bulky and relatively expensive, EPA is permitting the use of
system-dependent equipment on very high-pressure refrigeration
equipment containing less than 15 pounds of refrigerant.
iii. Low-pressure air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
As was proposed, EPA is requiring evacuation of low-pressure
systems to 25 inches of vacuum using grandfathered equipment
and to 29 inches using equipment manufactured after November
15, 1993. A number of commenters supported the 29-inch requirement,
noting that the technology to achieve this level in a timely
fashion (vacuum pumps) is available and is, in fact, now being
used on virtually all low-pressure recovery and recycling
equipment.
One commenter noted that evacuation to 29 inches of vacuum instead
of 25 inches of vacuum would prevent release of 312,000 pounds
of CFC-11 annually.
Some commenters supported evacuation to levels less stringent
than 29 inches. Many of these commenters argued that evacuation
to levels below 25 inches would be excessively time-consuming
and would recover little additional refrigerant.
EPA has examined the feasibility and benefits of evacuating
low-pressure systems to 29 inches of vacuum. As noted in the
proposal and in several comments, the technology to achieve
a 29-inch vacuum is available. The time and labor costs involved
in drawing this vacuum depend upon (among other things) the
recovery rate of the recycling or recovery equipment at low
pressures. If a relatively slow recovery device is used to evacuate
low-pressure equipment from 25 to 29 inches of vacuum, the labor
costs involved in recovering that refrigerant can indeed be
quite high, and may not be justified by the additional refrigerant
recovered. However, EPA believes that use of available,
competitively
priced equipment permits evacuation to 29 inches within a
reasonable
period and is justified by the additional refrigerant recovered
(Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), March 25, 1993).
b. Exceptions to evacuation requirements. EPA is establishing
exceptions to its evacuation requirements for two specific
situations:
non-major repairs that are not followed by an evacuation of
the appliance to the environment and leaks that make the required
evacuation levels impossible to attain. In both cases, commenters
and EPA's research indicate that attempting to achieve the required
vacuums could actually lead to higher emissions than achieving
shallower (or no) vacuums.
i. Non-major repairs that are not followed by evacuation
of the appliance to the environment. A number of commenters,
including technicians, grocery store managers, contractor trade
groups, and environmentalists, stated that EPA should permit
evacuation of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment to
atmospheric pressure under limited circumstances, such as when
only minor repairs were performed or when an evacuation of the
equipment to the environment was not planned subsequent to the
repair. Following a major repair to an air-conditioning or
refrigeration
system, the contents of a system or component are typically
evacuated to the environment with a vacuum pump to remove air
and moisture that may have entered the system during the repair
process. This evacuation to the environment is often known as
a "complete" or "high-level" evacuation. (The contents are expelled
to the environment rather than captured by a recovery device
because recovery device compressors are not able to compress
air, which may make up a significant percentage of the system
contents in many cases.) However, from comments and discussions
with technicians in the field, the Agency understands that many
minor repairs, such as replacement of a filter drier, oil filter,
or safety switch, involve uncovering only a small opening in
the appliance (e.g., a threaded fitting) and take place in only
a few minutes. In these cases, both the quantity of refrigerant
that escapes and the quantity of air and moisture that enter
the system will be limited if the system has been brought to
atmospheric pressure prior to beginning the repair. After such
repairs, the system is generally resealed with no evacuation
to the environment, particularly if the system is a large one.
Commenters argued that release of refrigerant from a system
at atmospheric pressure during a minor repair procedure can
be minimal, and in fact will be smaller in many cases than the
release that would result from drawing the system into a vacuum.
Commenters noted that drawing a vacuum leads to the influx of
either nitrogen or air and moisture, which in turn requires
that a second, deeper vacuum be drawn using a vacuum pump,
expelling
any residual refrigerant to the atmosphere. One commenter estimated
that approximately 6 pounds of refrigerant would be released
from its equipment if that equipment were drawn to atmospheric
pressure before servicing, while 50 pounds would be released
if the equipment were drawn first to a 25-inch vacuum and then
re-evacuated after servicing. (Commenters universally supported
recovery into a vacuum at disposal.)
In response to these comments, EPA has decided to permit
evacuation (or, in the case of low-pressure appliances,
pressurization)
of appliances to 0 psig (atmospheric pressure) when the
maintenance,
service, or repair is not major and when an evacuation of the
appliance to the environment is not performed after the servicing
or repair is completed. As discussed in the definitions section,
EPA is defining as "major" maintenance, service, or repair that
involves removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator, or
auxiliary heat exchanger coil. These procedures are relatively
time-consuming and/or leave large openings in the system through
which refrigerant can escape (and air and moisture can enter).
After such procedures, evacuation of the system to the environment
is customarily performed. However, EPA recognizes that a second,
"high-level" evacuation may be appropriate for some types of
appliances even after minor repairs. The Agency emphasizes that
if the system is to be re-evacuated to any level, then it must
be drawn to the appropriate vacuum in Table 1 to recover the
refrigerant before the repair begins, even if the repair would
otherwise be considered "non-major." EPA believes that this
approach will most effectively minimize emissions while lowering
the costs of many repairs.
Low-pressure systems, because they operate below atmospheric
pressure, must be pressurized to equalize the pressure of the
system and the pressure of the air outside of it. EPA is requiring
low pressure systems that undergo minor servicing, such as oil
changes, to be pressurized to atmospheric pressure to minimize
the intrusion and subsequent purging of air. Methods that do
not require subsequent system purging, e.g., heat (not nitrogen),
must be used.
Some commenters argued that EPA should never require evacuation
of high-pressure equipment to levels below atmospheric pressure,
or should allow the service technician to decide whether further
evacuation was required. Many of these commenters were concerned
that drawing a vacuum during recovery could result in an influx
of air and moisture that would damage equipment. In the proposal,
EPA requested comment on this problem, noting that technicians
can avoid system contamination by either breaking the vacuum
with nitrogen or by drawing a deep second vacuum on the system
to remove any air and moisture that may have penetrated. (EPA
also proposed special evacuation requirements for leaky systems;
these are discussed below.) The Agency expressed a willingness
to consider allowing small systems utilizing HCFC-22 to be
eva![[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
- 58 FR 28660