[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3992-4008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1250]




[[Page 3991]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule To Amend Leak 
Repair Provisions Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules   

[[Page 3992]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5140-2]
RIN 2060-AE92


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule To Amend 
Leak Repair Provisions Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Through this action EPA is proposing to amend the Refrigerant 
Recycling Regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990. This proposal is being undertaken to address 
specific concerns regarding the leak repair requirements for industrial 
process refrigeration systems, pursuant to a settlement agreement with 
the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). This proposal will affect 
the owners and operators of industrial process refrigeration with 
regard to leak repair provisions. Minor aspects of this proposal will 
also affect federal owners and operators of commercial and comfort-
cooling refrigeration with charges of 50 pounds refrigerant or greater. 
This action proposes to provide greater flexibility to owners and 
operators of industrial process sources and to some federally-owned 
commercial and comfort-cooling refrigerant sources with regard to leak 
repair provisions. Such proposed flexibility can be provided without 
compromising the goals of protecting public health and the environment.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by February 21, 1995, 
at the address below. A public hearing, if requested, will be held in 
Washington, DC. If such a hearing is requested, it will be held on 
February 3, 1995, and the comment period would then be extended to 
March 6, 1995. Anyone who wishes to request a hearing should call Sue 
Stendebach at 202/233-9117 by January 26, 1995. Interested persons may 
contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to see 
if a hearing will be held and to obtain the date and location of any 
hearing. Any hearing will be strictly limited to the subject matter of 
this proposal, the scope of which is discussed below.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal must be submitted to the Air 
Docket Office, Public Docket No. A-92-01 VIIID, Waterside Mall (Ground 
Floor) Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460 in room M-1500. Additional comments and materials supporting 
this rulemaking are contained in Public Docket No. A-92-01. Dockets may 
be inspected from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Newberg, Regulatory Development 
Section, Program Implementation Branch, Stratospheric Protection 
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation 
(6205-J), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202)233-9729. The 
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can also be 
contacted for further information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in 
the following outline:

I. Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
II. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
    A. Need for Separate Leak Repair Requirements
    B. Additional Time to Complete Repairs
    C. Repairs Requiring a Process Shutdown
    D. Determining the Full Charge of an Industrial Process 
Refrigerant System
    E. Static and Dynamic Tests
    1. Soap Bubble Test
    2. Electronic Leak Detectors
    3. Ultrasonic Detectors
    F. Failed Verification Tests
    1. Requirement to Retrofit or Retire the Leaking Equipment
    2. Option for Second Repair Attempt
    3. Option to Reduce Other Equipment Leaks
    G. Clarification of Levels to Which Leaks Must be Repaired Leak 
Rate
    H. Extension for Retrofitting a Facility
    1. Additional Time Based on Regulatory Delays and/or the Need 
for a Suitable Replacement
    2. Additional Time Based on the Unavailability of Necessary 
Parts
    3. Additional Time Beyond the one Additional Year
    I. Allowing Appliances to be Pressurized Above 0 psig
    J. Treatment of Purged Refrigerant
    K. Temporarily Shutting Down Equipment Prior to Repairing Leaks
    L. Possible Need for an Extension for Federally Owned Chillers
III. Summary of Supporting Analysis
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Refrigerant Recycling Regulations

    Final regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) under section 608 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
(the Act) published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), establish a 
recycling program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the 
servicing and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. 
Together with the prohibition on venting during the maintenance, 
service, repair, and disposal of class I and class II substances (see 
the listing notice January 22, 1991; 56 FR 2420) that took effect on 
July 1, 1992, these regulations are intended to substantially reduce 
the emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. These regulations were 
subsequently revised in the final regulations published August 19, 1994 
(59 FR 42950) and November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912).
    The current regulations require that persons servicing air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe certain service 
practices to reduce emissions, establish equipment and reclamation 
certification requirements, and comply with a technician certification 
requirement. The regulations also require that ozone-depleting 
compounds contained 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 
will facilitate recovery of refrigerant.
    In addition, the regulations restrict the sale of refrigerant and 
establish a leak repair requirement for equipment that normally holds a 
refrigerant charge of fifty pounds or more. An annual leak rate of 35% 
was established for industrial process sources and commercial chillers, 
while an annual leak rate of 15% was established for comfort-cooling. 
If a leak rate is exceeded, the equipment must be repaired to bring the 
system to below the annual leak rate, within 30 days. An alternative is 
to submit a retrofit or replacement plan within 30 days, outlining 
action to retrofit or replace equipment within one year from the 
exceedance.

II. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations

    EPA proposes revisions to the leak repair provisions in response to 
a settlement agreement reached by the Agency and the Chemical 
Manufacturers Association (CMA) relative to industrial process sources. 
In that agreement, EPA agreed to propose changes to the leak repair 
requirements that provide additional time to repair and/or retrofit 
industrial process refrigeration equipment based on the uniqueness of 
the industrial process sector and on new information provided by CMA. 
EPA also proposes to revise portions of the leak repair requirements 

[[Page 3993]]
that address evacuation requirements relative to oil changes and 
destruction of purged emissions.
    Under section 608 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 
regulations were required to establish standards and requirements 
regarding the use and disposal of class I and class II substances 
during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial 
process refrigeration. The regulations were required to reduce the use 
and emission of class I and class II substances to the lowest 
achievable levels and to maximize the recapture and recycling of such 
substances. Regulations published on May 14, 1993 set out comprehensive 
requirements for recovery and reclamation of refrigerants from 
stationary sources. These regulations also establish leak repair 
requirements to further minimize emissions of class I and class II 
substances. The new information received from CMA indicates that under 
certain circumstances the timelines within which to repair industrial 
process refrigeration system leaks or retrofit such systems are not 
achievable. Today's proposed rulemaking seeks to respond to those 
circumstances by proposing the shortest timeframes possible, yet still 
achievable. EPA believes that today's proposal meets the standards set 
forth by Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA requests comment 
on the legal basis under which EPA is proposing these revisions.
    In today's action, EPA also proposes to allow additional time for 
repairs and retrofits and replacements of federally-owned or operated 
commercial or comfort-cooling systems where procurement requirements 
prevent timely acquisition of parts or services. This issue was not 
part of the settlement agreement, but was brought to EPA's attention by 
the U.S. Department of Energy. EPA also proposes to clarify that leaks 
exceeding the annual leak rate need only be brought to a level below 
that applicable annual leak rate, not to zero. Although this issue was 
not part of the settlement agreement, such clarification is necessary 
to be consistent with the terms of settlement, relative to the 35% 
annual leak rate and repair requirements. This clarification affects 
owners and operators of commercial refrigeration systems and comfort-
cooling systems containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. The 
recycling rule, 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, is only being re-opened for 
purposes of reconsidering these specific provisions outlined in this 
paragraph and the paragraph above, and discussed in today's proposed 
rule. EPA is not inviting comment on any other provisions of the 
recycling rule.

A. Need for Separate Leak Repair Requirements

    Three main refrigeration sectors are affected by the leak repair 
provisions promulgated under section 608 of the Act: commercial 
refrigeration, comfort-cooling, and industrial process refrigeration. 
While many different commercial refrigeration and comfort-cooling 
systems are similar in design and function, EPA has received new 
information from CMA illustrating the uniqueness of industrial process 
refrigeration systems. Industrial process refrigeration units are 
custom-designed and assembled in-place at a process location. Thus, 
each of these industrial units has unique operating characteristics. 
Industrial process refrigeration is defined in Sec. 82.152 as:

* * * complex customized appliances used in the chemical, 
pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing industries. This 
sector also includes industrial ice machines and ice rinks.

    There are several apparent differences between industrial process 
refrigeration equipment and other types of equipment affected by the 
leak repair provisions. Industrial process refrigeration systems are 
larger and more complex than hermetically-sealed consumer units. Most 
comfort-cooling systems have hermetically-sealed or semi-hermetically-
sealed refrigerant loops. By contrast, industrial process refrigeration 
systems often have compressor shaft seals, gasketed flange seals, and 
valves with packing gland seals. All of these are potential leak 
points. For example, an industrial process system can include 17 
different evaporators, located at distances up to half a mile from the 
compressor. Another example is that of a system that has a 5,000-
horsepower compressor moving nearly 200,000 pounds of refrigerant. A 
system that size cannot be a ``sealed'' unit. This complexity makes 
leak detection and leak rate calculations more difficult than for other 
sectors affected by the leak repair provisions.
    Industrial process refrigeration systems are also frequently 
designed to provide refrigeration to more than one industrial process 
and at more than one location within the same facility. These 
distributed refrigeration systems have multiple refrigerant reservoirs 
and evaporators and may be connected by pipe runs of half a mile or 
more, as mentioned above. Piping, valves and even evaporators in 
industrial process refrigeration systems are likely to be less 
accessible than the potential leak sources normally found in the other 
systems.
    Industrial process equipment, particularly that used in the 
chemical manufacturing industry, is frequently located in plant areas 
near high pressure/temperature piping and equipment and where leaks/
spills of flammable or otherwise hazardous chemicals may occur. A heat 
exchanger in which a class I or class II refrigerant is cooling a 
hazardous process fluid at high pressure poses different safety risks 
than those normally encountered in the commercial refrigeration sector 
or the comfort-cooling sector. Many industrial process sources are 
manufacturing or handling acutely toxic, corrosive, or carcinogenic 
chemicals that need to be handled in an extremely cautious manner. It 
is imperative that they be cooled properly to avoid fire, explosion, or 
emissions.
    In order to perform certain types of repair work on industrial 
process systems, a shutdown of the facility may be necessary to avoid 
such hazards. Shutting down industrial process refrigeration equipment 
means curtailing production or shutting a plant down completely, which 
can incur enormous costs in terms of time and money. In some cases, the 
size and complexity of a plant may require hours or days to completely 
shut down all the process equipment to avoid any unwanted chemical 
reactions that could lead to fires, explosions, or other immediate 
hazards. Such a costly and complex shutdown is not required to repair 
commercial or comfort-cooling systems that can sustain a short shutdown 
without significant added cost or consequence.
    Because of the new information that illustrates the substantial 
differences between the industrial process refrigeration sector and the 
other sectors affected by the leak repair provisions, EPA is proposing 
to revise the leak repair provisions promulgated under Sec. 82.156(i) 
to establish separate provisions for the industrial process 
refrigeration sector. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of 
establishing separate repair provisions for industrial process 
refrigeration.

B. Additional Time To Complete Repairs

    Section 82.156(i)(1) of the current rule requires that owners of 
commercial and industrial process refrigeration equipment must have all 
leaks repaired if the equipment is leaking at a rate such that over 35% 
of the refrigerant is released within a 12-month period. Under 
Sec. 82.156(i)(3), owners are not required to repair such leaks if, 
within 

[[Page 3994]]
30 days, they develop a one-year retrofit or retirement plan for the 
leaking equipment. Due to differences between the industrial process 
refrigeration sector and other sectors affected by the leak repair 
provisions, EPA recognizes that the potential for reasonable delays in 
repairing leaks is great in the industrial process sector. Thus, EPA 
proposes to allow the owners and operators of industrial process 
refrigeration equipment more than 30 days to repair leaks when the 
necessary parts are unavailable, or if requirements of other federal, 
state or local regulations make a repair within 30 days impossible. 
Additional time to receive delivery of any necessary parts or comply 
with any applicable regulations would be allowed.
    Although EPA proposes to allow this additional time when necessary, 
EPA proposes that the owner or operator of the industrial process 
refrigeration equipment must exert best efforts to repair leaks within 
the 30-day time period. If the equipment cannot be repaired within the 
30-day requirement, the owner or operator must document repair efforts, 
notify EPA of the inability to comply with this 30-day repair 
requirement, provide appropriate information concerning the reason for 
the inability to complete repair efforts and submit to EPA a one-year 
retrofit, replacement or retirement plan for the leaking equipment.
    Generally, EPA believes that most leaks can be repaired within 30 
days. For example, a leak caused by a ruptured tube would normally be 
repaired within several days to a few weeks, depending on the size and 
complexity of the system. Another example of a leak that could normally 
be repaired within the 30-day timeframe would be a leaking gasket. If 
refrigerant is leaking from the gasket between the flanges where two 
pieces of pipe come together, a repair can often be accomplished by 
merely tightening the bolts that hold the flanges together. Assuming 
that the piping is accessible, this might take only a few minutes.
    However, EPA recognizes that under certain circumstances it may not 
be possible for the owners and operators of industrial process 
refrigeration equipment to complete all necessary repairs within the 
thirty-day timeframe, or complete retrofit activities within one year, 
as established by the final regulations. Such necessary repairs may not 
be able to be completed within 30 days due to the need for the owners 
and operators of industrial process refrigeration equipment to comply 
with all other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. For 
example, if the piping for the industrial process equipment is covered 
with asbestos-containing insulation, the insulation for the affected 
portions of the system will have to be removed to detect and repair the 
leaks. Depending on the amount of piping affected, EPA regulations may 
require a ten working day notice before any asbestos-handling 
activities may begin. Only once the process of removing the insulation 
is complete can work begin on the refrigeration system.\1\

    \1\See 40 CFR 61.145(a)(5) and 40 CFR Sec. section 61.145(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other types of regulatory requirements that may impact the ability 
of a facility to either complete the necessary repairs within 30 days 
or retrofit the facility within one year include the need to obtain 
appropriate state or local permits. For example, one company planning 
to replace its ozone-depleting component with an ammonia refrigeration 
component in California encountered many unavoidable delays because 
ammonia is treated as a hazardous substance under the California Risk 
Management Prevention Plan (RMPP) program. As a result, the company had 
to prepare a risk management plan that met the approval of the local 
fire department before ammonia could be brought to the site. It took a 
total of six months to write and receive approval of the plan from the 
State. A similar situation could be encountered by any facility in 
California that decided to replace its ozone-depleting system with an 
ammonia system. Since most companies are unlikely to commit significant 
investment to a project until it is clear that the project can be 
approved, this requirement could, in effect, delay other necessary 
retrofit activities by up to six months. This may limit the ability of 
the company to complete retrofitting the system within one year.
    In some cases, industrial process refrigeration systems, 
particularly refrigerated condensers, serve as emission control devices 
for chemicals that could otherwise be released. For example, a 
refrigeration system may be used to cool and condense vapors, allowing 
recovery rather than venting to the atmosphere. Federal or state 
emission control requirements will typically specify that the condenser 
must be in operation whenever the manufacturing process is running. 
Limited periods of down time for maintenance on the condenser may be 
allowed. However, companies may not have unlimited freedom to shut down 
the system that controls emissions.
    Repairing leaks and retrofitting systems may be delayed because of 
the unavailability of needed parts. Many parts in an industrial process 
refrigeration system are custom-built. This is different from the 
commercial and comfort-cooling sectors, where parts tend to be more 
uniform, more widely available, and may often be purchased ``off the 
shelf.'' In order to repair or replace a leak source in an industrial 
process facility, the needed part may have to be custom-built. The 
process of building the part and shipping it to the facility may cause 
a delay that makes it impossible for the owner or operator of the 
industrial process facility to repair the leaks within 30 days.
    Although EPA recognizes these potential difficulties and delays, 
EPA proposes that the owner or operator of the industrial process 
refrigeration equipment must exert best efforts to repair leaks within 
the 30-day time period. EPA believes that best efforts on the part of 
the owner or operator of the industrial process refrigeration system 
implies that a methodology for repair that is reasonably expected to be 
effective based on past experience has been used. A best efforts 
approach used to repair leaks should first consider the experience of 
the individual or individuals charged with performing the repairs. 
However, for repairs that are less common or have not been performed in 
the past, best efforts on the part of the owner or operator of the 
industrial process system may imply appropriate consultation by the 
technician with manuals or colleagues, both within and outside of the 
company. If the owners or operators of the industrial process system 
followed the methodology discussed above, and are unable to repair all 
necessary leaks within thirty days, EPA proposes to grant extra time. 
EPA requests comments on this repair methodology. While EPA believes 
that a best efforts approach that incorporates the information above is 
important, EPA is concerned about the lack of formal protocols referred 
to in this definition.
    The owners or operators of the industrial process facility would be 
required to maintain records of their actions and submit information to 
EPA that details the need for additional time to complete all repair 
work. EPA believes the following information should be maintained by 
the owners or operators of the affected system and reported to EPA:
    (1) Identification of the industrial process facility;
    (2) Leak rate;
    (3) Method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
    (4) Date a leak rate of 35 percent or greater was discovered;

[[Page 3995]]

    (5) Location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
    (6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date 
that work was completed;
    (7) Plan to fix other outstanding leaks to achieve a rate below the 
applicable allowable annual leak rate;
    (8) Reasons why more than 30 days are needed;
    (9) Estimate of when repair work will be completed;
    (10) If time changes for original estimates, documented reason for 
changes;
    (11) Dates and types of static and dynamic tests performed; and
    (12) Test results for both the static and dynamic tests.
    All the above information would be maintained by the industrial 
process refrigeration facility on-site. Information discussed in (1) 
through (9) would be submitted as part of the original notification to 
the Agency. This information would be submitted within thirty days from 
the time the leak was detected. The information requested in item (10) 
would only be submitted as necessary. The information in items (11) and 
(12) would be submitted within thirty days of completing repairs on all 
appropriate leaks. EPA does not believe that these reporting or 
recordkeeping procedures place undue burden on the affected community. 
EPA believes that documenting the services performed by repair 
personnel is normally kept by the owners and operators of industrial 
process refrigeration equipment. However, EPA requests comment on these 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

C. Repairs Requiring a Process Shutdown

    In order to complete many types of repairs, an industrial process 
refrigeration system may be required to shut down. EPA proposes to 
define a process shutdown as when, for purposes such as maintenance or 
repair, a process temporarily ceases to operate or manufacture whatever 
is being produced at the particular facility. A typical manufacturing 
process may consist of the coordination and integration of a chemical 
reaction, separation, and heating or cooling activities. Since many 
facilities do not have back-up refrigeration systems, a shutdown of the 
refrigeration unit in order to facilitate the repair of leaks could 
require the curtailing or cessation of production. For the purposes of 
this proposal, EPA does not believe a process shutdown occurs when a 
system is temporarily taken off-line for reasons such as a power 
outage. Nor does it constitute a system mothballing of a facility 
discussed in II. K.
    The costs of a shutdown can be enormous. During the time when the 
process is shut down, no product will be produced. This results in lost 
sales. For example, one company estimates that the cost of a three-day 
shutdown of a particular process facility was $137,000. This estimate 
included lost profits due to products that either would not be made at 
all, or would be off-grade during the start-up and shutdown, plus 
maintenance charges incurred by the facility. Another facility 
estimated that to complete all necessary leak repair work should take 
two days, but could reasonably be expected to take as many as six days 
depending on the number or type of additional leaks discovered during 
the repair operations. The lost profits could be as much as $171,000 
per day for that facility.
    In most cases shutting down a process cannot be done in an instant. 
It may require hours or days to completely shut down all the process 
equipment while avoiding any runaway chemical reactions that could lead 
to fires, explosions, or other immediate hazards to human health and 
the environment. It may take several days to release or control 
hazardous energy and clean out pipes, storage tanks, and other 
appropriate equipment to allow for a safe working environment. 
Therefore, EPA believes it is necessary to propose additional time to 
complete all necessary leak repair work for an industrial process 
refrigeration facility where a process shutdown is necessary.
    EPA is proposing a 120-day repair period, rather than a 30-day 
repair period, in instances where an industrial process shutdown is 
needed to repair a leak or leaks from industrial process refrigeration 
equipment. EPA believes that the need to plan a process shutdown, 
ensure appropriate personnel are available, lessen environmental 
impacts and risks to human health, and to the extent possible, lessen 
the economic impact, warrant the proposal of such additional time. 
Although the system itself may not need to be shut down for the entire 
120 days in order to make the repairs, the actual timing of beginning 
the shutdown may be longer in order to avoid safety hazards and severe 
economic disruptions. EPA believes that facilities have every incentive 
to make repairs expeditiously, both because leaking refrigerant is very 
costly and because production, once off-line, is severely curtailed or 
halted until the system comes back up. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
allow 120 days for the owners or operators of industrial process 
refrigeration facilities in instances where an industrial process 
shutdown is needed to repair a leak or leaks from industrial process 
refrigeration equipment. EPA requests comments on the appropriateness 
of this proposed provision.

D. Determining the Full Charge of an Industrial Process Refrigerant 
System

    Section 82.156(i) requires that leaks be repaired if the equipment 
is leaking at a specified rate in relation to the total charge of the 
equipment. In order to ensure that additional time to repair leaks is 
warranted and to ensure that the leaks are fully repaired, EPA believes 
it is necessary to establish the correct full charge of refrigerant for 
industrial process refrigeration systems prior to determining the leak 
rate for the equipment. Refrigerant is contained as a liquid, gas, or 
two-phase mixture in reservoirs, equipment, and various amounts of 
piping. The equipment vendors may calculate the refrigerant capacity 
for the devices they sell; however, such calculations may not include 
all of the piping the system contains, as well as any piping that may 
be added by the owner or operator that may differ from the original 
engineering designed, and therefore increase the full charge of the 
equipment.
    One company recently completed construction and installation of an 
industrial process refrigeration unit that was supposed to hold 70,000 
pounds of refrigerant. In this case, the owner suspected a problem and 
performed its own calculations, estimating a full charge of 96,000 
pounds of refrigerant. When the company filled the system for the first 
time, the system took 150,000 pounds of refrigerant. Had the owner 
filled the system to the manufacturer's specifications, the system 
would not have functioned well and the owner may have added 
refrigerant, presumably attributing the need for additional refrigerant 
to leaks.
    For older refrigeration systems, the full charge may not have been 
generally known. When those systems were built there were no regulatory 
requirements that stipulated that owners or operators should know 
exactly how much refrigerant constituted a full charge. Many 
refrigerants were inexpensive to add or replace. Therefore, the owner 
or operator may not have required that the full charge be recorded 
routinely. Since the full charge was performance-based, it may have 
varied with season, ambient temperature, or production rate.
    EPA proposes the following methods for owners and operators of 
industrial process refrigeration systems to determine the full charge 
and requests comments on a methods. EPA has 

[[Page 3996]]
received information indicating that there are at least five possible 
methods for determining the full charge of a system. Each of these 
methods has limitations. However, EPA believes that the alternative to 
these methods would be to require the operators of industrial process 
refrigeration equipment to evacuate the systems and add refrigerant a 
little at a time while checking the effect on cooling. EPA believes 
that an attempt to proceed in that manner would cause an unreasonable 
burden on the affected community.
    The first method for determining the full charge of the system is 
to rely on the manufacturers' determinations. The benefit of this 
system is that typically the manufacturer provides a single number 
rather than a range. The limitations include the infrequency with which 
the manufacturer may actually provide this information and the occasion 
to question the number's accuracy. Questions concerning the accuracy of 
the number will reflect the fact that industrial process refrigeration 
equipment is often custom-built; therefore, a particular system may be 
a one-of-kind appliance for which the manufacturer's determinations may 
only be an estimate. Furthermore, the owner or operator of a particular 
system may have made subsequent modifications, which would adjust the 
full charge of the system. Moreover, even where the manufacturer's 
estimates may initially appear reasonable, experience with actual use 
of the equipment may indicate the need to revise the estimate.
    The second method for determining the full charge of a system is to 
require the owner or operator to do calculations. In some cases the 
owners or operators of a system should be able to estimate a full 
charge by calculations based on component sizes, flow rates, pressures, 
and other considerations. Of course, these calculations may become very 
complex due to the number of individual pipes, tubes, and other parts 
the system contains. Additionally, each measurement or assumption that 
goes into the total calculation will have a margin of error. 
Consequently, although this method has the benefit of being based on 
objective criteria and methods, the resulting number may be subject to 
change as methods are refined or experience with the system increases.
    The third method is to rely on actual measurements of the amount of 
refrigerant added or evacuated from an industrial process refrigeration 
system. Although this may be a more accurate method and would provide a 
single number rather than a range of the full charge, evacuating a 
system is not always practical. For example, evacuating the entire 
charge may require a process shutdown and a place to store that 
refrigerant. In addition, the exact measurement may only represent the 
amount of refrigerant evacuated. Since the system could have been below 
or above full charge when the evacuation was performed or some 
refrigerant may have been lost during evacuation, the amount of 
refrigerant evacuated may not be an accurate measure of the full charge 
of the system.
    A fourth method for determining the full charge of a system is to 
choose a number from within an established range based on the best data 
currently available. In situations where the refrigerant system 
functions properly within a range of quantities, the owner or operator 
may choose a number from within the range based on the data and 
consider that number to be the full charge. Once a number is selected 
that number would be considered the full charge. Over time the owner or 
operator of the system may adjust this number based on new or revised 
information concerning the performance of the system, thereby 
potentially increasing the accuracy of the full charge estimate. 
However, the drawback to this method is that there is no clarity 
regarding the circumstances under which a change in the number could be 
justified. An ever-changing estimate of the full charge defeats the 
purpose of creating such a baseline. Therefore, the Agency proposes 
that this method not be included in the list of method options from 
which owners and operators can determine full charge.
    The last method for determining the full charge of a system is to 
establish a definition of full charge that is based on maximum cooling 
performance. One possible approach is to define the full charge as the 
minimum amount of refrigerant necessary for a system to achieve its 
maximum refrigerant performance during times of maximum process heat 
load. This would include consideration of the production process and 
the most adverse ambient conditions normally encountered. This 
definition has a major drawback. Because it is based on cooling 
performance, it does not give a number in the context of pounds of 
refrigerant in the system. Several other factors could affect cooling 
performance, severely skewing the calculation of full charge.
    EPA believes that it is appropriate to use any of the first three 
methods to establish the full charge for an industrial process 
refrigeration system; however, EPA believes that the last two methods 
would not be appropriate. EPA is concerned with the last two methods 
because of the lack of objectivity and the possibility for frequent 
adjustments. Furthermore, EPA believes it is critical that the owners 
or operators of a particular system use both a consistent and accurate 
approach for determining the full refrigerant charge. Such an approach 
may include one of the first three methods, or a combination of them to 
establish the full charge of a system. For example, the owners or 
operators may wish to consider the manufacturer's estimates in 
conjunction with its own calculations. Once the full charge is 
established, a leak rate can be based upon this number. However, 
constantly changing the methodology for establishing the full charge 
could alter the determination of the leak rate for the system. Within 
reason, EPA could allow for a particular facility to adjust its method 
for determining the full charge where a change would lead to a more 
accurate estimate of the full charge; however, EPA would also take 
consistency into account.
    In today's action, EPA proposes that the first three methods, or a 
combination of them, may be used to determine the full charge. EPA 
requests comments on the five methods for determining the full charge 
of a system discussed above, and the appropriateness of the methods 
proposed. In addition, EPA requests comments on other potential methods 
for establishing the full charge of an industrial process refrigeration 
appliance.

E. Static and Dynamic Tests

    EPA is proposing that the repair efforts required for industrial 
process refrigeration equipment be those that sound engineering 
judgment indicates will be sufficient to bring the leak rates below a 
35 percent annual rate, that a static test be conducted at the 
conclusion of the repairs to determine whether the repairs undertaken 
were successfully completed, and that a dynamic test be conducted 
within 30 days of bringing the system back on-line (if taken off-line) 
or of completing the actual repairs, but no sooner than when the system 
has achieved steady-state operating characteristics. EPA is also 
proposing that the system not be brought back on-line, in the case 
where it was taken off-line, until a static test indicates that the 
repairs undertaken have been successfully completed. If the dynamic 
test indicates that the repairs have not been successfully completed, 
EPA proposes that the owner would be subject to a requirement to 
retrofit or replace the equipment within one year of the failure to 
verify that the repairs had been successfully completed or 

[[Page 3997]]
such longer time period as may be granted under this proposal. A 
retrofit plan would need to be submitted to EPA as discussed in F.1 of 
this preamble and outlined in the proposed reporting requirements of 
this proposed rulemaking. Moreover, EPA is proposing that the owner or 
operator notify EPA of the failure within 30 days of the failed dynamic 
verification test.
    To ensure that the leak repair work conducted on industrial process 
refrigeration equipment, where additional repair time has been granted, 
has been successful and that leaks have been brought to below 35 
percent per year, parties to the settlement agreed that it is desirable 
and beneficial to perform leak checking tests after the owners or 
operators of the facility have completed the necessary work. The owners 
or operators of the industrial process refrigeration system will be 
relying on sound engineering judgment to determine the leak rate and to 
determine the type of leak tests to perform. With regard to this 
rulemaking, EPA proposes to interpret sound engineering or professional 
judgement to represent a combination of the use of logic and 
operational experience, with methods of calculation that are practical, 
based on training, experience and education. As mentioned above, EPA 
believes two types of tests should be conducted to ensure that the leak 
rates have been brought successfully below 35 percent per year--a 
static test and dynamic test.
    EPA is proposing to define static tests as those tests that take 
place before the refrigeration system has been started again, in cases 
where the system has been shut down. A static test, with regard to the 
leak repairs that require the evacuation of the equipment or parts of 
the equipment, is a test conducted prior to the replacement of the full 
refrigerant charge and before the appliance or portion of the appliance 
has reached operation at normal working conditions of temperature and 
pressure. However, not all repairs require the evacuation of the 
system. Often, systems are not evacuated to perform repairs. For 
example, it is not necessary to evacuate the system to repair leaks for 
piping or tubing connections such as flanges, unions, flare fittings, 
and compression joints, leaks from gauges or control lines, leaks from 
valve packing, or leaks from tubes in the heat exchanger if the leak is 
at the tube sheet or the tube can be re-rolled or plugged. With respect 
to repairs conducted without the evacuation of the refrigerant charge 
or without a shutdown, a static test would mean a test conducted as 
soon as practical after the conclusion of the repair work. In 
situations where a system has been evacuated, the system may not be 
brought back on-line until a static test indicates that the repairs 
undertaken have been successfully completed.
    EPA is proposing to define a dynamic test as a leak test, performed 
using sound engineering judgment, that involves checking the repairs 
within 30 days of returning to steady-state operating characteristics, 
or where steady-state has been maintained, within 30 days after the 
repairs have been completed. Steady-state operating characteristics 
refer to the conditions present when operating at temperatures, 
pressures, fluid flows, speeds and other characteristics that would 
normally be expected for a given process load and ambient condition. 
Steady-state operating characteristics are marked by the absence of 
atypical conditions affecting the operation of the refrigeration 
system. Dynamic tests for equipment from which the refrigerant charge 
has been evacuated would mean a test conducted after the appliance or 
portion of the appliance has resumed operation at steady-state or 
normal operating conditions of temperature and pressure.
    With respect to repairs conducted without evacuation of the 
refrigerant charge, dynamic tests would mean a reverification test 
conducted after the static test. Since the system was not evacuated, it 
would only be necessary to conclude any required changes in pressure, 
temperature or other conditions to return the system to a steady-state 
for operations. This test would be performed within 30 days of return 
to steady-state operation.
    EPA is further considering an alternative of allowing the dynamic 
test to be conducted prior to achieving steady-state operations where 
the system was evacuated if reassembly and operation will make the 
testing more difficult and less reliable. In these circumstances the 
dynamic test could be conducted without resuming steady-state 
operations, but with a standard operation pressure or temperature for 
the appliance. EPA is also concerned about how to judge whether such a 
test actually is more reliable than a test conducted after the system 
has been completely returned to steady-state operations. Therefore, EPA 
is not proposing to allow for this type of dynamic test alternative, 
but requests comments on the need for such an alternative and under 
what conditions it would be reasonable to accept such an approach.
    If the dynamic test indicates that the repairs have not been 
successfully completed, the owner or operator of the system would be 
required to retrofit or replace the equipment within one year of the 
failure to verify that the repairs had been successfully completed or 
within such longer time period as may be granted under this proposal. A 
retrofit plan would need to be submitted to EPA as discussed in F.1 of 
this preamble and outlined in the proposed reporting requirements of 
this rule. In addition, EPA is proposing that the owner or operator 
notify the Agency of failure within 30 days of the failed dynamic 
verification test. The Agency believes that in most cases the 
industrial process facility will already be subject to the reporting 
requirements discussed in today's action, since most of these repairs 
will take longer than 30 days to complete. Therefore, this information 
will be reported as part of the requirements contained in the 
discussion for allowing more than 30 days to complete repairs. However, 
if there is a case where a failed dynamic test could in fact occur as 
part of a method of completing all repairs within 30 days, the 
industrial process facility would need to submit information as part of 
its submittal of a retrofit or replacement plan.
    The above definitions of static and dynamic tests would allow the 
same test methodologies in certain circumstances to be categorized as 
both a static test or a dynamic test, depending upon when and under 
what conditions the tests are performed. Furthermore, this definition 
does not specify which type of static or dynamic test should be used 
under which circumstances. Due to the unique situations faced by each 
industrial process facility, EPA believes it is important for that 
decision to be based upon sound engineering or professional judgment. 
EPA requests comment on the proposed definitions of static and dynamic 
tests, including the need to perform a static test as soon as is 
practical after completing repairs, and the need to conduct a dynamic 
test within 30 days of returning to normal operating conditions. In 
addition, EPA requests comments on the associated recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements.
    Below are examples of various test methods that EPA believes 
represent acceptable forms of static and dynamic tests. EPA wishes to 
clarify that other types of tests may exist. Today's proposal, however, 
does not identify any particular type of test that must be used. EPA 
requests comments on the appropriateness of these tests as well as 
others not specified in this proposal. 

[[Page 3998]]

1. Soap Bubble Test
    A simple leak test method can be performed by applying a soap 
bubble solution to potential leak sources and seeing if bubbles form. 
This is an inexpensive method that should not pose any explosion hazard 
and can provide a qualitative estimate of a leak rate. This method 
cannot work as a dynamic test for systems under vacuum, leak points 
cold enough to freeze the solution, or points that are inaccessible 
because of insulation, tightness of space, or some other constraining 
factor. However, a soap bubble test could be used as a dynamic test in 
other circumstances. It can also serve as a static test if the 
insulation is removed, and the system is at an acceptable temperature 
and under pressure.
2. Electronic Leak Detectors
    Electronic leak detectors identify the presence of specific 
refrigerants and give a reading on the degree of a leak within a range 
allowed by the detector, usually by an audible alarm that may be 
accompanied by lights. These detectors have movable probes that can be 
put into some places where a soap bubble test would be difficult. For 
example, an electronic detector can be used for the underside of a 
fitting. However, the effectiveness of electronic leak detectors can be 
reduced by the presence of insulation, particularly if the insulation 
was blown with an ozone-depleting substance. Other limitations include 
the potential for false readings due to previously leaked refrigerants 
soaking the insulation. Also, the usefulness of these detectors is 
limited because the point at which a leak is shown may not be the 
actual spot at which the leak occurred. In some instances, a space 
between the insulation and the pipe is caused by irregularities in the 
outer configuration of a pipe, such as flanges or valves. Some 
electronic detectors heat the sampled gases before analyzing them. 
Therefore, there could be a risk of explosion under certain conditions. 
Despite these limitations, in many circumstances, electronic leak 
detection represents a useful static or dynamic test option.
3. Ultrasonic Detectors
    Ultrasonic detectors respond to the high frequency noise generated 
by a leak. In some instances, these detectors may be appropriate for 
static or dynamic tests. One major advantage of these detectors is the 
ability to detect leaks from several feet away. This is particularly 
useful for leaks that may occur in otherwise inaccessible locations. 
However, facilities may often generate background noise that could 
interfere with the effectiveness of the ultrasonic detectors. Where 
appropriate, these detectors can be used to perform either static or 
dynamic tests.

F. Failed Verification Tests

    Through this action, EPA is proposing that an industrial process 
refrigeration system, if taken off-line, not be brought back on-line 
until a static test indicates that the repairs undertaken have been 
successfully completed. EPA is further proposing that a dynamic test be 
performed within 30 days to verify that the leaks have been 
successfully completed. Since a static test typically does not occur 
during steady-state operations, test results may not be consistent with 
the results of the more reliable dynamic test. EPA has considered the 
possibility of a system failing the dynamic test after the system has 
been brought back on-line or after the repairs have been made. EPA 
believes that if a system fails a dynamic test, appropriate action must 
be taken. EPA is proposing to allow the owners or operators of the 
system to attempt repairs a second time or take other corrective action 
that will result in an overall leak rate that does not exceed 35 
percent per year. If none of these approaches is successful, then 
owners or operators of the system would be required to retrofit or 
retire the facility.
1. Requirement to Retrofit or Retire the Leaking Equipment
    EPA is proposing that if the dynamic test indicates that the 
repairs have not been successfully completed, the owner would be 
required to retrofit or replace the equipment within one year of the 
failure to verify that the repairs had been successfully completed or 
within such longer time period as may be granted under this proposal. 
EPA believes that where the leak rates for industrial process 
refrigeration equipment continue to exceed 35 percent per year, it is 
necessary to retrofit or retire the facility, which could include 
replacing the existing equipment. Furthermore, within 30 days of a 
failed dynamic test, the owners or operators of the industrial process 
refrigeration facility would be required to submit to EPA a plan for 
retrofitting or retiring the leaking equipment. This requirement would 
be similar in scope to that described in Sec. 82.156(i)(3) of the final 
rule published May 14, 1993. However, in this case, a copy of a 
retrofit/replace/ retire plan would be submitted to EPA, rather than 
just be available to EPA upon request. In addition, the plan would 
include information concerning the repairs attempted to date, and the 
parameters used for the unsuccessful dynamic test.
2. Option for Second Repair Attempt
    EPA recognizes that in some cases the industrial process facility 
may discover, through its failed repair efforts and verification tests, 
another means for repairing the refrigerant leaks; or perhaps the 
repairs undertaken by the facility were merely not completed 
successfully. For example, if the leak was in the valve packing, it is 
possible that the gland nut was not tightened sufficiently. Therefore, 
repeating the process of tightening the gland nut may lead to a 
successful dynamic test. EPA also recognizes the large costs involved 
with retrofitting or retiring certain industrial process refrigeration 
systems. Therefore, due to the complexity of adequately finding and 
repairing leaks, EPA believes that in certain circumstances it may be 
reasonable to allow the owners and operators of the industrial process 
refrigeration equipment to have a second opportunity to complete 
repairs.
    EPA is proposing that the owner or operator of an industrial 
process refrigeration unit be relieved of the obligation to retrofit or 
replace the equipment if a second attempt to repair the same leaks that 
were the subject of the first repair attempt is undertaken within 30 
days of the failed dynamic verification test or within 120 days in the 
case of repairs for which an industrial process shutdown is necessary, 
and is successful subject to the same verification requirements as the 
first attempt at repair. The owner or operator would be required to 
notify EPA within 30 days of the successful dynamic verification test 
and the owner or operator would no longer be subject to the obligation 
to retrofit or replace the equipment that arose as a consequence of the 
initial failure to repair the leaks successfully. EPA believes that it 
is necessary to allow for a second repair attempt and believes that the 
speed with which this proposed second repair attempt must be 
accomplished will reasonably limit the amount of refrigerant 
potentially released to the atmosphere.
3. Option To Reduce Other Equipment Leaks
    EPA believes it possible, that while the particular leak originally 
identified by the owners or operators of the industrial process 
facility cannot be successfully repaired, other leak sources could be 
eliminated or practices changed to reduce the annual leak rate to below 
35 percent. EPA believes it is not possible to establish a zero leak 
rate 

[[Page 3999]]
for most industrial process refrigeration equipment. Leaks will occur 
to some extent in locations such as threaded connections, valve 
packing, compressor shaft seals and flange seals. Industrial process 
refrigeration equipment contains many of these potential leak sources, 
many of which may not be directly accessible because they are packed in 
ice or insulation. These seals typically depend upon a polymer or other 
flexible material that is compressed between smooth metal surfaces to 
form a seal. A perfect seal is virtually impossible. Therefore, all 
such seals will have a small leak rate. Scratches on the metal surface, 
dirt at the sealing surface, embrittlement, abrasion/deformation from 
shaft rotation and valve manipulation, or gradual extrusion, 
deformation of the polymer under temperature cycling and pressure could 
all increase the leak rates. Leaks may also occur anywhere in the 
system where corrosion or metal fatigue can cause mechanical failure. 
If the refrigeration system operates under pressure, the refrigerant 
may be lost by direct leakage. If the system operates at less than 
atmospheric pressure, that is under partial vacuum, then noncondensable 
gases will be drawn into the system and small amounts of refrigerant 
may be lost when these noncondensables are vented through the purge 
valve.
    Industrial process refrigeration systems have many potential 
sources of leaks. If a sufficient number of other leaks can be repaired 
creating a situation where the originally identified leak or leaks 
remain, but the overall leak rate has been successfully reduced to 
below 35 percent per year, EPA believes that the owner or operator of 
the facility has still in effect met its obligation under the rule.
    EPA is more concerned with the percent of refrigerant being 
released than the actual source of the refrigerant leaked. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing that the owner or operator of an industrial process 
refrigeration unit be relieved of the obligation to retrofit or replace 
the equipment if, within 180 days of the failed dynamic verification 
test, the owner or operator establishes that the system's annual leak 
rate does not exceed 35 percent. If the equipment owner or operator 
establishes that the system's annual leak rate does not exceed 35 
percent, the owner or operator would be required to notify EPA within 
30 days of that determination and the owner or operator would no longer 
be subject to the obligation to retrofit or replace the equipment that 
arose as a consequence of the initial failure to repair the leaks 
successfully. The determination of whether the system's annual leak 
rate exceeds 35 percent would be determined in accordance with 
parameters identified by the owner or operator in its notice to EPA 
regarding the failure of the initial dynamic verification test 
discussed above.
    EPA believes that this scheme for treating a failed dynamic test 
provides an appropriate level of flexibility for the affected 
community. Industrial process refrigerant equipment owners or operators 
would be required to retrofit or retire the system, unless a second 
attempt to repair the leaks is successful, or another method for 
achieving a leak rate of less than 35 percent per year can be achieved 
within the limited timeframes discussed above. Furthermore, the owners 
or operators would be required to maintain records and report 
information to EPA so that the Agency can establish that a viable 
approach is being followed by the owners or operators of the affected 
facilities.
    EPA requests comments on this proposed scheme for allowing a 
flexible approach to be used by the owners or operators of industrial 
process refrigerant equipment that have failed a dynamic test. EPA also 
requests comments on ways in which to simplify or make more clear the 
differences between when a static or dynamic test is appropriate, or if 
other terminology would provide greater clarity.

G. Clarification of Levels to Which Leaks Must be Repaired Leak Rate

    Through this action, EPA is also proposing a clarification to 
Sec. 82.156(i) (1) and (2). As a part of the settlement agreement, EPA 
agreed that for industrial process and commercial sources, leaks needed 
to be repaired such that the leak rate was brought back to a level 
below the 35% annual rate. EPA believes that parallel clarification for 
comfort-cooling and commercial sources will provide equitability, 
rather than requiring a repair of ``all'' leaks for comfort-cooling 
systems.
    As discussed above, EPA is proposing to revise the requirements for 
industrial process refrigeration equipment currently under 
Sec. 82.156(i)(1) to require the owners and operators of this equipment 
to reduce leaks to a rate of less than 35 percent per year. However, 
EPA would allow these affected systems to operate as long as the leak 
rate does not exceed that amount. Therefore, EPA believes it is 
appropriate to also revise the regulations regarding commercial and 
comfort-cooling equipment to provide that the obligation to repair 
leaks triggered by an exceedance of the leak rate is an obligation to 
repair all leaks sufficient to bring the leak rate below 35% and 15%, 
respectively, per year, rather than to bring the leak rate down to 
zero.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to clarify that in repairing leaks on 
equipment subject to the 15% leak rate, one must bring leaks down below 
the 15% threshold in order to comply and in repairing commercial 
refrigeration equipment, one must bring leaks down below the 35% 
threshold in order to comply. While it may be less difficult to locate 
and repair leaks found in comfort-cooling and commercial refrigeration 
appliances, to some extent, many of these systems may also contain leak 
sources that can be difficult to locate and repair. This may be 
particularly true for certain types of commercial refrigeration 
appliances.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed modification to the current 
language in Sec. 82.156(i)(1) and (2).

H. Extension for Retrofitting a Facility

    EPA believes that it may be reasonable to permit additional time 
beyond the one year established by the current regulations for the 
retrofitting of certain industrial process refrigeration equipment. EPA 
believes there are specific concerns relating to the need for special 
design, engineering, ordering and installation difficulties for some 
industrial process refrigeration equipment. It may take weeks or in 
some cases months to determine available options and develop 
specifications before it is possible to design a retrofitted facility 
and subsequently install the equipment. Even when special design plans 
are not necessary and the repairs may appear simple, the uniqueness of 
these large systems may dictate that new or replacement parts cannot be 
obtained in time to meet either 30-day repair requirement or the one-
year retrofit deadline.
    Parts for other types of systems, such as comfort-cooling, are more 
likely to be mass-produced, widely distributed, readily transportable 
and capable of quick installation. Parts for industrial process 
refrigeration equipment are often more difficult to obtain and install. 
If a part has to be specially manufactured, special-ordered, or 
fabricated on-site, the company may not be able to complete the repair 
within one year. For example, one company has indicated that its 
supplier is quoting 44-46 weeks for the delivery of a 1000-ton water 
chiller, with a charge of approximately 10,000 pounds of refrigerant. 
The company estimates that it needs 5-7 weeks to negotiate an 

[[Page 4000]]
acceptable proposal prior to ordering the equipment. Installation may 
take 10-14 weeks. Therefore, this company believes it will take 59-67 
weeks to replace this pre-packaged industrial unit. Another company has 
a facility with four process refrigeration systems for chlorine 
production, each with a compressor driven by a 4,000 horsepower motor 
and refrigerant charge of approximately 175,000 pounds. These are 
massive systems that were individually engineered for the needs of the 
plant and any changes will also have to be engineered on an individual 
basis. The owner believes that even under ideal circumstances 
retrofitting the facility may take three years.\2\

    \2\Information EPA has received to date indicates that this 
system will most likely take the longest of those reviewed to 
retrofit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 82.156(i)(3) to allow more than one 
year to complete the retrofit of industrial process refrigeration 
equipment in certain circumstances. While the scenarios described above 
may justify more than one year to retrofit a facility, EPA does not 
believe additional time is always necessary. Therefore, EPA intends to 
only allow for additional time when the owners or operators of the 
industrial process refrigeration equipment can provide information 
detailing the need for additional time in accordance with the proposed 
requirements described below.
1. Additional Time Based on Regulatory Delays and/or the Need for a 
Suitable Replacement
    EPA is proposing that additional time, to the extent reasonably 
necessary, would be allowed due to delays occasioned by the 
requirements of other applicable federal, state, or local regulations, 
or due to the unavailability of a suitable replacement refrigerant with 
a lower ozone depletion potential. To be a suitable replacement, a 
refrigerant would have to be acceptable under section 612(c) of the Act 
and implementing regulations, compatible with other materials with 
which it may come into contact, and be able to achieve the temperatures 
required for the process in a technically feasible manner.
    If these circumstances apply, the owner or operator of the facility 
would have to notify EPA within six months after the 30-day period 
following the discovery of an exceedance of the 35% leak rate. Records 
that would provide evidence that other regulations or the 
unavailability of a suitable alternative refrigerant prevent retrofit 
or replacement within one year must be submitted to EPA to allow EPA to 
determine that these provisions apply and assess the length of time 
necessary to complete the work. EPA proposes that it notify the owner 
or operator of its determination within 60 days of submittal. Specific 
recordkeeping requirements are discussed later in this subsection. EPA 
proposes that such records be maintained by the owner or operator and 
kept on-site.
    EPA has already discussed examples of the types of other federal, 
state, or local regulations that may limit the ability of a facility to 
retrofit within one year. One example involved delays that would impact 
the ability of any facility in California that intended to retrofit 
using ammonia. Because ammonia is treated as a hazardous substance 
under the California RMPP program, companies need to prepare risk 
management plans that meet the approval of the local fire department 
before ammonia can be brought to the site. For one company, the process 
of receiving such approval took six months. Since other activities may 
be delayed or revised based on the acceptability or unacceptability of 
the risk management plans, more than one year may be necessary to 
complete retrofit activities.
    Regulations promulgated under section 612 of the Act, known as the 
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, establish 
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives for particular end-uses, 
including refrigeration. The SNAP program regulations were published on 
March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13045). Subsequently, additional alternatives 
were approved on August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44240). To date, several 
replacement substances with lower ozone-depleting potentials have been 
listed as acceptable by the Agency. However, there has been difficulty 
in locating acceptable alternatives for R-22 systems that have flooded 
evaporators.
    A flooded-evaporator system uses a pool of refrigerant, which 
absorbs heat as it vaporizes. All potential replacements to date are 
non-azeotropic in these systems, meaning they consist of components 
that do not vaporize uniformly. This has the effect of making the 
refrigeration system function like a distillation column, and greatly 
reduces the system's cooling capacity to the point where it probably 
will not be able to perform its intended function. In addition, a 
replacement refrigerant must be compatible with the manufacturing 
process to be cooled. There is always the potential for leaks to occur 
that could result in the intermingling of the refrigerant and the 
process chemicals. If an inappropriate chemical is selected as a 
refrigerant, this potential intermingling could cause a chemical 
reaction that would damage or destroy refrigeration equipment or 
process equipment and potentially create a risk to human health or the 
environment.
    Any refrigerant may theoretically be capable of achieving virtually 
any operating temperature; however, the amount of energy required to 
compress and circulate each refrigerant at given temperatures varies 
widely. It is not uncommon to determine that one refrigerant may 
require four times as much horsepower per ton of refrigeration capacity 
as another. The lower the temperature, the wider the difference. At any 
given temperature, particularly extremely low temperatures, some 
refrigerants may be able to utilize lower-powered, more efficient 
compressors while other refrigerants would need extremely large, 
powerful multiple-stage compressors. Physical constraints, such as the 
size of the room into which the refrigeration system must fit, may need 
to be considered. Therefore, the horsepower requirements could make a 
particular refrigerant impractical as a replacement.
    EPA believes that it is appropriate to require the owners and 
operators of industrial process refrigeration equipment needing more 
than one year to complete retrofitting the system to maintain certain 
records and submit information to the Agency. Through this action, EPA 
is proposing that if additional time is necessary due to regulatory 
delays or the need for a suitable replacement, the owner or operator of 
the facility would have to notify EPA within six months after the 30-
day period following the discovery of an exceedance of the 35 percent 
leak rate. Records necessary to allow a determination that these 
provisions apply and that document the length of time necessary to 
complete the work would need to be maintained. EPA believes that these 
records and the information submitted to EPA should include the 
following:
    (1) Identification of the industrial process facility;
    (2) Leak rate;
    (3) Method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
    (4) Date a leak rate of 35 percent or greater was discovered;
    (5) Location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
    (6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date 
that work was completed;
    (7) Plan to complete the retrofit or replacement of the system;

[[Page 4001]]

    (8) Reasons why more than one year is necessary to retrofit or 
replace the system;
    (9) Date of notification to EPA;
    (10) Estimate of when retrofit or replacement work will be 
completed;
    (11) If time changes for original estimates, document reason for 
changes; and
    (12) Date of notification to EPA of timing change. The last two 
items would only be required to be submitted as needed for a timing 
change.
    EPA believes that most of the information included in these 
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements may be routinely 
maintained by the owners and operators of industrial process 
facilities. Where the records may not be routinely kept, the 
information EPA is proposing to require should not pose an undue burden 
to the affected community. Moreover, since EPA must base a 
determination of whether the circumstances faced by the owners or 
operators of the industrial process refrigeration equipment are such 
that additional time beyond the one year is reasonable, EPA requires 
this information in order to make an informed determination.
    EPA requests comments on the need to provide additional time for 
the completion of retrofit activities for industrial process 
refrigeration equipment based on other applicable regulations and/or 
unavailability of acceptable refrigerants. In addition, EPA requests 
comments on the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
discussed in this section.
2. Additional Time Based on the Unavailability of Necessary Parts
    Through this action, EPA is proposing that an additional one-year 
period beyond the initial one-year retrofit period be allowed for 
industrial process refrigeration equipment if four criteria are met: 
(1) The new or retrofitted refrigeration system is custom-built 
(meaning if it or any of its critical components cannot be purchased 
and/or installed without being specifically designed), fabricated and/
or assembled to satisfy a specific set of industrial process 
conditions; (2) the supplier of the system or one or more of its 
crucial components has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks 
from when the order is placed; (3) the owner or operator notifies EPA 
within six months of the expiration of the 30-day period following the 
discovery of an exceedance of the 35 percent leak rate to identify the 
owner or operator, describe the system involved, explain why more than 
one year is needed, and demonstrate that the first two criteria are 
met; and (4) the owner or operator maintains records adequate to allow 
a determination that the criteria are met.
    EPA believes that a new or retrofitted refrigeration system should 
be considered custom-built if it or any of its critical components 
cannot be purchased and/or installed without being specifically 
designed, fabricated and/or assembled to satisfy a specific set of 
industrial process conditions. A critical component could be defined as 
a component without which an industrial process refrigeration system 
will not function, will be unsafe in its intended environment, or will 
be subject to failures that would cause the industrial process served 
by the refrigeration system to be unsafe. This proposed definition 
includes the need to consider the intended environment because of the 
potential uniqueness of conditions under which the system is required 
to operate. For example, some refrigeration systems must be operated in 
the presence of potentially corrosive substances, or flammable or 
combustible atmospheres. It may be necessary to ensure containment of 
toxic chemicals, or to ensure that potentially reactive chemicals are 
separated from each other. There may be high pressures or temperatures 
that could pose physical hazards if not restrained.
    EPA intends for the term unsafe to include risks to human health 
and the environment. The term potentially could also refer to risks 
associated with property loss. For example, if cooling is needed to 
prevent runaway polymerization of process chemicals, then the sudden 
failure of the system could lead to an uncontrolled exothermic 
reaction, which could include a fire or potentially an explosion. While 
this clearly poses risks to human health and the environment, other 
operating conditions may be more likely to lead to property damage. EPA 
requests comments on this proposed definition of critical components 
and whether property damage should be included as part of this 
definition.
    The industrial process refrigeration sector uses refrigeration in 
an extremely broad range of cooling capacities and temperature levels 
as well as a variety of applications. These conditions dictate the 
design, fabrication, and/or assembly of the refrigeration system and 
are responsible for the sheer diversity of mechanical specifications 
and equipment designs that comprise the industrial process 
refrigeration sector. These process conditions vary greatly from 
manufacturing process to manufacturing process. Below are examples of 
various process conditions that may need to be considered.
    In the industrial sector, refrigeration systems are frequently used 
to cool highly corrosive product streams. As a result heat exchange 
evaporator tubes must be constructed of special materials and heavy 
wall thickness.
    In the industrial sector, high pressures and high temperatures, 
particularly on the process side, are frequently encountered. As a 
result, process-side construction may have to withstand pressures 
seldomly encountered in commercial service. In addition, an extreme 
difference in temperature between the process inlet and outlet is 
common and requires consideration to be given to thermal stresses.
    Industrial manufacturing operations with extremely low temperature 
requirements can result in high viscosities on the process side of the 
equipment. Although in the commercial sector, evaporators are designed 
with tubes of small inside diameter to achieve optimum heat transfer 
performance, tubes with extra-large inside diameters may be required to 
handle viscous streams. These high viscosities may require that an 
evaporator be equipped with rotating internal scrapers within tubes to 
provide for continual scraping of the heat transfer wall and facilitate 
the flow of the high viscosity fluid through the evaporator.
    Manufacturing operations may be batch or continuous. A batch 
operation implies that operating conditions are expected to change over 
time usually in a repetitive pattern and therefore, the system must be 
designed for all extremes. In a continuous operation, temperatures, 
pressure, flow levels, composition, and other process parameters do not 
change with time.
    Some manufacturing processes may yield products that are highly 
corrosive, highly viscous, or under high pressure and therefore not 
well suited for use in a refrigerant evaporator. Conditions such as 
these may require that the process fluid be cooled by an intermediate 
liquid, such as water that is itself cooled by evaporating the 
refrigerant. The selection of the liquid will be driven by the process 
condition. Some areas of the country have tight restrictions on water 
usage. In situations where water is utilized to cool equipment, river, 
lake, or well-water may provide the most economical cooling medium. In 
these instances, water treatment and special construction materials may 
be necessary.
    EPA believes that the above scenarios represent specific sets of 
industrial 

[[Page 4002]]
process conditions encountered by owners and operators of industrial 
process refrigeration equipment. However, EPA believes there are many 
other similar types of conditions that other industrial process 
refrigeration equipment owners or operators face. Therefore, this list 
of potential conditions is not intended to be all-inclusive.
    EPA believes it is appropriate to provide additional time when a 
supplier of the system or one or more of its critical components has 
quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when the order is 
placed, assuming the order was placed in a timely fashion. EPA realizes 
that it may not be possible to specify a date by which the parts must 
be ordered. This is true because of the need to identify the specific 
leak point, determine the cause, decide appropriate action, create 
specifications and obtain any necessary modification approvals from 
facility managers and/or other regulatory entities. EPA believes that 
the 30-week time frame acknowledges that other activities, such as 
designing, installing, testing, etc. will more than fill up the 
remainder of the year. Thus, no matter when these facilities order the 
parts, if the suppliers quote 30 weeks or longer, they are already in 
the two-year time track for retrofitting or replacing the system. EPA 
believes that facilities have an incentive to expedite repairs, 
retrofits or replacements in order to avoid losing valuable refrigerant 
and to continue production under an efficiently running system. 
However, EPA does believe that, while it proposes additional time if 
delivery time is quoted as 30 weeks or more, a log of when the parts 
were ordered should be maintained by the company. This is especially 
critical for facilities that may later request an extension beyond the 
two years.
    The owner or operator would be required to notify EPA within six 
months of the expiration of the 30-day period following the discovery 
of an exceedance of the 35 percent leak rate, to identify the owner or 
operator, describe the system involved, explain why more than one year 
is needed, and demonstrate that the first two criteria discussed above 
are met; and the owner or operator would be required to maintain 
records adequate to allow a determination that the criteria are met. 
This information would be maintained and reported using the 
recordkeeping scheme described in the section II.H.1. All of the 
information described here would fit within that scheme. EPA believes 
using the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements will streamline 
the requirements for the affected community and will lessen the 
regulatory burden.
    EPA requests comment on the need to provide one year beyond the 
initial one year to complete all retrofitting or replacement activities 
when the facility is custom-built and when a supplier is quoting more 
than 30 weeks for delivery of a crucial component. EPA also requests 
comments on the associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
discussed in this section.
3. Additional Time Beyond the One Additional Year
    EPA believes that in an extremely limited number of cases 
additional time beyond the one additional year may be necessary to 
retrofit or replace a system. Through this action, EPA is proposing 
that if more than one additional year is needed, the owner may request 
EPA to extend the deadline for completing all retrofit or replacement 
action. EPA proposes that such a request be submitted to EPA before the 
end of the ninth month of the additional year that was granted to 
retrofit, replace or retire the system. The request would be required 
to include revisions to that information submitted for the first 
additional year as proposed under Sec. 82.166(o). Unless EPA objects to 
the request within 30 days of receipt, it would be deemed approved.
    As EPA has earlier noted, one facility estimates that it will take 
three years to retrofit or replace its refrigeration units. These 
particular units have refrigerant charges of approximately 175,000 
pounds each and are used in the processing of chlorine. The owner of 
that system has many other facilities that will be able to complete all 
retrofit or replacement work without need for this additional time 
extension. While EPA believes that in certain cases additional time may 
be necessary, EPA is concerned with scope of such an extension. As 
noted in the discussion concerning ordering parts, EPA would not favor 
an extension caused by a company delaying to place orders for 
components or other similar scenarios. EPA intends this extension to be 
granted only in cases where the actual nature of the retrofit or 
replacement activities is such that the additional time beyond the one 
year is crucial. The submittal of revised information requesting 
additional time under this provision could be consistent with submittal 
of information requesting additional time beyond the one-year 
timeframe. As stated in the discussion regarding the need for an 
additional year to complete retrofit or replacement activities, EPA 
believes that using the same recordkeeping and reporting scheme for all 
retrofit extensions lessens the burden for the affected community.
    EPA requests comment on the need to provide additional time beyond 
the one additional year for industrial process refrigeration equipment, 
where necessary. In addition, EPA requests comments on the potential 
number of facilities and the potential reasons that may be cited for 
requesting such an extension. Furthermore, EPA requests comments on the 
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

I. Allowing Appliances To Be Pressurized to Slightly Above 0 Psig

    Members of the regulated community have requested that EPA revise 
requirements relating to oil changes. However, members of industry have 
expressed concern with respect to the status of small quantities of 
refrigerant that may escape from the appliance itself while oil is 
being removed.
    Sections 82.156 and 82.158 call for evacuation of the refrigerant 
from the appliance, to a specified level of vacuum (or to atmospheric 
pressure, for non-major repairs that are not followed by an evacuation 
of the appliance to the environment). However, new information 
indicates that these levels of vacuum may often be impractical during 
oil changes. A small positive pressure is needed during oil changes, to 
force the oil from its reservoir. Oil will not flow from a reservoir 
that is under vacuum. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow owners or 
operators to evacuate the appliance to slightly above atmospheric 
pressure specifically, to a pressure not exceeding 5 psig to perform 
oil changes. EPA believes that this approach will reduce emissions of 
ozone-depleting refrigerants to the atmosphere, and thus will have an 
overall positive impact on the environment. There are three principal 
reasons why this approach should produce an environmental benefit.
    First, oil changes are a necessary part of preventive maintenance. 
If owners or operators are required to draw a deep vacuum before oil 
changes, that will add significant delay and expense, serving as a 
disincentive to regular oil changes. If appliances are not regularly 
maintained, they are more likely to break down and increase their 
emissions of refrigerant. They will also be more subject to 
catastrophic failures that could result in release of the entire 
refrigerant charge. Second, if a deep vacuum is required, air and 
moisture will be drawn into the system and will need to be purged 
later, which will result in emissions of refrigerant. This can be 
minimized by filling the 

[[Page 4003]]
appliance with an inert gas such as nitrogen. However, the nitrogen 
would then need to be purged (releasing entrained refrigerant) before 
the appliance can be restored to operation.
    Any environmental costs, i.e., additional emissions that accompany 
this procedure are likely to be small. When an appliance is brought 
nearly to atmospheric pressure, the great majority of the ozone-
depleting refrigerants will be drawn from the compressor oil and 
recovered. This means there will not be significant emissions from the 
compressor oil after the oil has been removed from the appliance.
    During oil changes, some quantity of refrigerant will be emitted 
from two different sources: from the oil that was removed, and from the 
appliance itself. Section 608(c) of the Act makes it unlawful to 
knowingly vent class I or class II refrigerants from appliances during 
servicing and maintenance, other than de minimis releases associated 
with good-faith efforts to recover the refrigerant. The regulation 
specifies that when the recovery procedures identified in Secs. 82.156 
and 82.158 are followed, any remaining emissions of refrigerant will be 
de minimis. EPA has thus determined that emissions of refrigerant from 
the oil are not subject to this prohibition.
    EPA is thus proposing to revise requirements of 
Sec. 82.156(a)(2)(i) to allow appliances to be pressurized up to 5 psig 
in order to change oil in industrial process refrigeration equipment.

J. Treatment of Purged Refrigerant

    EPA would like to clarify that the Agency interprets the 35 percent 
leak rate in the regulations as not including emissions of purged 
refrigerant that are destroyed, if their destruction is accounted for 
and can be verified by records maintained by the owners or operators of 
the industrial process refrigeration equipment. If purged refrigerant 
is destroyed using one of the five destruction technologies approved by 
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, EPA can consider that refrigerant 
to have been destroyed and therefore, not part of the leak rate for the 
system. These destruction technologies are liquid injection 
incineration, reactor cracking incineration, gaseous fume oxidation, 
rotary kiln incineration and cement kiln.
    Industrial process refrigerant systems may vary greatly with regard 
to their use of purges. In considering purges, it is important to note 
the flow rate and the composition of the vent stream. For example, 
systems with a flow that is constant allow for the flow to be measured 
automatically. Systems that have intermittent mechanical purge units, 
or those with a batch production process may have greater variability 
and need a greater frequency of recording the amount of refrigerant 
purged.
    EPA believes it is appropriate that in determining the rate of 
refrigerant loss, the owner or operator may exclude quantities of 
refrigerant sent for destruction by using an approved destruction 
technology under the Montreal Protocol. In deciding whether credit 
shall be given for the entire quantity sent for destruction or only for 
a percent of the actual refrigerant destroyed, the applicable 
provisions of the phaseout regulations (58 FR 65018) shall apply. The 
phaseout rule states that if the technology not only is approved under 
the Montreal Protocol, but also meets or exceeds a 98% destruction 
efficiency (DE), then 100% of the material may be considered destroyed. 
Below a 98% DE, credit is given only for the actual percentage 
destroyed.
    Facilities that wish to utilize this exclusion would need to 
maintain records that are sufficient to support the amount of 
refrigerant claimed as sent for destruction. All records should be 
based on a monitoring strategy that will provide reliable data to 
demonstrate that the amount of refrigerant sent for destruction 
corresponds with the amount of refrigerant purged. Records should 
include the flow rate, quantity or concentration of the refrigerant in 
the vent stream, and periods of purge flow. An owner or operator using 
this exclusion should submit information to EPA that includes the 
identification of the facility and a contact person, including the 
address and telephone number. A general description of the refrigerant 
system should also be submitted, focusing on aspects of the system 
relevant to the purging of refrigerant and subsequent destruction, in 
addition to a description of the methods used to determine the quantity 
of refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being 
kept by the facility. The frequency of monitoring and data-recording 
shall also be included. A description of the control device, and its 
destruction efficiency would be required. This information should be 
submitted within 60 days after the first time the exclusion is utilized 
by a facility. It should also be included in any reporting requirements 
required for compliance with the leak repair and retrofit requirements 
for industrial process refrigeration equipment in order to verify 
accurate leak rates.
    EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of exempting purged 
refrigerant that has been destroyed using one of the approved 
destruction technologies under the Montreal Protocol. In addition, EPA 
requests comments on the recordkeeping and reporting procedures with 
which EPA would expect the owners or operators of industrial process 
refrigerant equipment to comply, if they choose to utilize an exemption 
for purged refrigerant that has been destroyed.

K. Temporarily Mothballing Equipment Prior to Repairing Leaks

    EPA understands that for some of the equipment subject to the leak 
repair requirements promulgated under Sec. 82.156(i), it may be 
possible for the owner or operator of the appliance to discontinue use 
of the equipment on a temporary basis, perhaps on a seasonal basis. 
This may also be true for equipment other than industrial process 
refrigeration appliances that are integrally linked to a manufacturing 
process. For example, it may be reasonable to shut down or mothball a 
comfort-cooling system for a period of time.
    This type of system mothballing would not be the same as a process 
shutdown undertaken to repair particular leaks found in industrial 
process refrigeration or perform other maintenance activities. Also, 
this type of shutdown or mothballing is not the same as being taken 
off-line due to a power outage or event. A system mothballing is an 
intentional shutting down of the refrigerant appliance undertaken for 
an extended period of time by the owners or operators of that 
facility--not for the purposes of servicing or repairing the 
appliance--where the refrigerant has been evacuated.
    If a facility is temporarily mothballed, EPA believes it is 
appropriate to suspend the time-relevant repair and/or retrofit 
requirements while the facility is effectively inoperative. For 
example, if a comfort-cooling system with over 50 pounds of refrigerant 
has a leak rate of more than 15 percent per year, the leak or leaks 
must be repaired or the system must be retrofitted within one year. 
However, if after discovery of the exceedance of the leak rate, the 
owner of the system voluntarily mothballs the system for a period of 
several months or years, EPA believes it is appropriate to suspend the 
need to repair leaks or retrofit the system during the same time 
period. Therefore, if the system operated for five days after discovery 
of the exceedance of the leak rate, then shut down for 2 months, when 
the system returned to operating, the owner or operator will still have 
25 days to repair 

[[Page 4004]]
the leaks. The necessary applicable static and dynamic tests would need 
to be employed.
    EPA believes that while the system is mothballed, only a limited 
amount of refrigerant, if any, is likely to be released to the 
atmosphere from the leak or leaks, since the appliance or isolated 
section of the appliance has been evacuated per requirements of 
Sec. 82.156 of subpart F. Therefore, there is no environmental benefit 
for maintaining required timelines for completion of repairs when the 
system is not in operation in a mothballed situation. EPA requests 
comments on providing a de facto extension to the owners or operators 
of systems subject to the leak repair requirements promulgated under 
Sec. 82.156(i) that voluntarily mothball their systems.

L. Proposed Extension for Federally-Owned Commercial and Comfort-
cooling Refrigeration Equipment

    EPA has received new information indicating that certain federal 
entities periodically have difficulty complying with the 30-day leak 
repair requirement and the one-year retrofit/retirement requirement for 
leaky refrigeration equipment subject to the requirements of 
Sec. 82.156(i). This equipment does not appear to be unique in design; 
however, many of these systems are older. The difficulties appear to 
stem from the need to procure parts for these systems. The concerns are 
based on the need to follow specific government procurement practices 
that may be more cumbersome than those faced by private sector 
entities. These procurement practices are set forth by statute, the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations, and often specific Agency procedures.
    EPA has received information from one federally-owned entity in 
this regard, claiming the need to provide an exemption for federally-
owned equipment subject to the leak repair requirements promulgated 
under Sec. 82.156(i) when mandated procurement practices prevent timely 
delivery of parts. EPA understands that in addition to the fact that 
older parts may be more difficult to obtain and may be more costly, the 
federal procurement process may further delay acquisition of parts in 
timely fashion. EPA requests comments that would indicate whether this 
situation is unique to the federal government or if other situations 
unique to the federal government could justifiably merit an extension.
    If a government facility believes it will take longer than the 30 
days to complete repairs or more than one year to complete retrofit or 
retirement activity, EPA is proposing that the facility be able to 
submit a request for extensions parallel to those outlined in today's 
action for industrial process refrigeration systems, but based on the 
hindrance of federal procurement requirements. If additional time is 
granted, EPA also proposes that testing and documentation should occur, 
parallel to those for industrial process refrigeration systems.
    In light of the above discussion, EPA is proposing today to provide 
extensions to the leak repair provisions for federally-owned commercial 
and comfort-cooling systems. However, EPA is requesting comments that 
may shed light on additional information in this regard. EPA is 
particularly interested in how the FAR could negatively affect 
compliance with the requirements promulgated under Sec. 82.156(i).

III. Summary of Supporting Analysis

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as 
one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely and materially affect a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined by OMB and EPA that this proposed amendment 
to the final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review under the Executive Order.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires that 
Federal agencies examine the impacts of their regulations on small 
entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, it must prepare and 
make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is not required if the head of an 
agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
605(b).
    EPA believes that any impact that this proposed amendment will have 
on the regulated community will serve only to provide relief from 
otherwise applicable regulations, and will therefore limit the negative 
economic impact associated with the regulations previously promulgated 
under Section 608. An examination of the impacts on small entities was 
discussed in the final rule (58 FR 28660). That final rule assessed the 
impact the rule may have on small entities. A separate regulatory 
impact analysis was developed. That impact analysis accompanied the 
final rule and is contained in Docket A-92-01. I certify that this 
proposed amendment to the refrigerant recycling rule will not have any 
additional negative economic impacts on any small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request document has been prepared by EPA (ICR 
No. 1626.03) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information 
Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (2136); Washington, DC 20460 or by 
calling (202) 260-2740.
    This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden 
averaging 10 hours per response and an estimated recordkeeping burden 
averaging 15 minutes per response. These estimates include time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing the collection of 
information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (2136); 
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final Rule will respond to any 
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements 
contained in this proposal.

[[Page 4005]]


List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Dynamic test, 
Industrial process refrigeration, Leak repair, Recordkeeping 
requirements, Static test.

    Dated: January 9, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    Part 82, chapter I, title 40, of the code of Federal Regulations, 
is amended to read as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

    1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    2. Section 82.152 is amended by removing the paragraph designations 
from the definitions and placing them in alphabetical order and by 
adding the following definitions in alphabetical order:


Sec. 82.152  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Critical component means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) a 
component without which an industrial process refrigeration system will 
not function, will be unsafe in its intended environment, and/or will 
be subject to failures that would cause the industrial process served 
by the refrigeration system to be unsafe.
    Custom-built means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) if the 
equipment or any of its critical components cannot be purchased and/or 
installed without being specifically designed, fabricated and/or 
assembled to satisfy a specific set of industrial process conditions.
* * * * *
    Dynamic test means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) those tests 
that involve checking the repairs within 30 days of returning to 
steady-state operating characteristics. Dynamic tests for equipment 
from which the refrigerant charge has been evacuated means a test 
conducted after the appliance or portion of the appliance has resumed 
operation at steady-state or normal operating conditions of temperature 
and pressure. A dynamic test with respect to repairs conducted without 
evacuation of the refrigerant charge means a reverification test 
conducted after the static test. Where a system is not evacuated, it is 
only necessary to conclude any required changes in pressure, 
temperature or other conditions to return the system to a steady-steady 
for operations.
    Full charge means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) the amount of 
refrigerant required for steady-state operations of the industrial 
process refrigeration equipment as determined using one of the 
following three methods or a combination of one of the following three 
methods:
    (1) The use of the equipment manufacturers' determination of the 
correct full charge for the equipment;
    (2) Determining the full charge based on the use of appropriate 
calculations where the owners or operators of a system are able to 
calculate the full charge based on component sizes, density of 
refrigerant, volume of piping, and other relevant considerations; and/
or
    (3) The use of actual measurements by the owners or operators of 
the amount of refrigerant added or evacuated from an industrial process 
refrigeration system.
* * * * *
    Process shutdown means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) when, for 
purposes such as maintenance or repair, an industrial process or 
facility temporarily ceases to operate or manufacture whatever is being 
produced at the particular facility.
* * * * *
    Static test means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) those leak 
tests that are conducted as soon as practicable after the repair is 
completed. A static test with regard to the leak repairs that require 
the evacuation of the equipment or portion of the equipment means a 
test conducted prior to the replacement of the full refrigerant charge 
and before the appliance or portion of the appliance has reached 
operation at normal working conditions of temperature and pressure. A 
static test with regard to repairs conducted without the evacuation of 
the refrigerant charge means a test conducted as soon as practicable 
after the conclusion of the repair work.
    Steady-state operating characteristics or conditions means for the 
purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) operating at temperatures, pressures, fluid 
flows, speeds and other characteristics that would normally be expected 
for a given process load and ambient condition. Steady-state operating 
characteristics are marked by the absence of atypical conditions 
affecting the operation of the refrigeration system.
    Suitable replacement refrigerant means for the purposes of 
Sec. 82.156(i)(2)(i) that a refrigerant is acceptable under section 
612(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and all regulations 
promulgated under that section, compatible with other materials with 
which it may come into contact, and be able to achieve the temperatures 
required for the affected industrial process in a technically feasible 
manner.
* * * * *
    System mothballing means the intentional shutting down of a 
refrigerant system undertaken for an extended period of time by the 
owners or operators of that facility, not for the purposes of servicing 
or repairing the appliance, where the refrigerant has been evacuated 
from the appliance or the isolated section of the appliance, at least 
to atmospheric pressure.
* * * * *
    3. Section 82.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) 
and (a)(2)(i)(B), adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), and revising 
paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec. 82.156  Required practices.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2)(i) * * *
    (A) Be evacuated to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before it is 
opened if it is a high- or very high-pressure appliance;
    (B) Be pressurized to 0 psig before it is opened if it is a low-
pressure appliance. Persons pressurizing low-pressure appliances that 
use refrigerants with boiling points at or below 85 degrees Fahrenheit 
at 29.9 inches of mercury (standard atmospheric pressure), (e.g., CFC-
11 and HCFC-123), must not use methods, such as nitrogen, that require 
subsequent purging. Persons pressurizing low-pressure appliances that 
use refrigerants with boiling points above 85 degrees Fahrenheit at 
29.9 inches of mercury, e.g., CFC-113, must use heat to raise the 
internal pressure of the appliance as much as possible, but may use 
nitrogen to raise the internal pressure of the appliance from the level 
attainable through use of heat to atmospheric pressure; or
    (C) In the case of oil changes, be evacuated or pressurized to a 
pressure no higher than 5 psig, before it is opened.
* * * * *
    (i)(1) Owners of commercial refrigeration equipment must have leaks 
repaired if the equipment is leaking at a rate such that the loss of 
refrigerant will exceed 35 percent of the total charge during a 12-
month period in accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section, 
except as described in paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(8) of this section and 
paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this section. 
Repairs must bring the annual leak rate to below 35%.

[[Page 4006]]

    (i) If the owners or operators of the federally-owned commercial 
refrigerant equipment determine that the leaks cannot be repaired in 
accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section and that an extension 
in accordance with the requirements discussed in this paragraph 
(i)(1)(i) of this section apply, they must document all repair efforts, 
and notify EPA of their inability to comply within the 30-day repair 
requirement, and the reason for the inability must be submitted to EPA 
in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n).
    (ii) Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial 
refrigeration equipment may have more than 30 days to repair leaks if 
federal procurement procedures make a repair within 30 days impossible. 
Only the additional time needed to receive delivery of the necessary 
parts will be permitted.
    (iii) Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial 
refrigeration equipment requesting or who are granted time extensions 
under this paragraph must comply with paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(4) of 
this section.
    (2) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration 
equipment must exert best efforts to repair the leaks if the equipment 
is leaking at a rate such that the loss of refrigerant will exceed 35 
percent of the total charge during a 12-month period in accordance with 
paragraph (i)(9) of this section, except as described in paragraphs 
(i)(6) and (i)(7), and paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this 
section. Repairs must bring annual leak rates to below 35%. If the 
owners or operators of the industrial process refrigerant equipment 
determine that the leaks cannot be repaired in accordance with 
paragraph (i)(9) of this section and that an extension in accordance 
with the requirements discussed in this paragraph apply, they must 
document all repair efforts, and notify EPA of their inability to 
comply within the 30-day repair requirement, and the reason for the 
inability must be submitted to EPA in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n).
    (i) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration 
equipment may have more than 30 days to repair leaks if the necessary 
parts are unavailable or if requirements of other applicable federal, 
state, or local regulations make a repair within 30 days impossible. 
Only the additional time needed to receive delivery of the necessary 
parts or comply with the pertinent regulations will be permitted.
    (ii) Owners of industrial process refrigeration equipment will have 
a 120-day repair period, rather than a 30-day repair period, to repair 
leaks in instances where an industrial process shutdown is needed to 
repair a leak or leaks from industrial process refrigeration equipment.
    (3) The owners or operators of refrigeration equipment who are 
granted additional time under paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(5), 
(i)(7), and (i)(8) of this section must ensure that the repair efforts 
performed be those that sound engineering judgment indicates will be 
sufficient to bring the leak rates below the applicable allowable 
annual rate, that when a process shutdown has occurred or when repairs 
have been made while a system is mothballed, a static test be conducted 
at the conclusion of the repairs and that a dynamic test be conducted 
within 30 days of completing the repairs or within 30 days of bringing 
the system back on-line, if taken off-line, but no sooner than when the 
system has achieved steady-state operating characteristics.
    (i) Refrigeration equipment may not be brought back on-line, if 
taken off-line, until a static test indicates that the repairs 
undertaken in accordance with paragraphs (i)(1) (i), (ii), and (iii), 
or (i)(2) (i) and (ii), or (5)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, have 
been successfully completed to bring the leak rate below the applicable 
allowable annual rate.
    (ii) If the dynamic test indicates that the repairs to 
refrigeration equipment have not been successfully completed, the owner 
must retrofit or replace the equipment in accordance with paragraph 
(i)(6) of this section within one year of the failure to verify that 
the repairs had been successfully completed or such longer time period 
as may apply in accordance with paragraphs (i)(7)(i), (ii) and (iii) or 
(i)(8) (i) and (ii) of this section. The owners and operators of 
refrigeration equipment are relieved of this requirement if the 
conditions of paragraphs (i)(3)(iv) or (i)(3)(v) of this section are 
met.
    (iii) The owner or operator of refrigeration equipment that fails a 
dynamic test must notify EPA of the failure within 30 days of 
conducting the failed dynamic test in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n).
    (iv) The owner or operator is relieved of the obligation to 
retrofit or replace the refrigeration equipment as discussed in 
paragraph (i)(6) of this section if a second attempt to repair the same 
leaks that were the subject of the first repair attempt is successfully 
completed and subject to the same verification requirements of 
paragraphs (i)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section. The owner or operator 
is required to notify EPA within 30 days of the successful dynamic 
verification test in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n) and the owner or 
operator would no longer be subject to the obligation to retrofit or 
replace the equipment that arose as a consequence of the initial 
failure to repair the leaks successfully.
    (v) The owner or operator of refrigeration equipment is relieved of 
the obligation to retrofit or replace the equipment in accordance with 
paragraph (i)(6) of this section if within 180 days of the failed 
dynamic verification test, the owner or operator establishes that the 
system's annual leak rate does not exceed the applicable allowable 
annual leak rate, in accordance with paragraph (i)(4) of this section. 
If the equipment owner or operator establishes that the system's annual 
leak rate does not exceed the applicable allowable annual leak rate, 
the owner or operator is required to notify EPA within 30 days of that 
determination in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n) and the owner or 
operator would no longer be subject to the obligation to retrofit or 
replace the equipment that arose as a consequence of the initial 
failure to repair the leaks successfully.
    (4) In the case of a failed dynamic verification test, the 
determination of whether refrigeration equipment has an annual leak 
rate that exceeds the applicable allowable annual leak rate will be 
determined in accordance with parameters identified by the owner or 
operator in its notice to EPA regarding the failure of the initial 
dynamic verification test and where those parameters are acceptable to 
EPA. The determination must be based on the amount of refrigerant 
contained in the full charge for the affected industrial process 
refrigeration equipment. The leak rate determination parameters will be 
considered acceptable unless EPA notifies the owners or operators 
within 30 days.
    (5) Owners of appliances normally containing more than 50 pounds of 
refrigerant and not covered by paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this 
section must have leaks repaired if the system is leaking at a rate 
such that the loss of refrigerant will exceed 15 percent of the total 
charge during a 12-month period in accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of 
this section, except as described in paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(8) of 
this section and paragraphs (i)(5)(i), (i)(5)(ii) and (i)(5)(iii) of 
this section. Repairs must bring the annual leak rate to below 15%.
    (i) If the owners or operators of federally-owned comfort-cooling 
refrigerant equipment determine that the leaks cannot be repaired in 
accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section and that an extension 
in 

[[Page 4007]]
accordance with the requirements discussed in paragraph (i)(5) of this 
section apply, they must document all repair efforts, and notify EPA of 
their inability to comply within the 30-day repair requirement, and the 
reason for the inability must be submitted to EPA in accordance with 
Sec. 82.166(n).
    (ii) Owners or operators of federally-owned comfort-cooling 
refrigeration equipment may have more than 30 days to repair leaks if 
federal procurement procedures make a repair within 30 days impossible. 
Only the additional time needed to receive delivery of the necessary 
parts will be permitted.
    (iii) Owners or operators of federally-owned comfort-cooling 
refrigeration equipment requesting or who are granted time extensions 
under this paragraph must comply with paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(4) of 
this section.
    (6) Owners or operators are not required to repair the leaks 
defined in paragraphs (i)(1), (2) and (5) of this section if, within 30 
days, they develop a one-year retrofit or retirement plan for the 
leaking equipment. This plan (or a legible copy) must be kept at the 
site of the equipment. The original must be made available for EPA 
inspection on request. The plan must be dated and all work under the 
plan must be completed within one year of the plan's date except as 
described in paragraphs (i)(7) and (i)(8) of this section. Owners are 
temporarily relieved of this obligation if the appliance has undergone 
system mothballing as defined in Sec. 82.152.
    (7) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration 
equipment will be allowed an additional year to complete the retrofit 
or retirement of industrial process refrigeration equipment if the 
conditions described in paragraph (i)(7)(i) or (i)(7)(ii) of this 
section are met, and will be allowed one year beyond the additional 
year if paragraph (i)(7)(iii) of this section is met.
    (i) Additional time, to the extent reasonably necessary, will be 
allowed for retrofitting or retiring industrial process refrigeration 
equipment due to delays occasioned by the requirements of other 
applicable federal, state, or local regulations, or due to the 
unavailability of a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower 
ozone-depletion potential. If these circumstances apply, the owner or 
operator of the facility must notify EPA within six months after the 
30-day period following the discovery of an exceedance of the 35% leak 
rate. Records necessary to allow EPA to determine that these provisions 
apply and the length of time necessary to complete the work, in 
accordance with Sec. 82.166(o), must be submitted to EPA, as well as 
maintained on-site. EPA will notify the owner or operator of its 
determination within 60 days of the submittal.
    (ii) An additional one-year period beyond the initial one-year 
retrofit period is allowed for industrial process refrigeration 
equipment where the following criteria are met:
    (A) The new or the retrofitted industrial process refrigerant 
system is custom-built;
    (B) The supplier of the system or one or more of its crucial 
components has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when 
the order is placed;
    (C) The owner or operator notifies EPA within six months of the 
expiration of the 30-day period following the discovery of an 
exceedance of the 35% leak rate to identify the owner or operator, 
describe the system involved, explain why more than one year is needed, 
and demonstrate that the first two criteria are met in accordance with 
Sec. 82.166(o); and
    (D) The owner or operator maintains records adequate to allow a 
determination that the criteria are met.
    (iii) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigerant 
equipment may request additional time to complete retrofitting or 
retiring industrial process refrigeration equipment beyond the 
additional one-year period if needed and where the initial additional 
one year was granted in accordance with paragraph (i)(7) (i) or (ii) of 
this section. The request shall be submitted to EPA before the end of 
the ninth month of the first additional year and shall include 
revisions of information required under Sec. 82.166(o). Unless EPA 
objects to this request submitted in accordance with Sec. 82.166(o) 
within 30 days of receipt, it shall be deemed approved.
    (8) Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial or comfort-
cooling refrigeration equipment will be allowed an additional year to 
complete the retrofit or retirement of industrial process refrigeration 
equipment if the conditions described in paragraph (i)(8)(i) of this 
section is met, and will be allowed one year beyond the additional year 
if paragraph (i)(8)(ii) of this section is met.
    (i) An additional one-year period beyond the initial one-year 
retrofit period is allowed for such equipment where the following 
criteria are met:
    (A) Due to complications presented by the federal procurement 
process, a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from the beginning of 
the official procurement process is quoted;
    (B) The operator notifies EPA within six months of the expiration 
of the 30-day period following the discovery of an exceedance of the 
applicable allowable annual leak rate to identify the operator, 
describe the system involved, explain why more than one year is needed, 
and demonstrate that the first criterion is met in accordance with 
Sec. 82.166(o); and
    (C) The operator maintains records adequate to allow a 
determination that the criteria are met.
    (ii) The owners or operators of federally-owned commercial or 
comfort-cooling refrigerant equipment may request additional time to 
complete retrofitting, replacement or retiring such refrigeration 
equipment beyond the additional one-year period if needed and where the 
initial additional one year was granted in accordance with paragraph 
(i)(8)(i) of this section. The request shall be submitted to EPA before 
the end of the ninth month of the first additional year and shall 
include revisions of information earlier submitted as required under 
Sec. 82.166(o). Unless EPA objects to this request submitted in 
accordance with Sec. 82.166(o) within 30 days of receipt, it shall be 
deemed approved.
    (9) Owners or operators must repair leaks pursuant to paragraphs 
(i) (1), (2) and (5) of this section within 30 days of discovery, or 
within 30 days of when the leaks should have been discovered if the 
owners intentionally shielded themselves from information which would 
have revealed a leak, unless granted additional time pursuant to 
paragraph (i) of this section.
    (10) The amount of time for owners and operators to complete 
repairs, retrofit plans or retrofits/replacements/ retirements under 
paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(7), (i)(8), and (i)(9) 
of this section is temporarily suspended at the time a system is 
mothballed as defined in Sec. 82.152. The time for owners and operators 
to complete repairs, retrofit plans, or retrofits/replacements under 
paragraph (i)(10) of this section will resume on the day the appliance 
is brought back on-line and is no longer considered mothballed.
    (11) In calculating annual leak rates, purged refrigerant that is 
destroyed will not be counted toward the leak rate, in accordance with 
the definition of ``destruction'' set forth in 40 CFR 82.3(g). Owners 
or operators destroying purged refrigerants must maintain information 
as set forth in Sec. 82.166(p)(1) and submit to EPA, within 60 days 
after the first time such exclusion is used by that facility, 
information set forth in Sec. 82.166(p)(2).
    4. Sec. 82.166 is amended by adding paragraphs (n), (o), and (p) to 
read as follows:

[[Page 4008]]



Sec. 82.166  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (n) The owners or operators of refrigeration equipment must 
maintain and report to EPA the following information where such 
reporting and recordkeeping is required and within the timelines 
specified under Sec. 82.156 (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3) and (i)(5). This 
information must be relevant to the affected industrial process 
refrigeration equipment and must include:
    (1) Identification of the facility;
    (2) The leak rate;
    (3) The method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
    (4) The date a leak rate of greater than the allowable annual leak 
rate was discovered;
    (5) The location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
    (6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date 
that work was completed;
    (7) A plan to fix all other outstanding leaks to achieve a rate 
below the applicable allowable leak rate;
    (8) The reasons why more than 30 days are needed to complete the 
work; and
    (9) An estimate of when repair work will be completed. Where 
changes from original estimate of work when work will be completed 
occur, the reasons for these changes must be documented and submitted 
to EPA within 30 days of discovery of the need for such a change. The 
dates and types of static and dynamic tests performed and test results 
for all static and dynamic tests must be maintained and submitted to 
EPA within 30 days of conducting each test. All the information 
specified in paragraph (n) of this section must be maintained by the 
refrigeration facility on-site.
    (o) The owners or operators of refrigeration equipment must 
maintain and report to EPA the following information where such 
reporting and recordkeeping is required and in the timelines specified 
in Sec. 82.156(i)(7) and (i)(8), in accordance with Sec. 82.156(i)(7) 
and (i)(8). This information must be relevant to the affected 
industrial process refrigeration equipment and must include:
    (1) The identification of the industrial process facility;
    (2) The leak rate;
    (3) The method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
    (4) The date a leak rate of 35 percent or greater was discovered;
    (5) The location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
    (6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date 
that work was completed;
    (7) A plan to complete the retrofit or replacement of the system;
    (8) The reasons why more than one year is necessary to retrofit to 
replace the system;
    (9) The date of notification to EPA;
    (10) An estimate of when retrofit or replacement work will be 
completed;
    (11) If time changes for original estimates occur, document reason 
for these changes; and
    (12) The date of notification to EPA regarding a change in the 
estimate of when the work will be completed.
    (13) The items in paragraphs (o) (11) and (12) of this section only 
are required to be submitted when such changes occur, and will be 
submitted within 30 days of occurring. All the information specified in 
paragraph (o) of this section must be maintained by the refrigeration 
facility on-site.
    (p)(1) Owners or operators who wish to exclude purged refrigerants 
that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must maintain 
records on-site to support the amount of refrigerant claimed as sent 
for destruction. Records shall be based on a monitoring strategy that 
provides reliable data to demonstrate that the amount of refrigerant 
sent for destruction corresponds with the amount of refrigerant purged. 
Records shall include flow rate, quantity or concentration of the 
refrigerant in the vent stream, and periods of purge flow.
    (2) Owners or operators who wish to exclude purged refrigerants 
that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must submit 
information to EPA, within 60 days after the first time the exclusion 
is utilized by a facility, that includes:
    (i) The identification of the facility and a contact person, 
including the address and telephone number;
    (ii) A general description of the refrigerant system, focusing on 
aspects of the system relevant to the purging of refrigerant and 
subsequent destruction;
    (iii) A description of the methods used to determine the quantity 
of refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being 
kept by the facility;
    (iv) The frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and
    (v) A description of the control device, and its destruction 
efficiency.
    (vi) This information must also be included in any reporting 
requirements required for compliance with the leak repair and retrofit 
requirements for industrial process refrigeration equipment, as set 
forth in paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section.

[FR Doc. 95-1250 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P