[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 41 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7858-7887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4041]
[[Page 7857]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule Regarding a
Recycling Standard Under Section 608 (Proposed) of the Clean Air Act;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 41 / Tuesday, February 29, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 7858]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5428-1]
RIN 2060-AF36
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule Regarding a
Recycling Standard Under Section 608 (Proposed) 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 provide
more flexibility where refrigerants are transferred between appliances
with different ownership; to adopt a third-party certification program
for reclaimers and laboratories; to propose amendments to the
recordkeeping aspects of the technician certification program; and to
clarify aspects of the sales restriction. In addition, EPA is proposing
changes for the testing of recovery/recycling equipment; and proposes
to adopt changes to ARI Standard 740, an industry standard previously
adopted by EPA. Also, this action clarifies the distinction between
major and minor repairs. In most instances, this action proposes to
provide greater flexibility to technicians servicing equipment and it
streamlines several existing provisions without compromising the goals
of protecting public health and the environment or compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by April 1, 1996 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
March 18, 1996 at 9 am, and the comment period would then be extended
to April 17, 1996. Anyone who wishes to request a hearing should call
Cindy Newberg at 202/233-9729 by March 7, 1996. Interested persons may
contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to learn
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 VIII.I, 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. The public
hearing will be held at the EPA Auditorium, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Newberg, 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. Contractor reclamation
B. Laboratory certification
1. Requirements For Laboratory Certification Programs
2. Requirements for laboratories
C. Revocation and Suspension
D. Adoption of third party approval of reclaimers
E. Technician Certification and the Sales Restriction
1. Recordkeeping
2. Technicians certified to work on motor vehicle air
conditioners
3. Transfers between wholly-owned subsidiaries
F. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner-like appliances
G. Changes to the ARI 740 Test Procedure for Refrigerant Recycling
and Recovery Equipment
1. Measurement of Vapor Recovery Rates
2. High-Temperature Testing
3. Use of Representative Recovery Cylinders
4. Limiting Emissions from Condenser Clearing, Oil Draining,
Purging, and External Hoses
5. Requirements for Equipment Advertised as ``Recycling
Equipment''
6. Durability Testing
H. Major and Minor Repairs
1. Comments received since the final rule
2. Proposed definitions
I. Change in the Definition of Small Appliance
1. Background
2. Additional Comments
3. Today's proposal
III. Summary of Supporting Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility 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 on August 19,
1994 (59 FR 42950), November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912), March 17, 1995 (60
FR 14607) and August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40419).
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 appliances that normally hold a refrigerant charge of
more than fifty pounds. Also, the current regulations require that
refrigerant recovered from an appliance but not returned to that
appliance or another appliance with the same ownership, must be
reclaimed by an EPA certified reclaimer. This last provision is
scheduled to sunset in March 1996. Today EPA is issuing a direct final
rulemaking and a corresponding proposal to extend the effectiveness of
these requirements until December 31, 1996 or until EPA completes this
rulemaking, whichever occurs first. EPA suggests that the reader review
those notices as well.
[[Page 7859]]
II. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
A. Contractor Reclamation
In this action EPA is proposing to revise the requirements to have
refrigerant reclaimed by a certified reclaimer where the level of
purity can be ensured through the testing of representative samples.
EPA currently prohibits the sale or offer for sale for use as a
refrigerant any class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in
part of used refrigerant, unless the refrigerant has been reclaimed by
a person who has been certified as a reclaimer pursuant to Sec. 82.164.
Thus, where refrigerant is moved between appliances with different
owners, the refrigerant must be reclaimed by a certified reclaimer. The
only exceptions to this current prohibition, such as where refrigerant
is transferred between motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) that have
different ownership, is indicated in Sec. 82.154(g) and (h).
The definition of reclaim promulgated on August 19, 1994 (59 FR
42956), is as follows:
[To] reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to at
least the purity specified in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart
F (based on ARI Standard 700-1993, Specifications for Fluorocarbon
and Other Refrigerants) and to verify this purity using the
analytical methodology prescribed in appendix A. In general,
reclamation involves the use of processes or procedures available
only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.
EPA promulgated this reclamation requirement to address concerns with
the quality of refrigerants, the potential for inadvertent mixing of
refrigerants, and the potential costs to the owners of appliances
damaged by the use of used refrigerants that do not meet any purity
standard. A purity standard helps protect consumers who lack the
technical knowledge to evaluate the risks of using refrigerant obtained
from an outside source that may be excessively contaminated. EPA stated
that ``limited off-site recycling that is supported by a standard of
purity and a testing method for recycled refrigerant may be the most
cost-effective means of carrying out Section 608 while protecting air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment'' (May 14, 1993,(58 FR
28679)). To protect consumers, EPA permitted off-site recycling only
when the ownership of the refrigerant did not change. In instances
where ownership of the refrigerant did change, EPA required
reprocessing by a certified reclaimer and chemical analysis to ensure
conformance with ARI Standard 700. However, the Agency noted that it
would conduct a further rulemaking to address whether a standard for
used refrigerant could be developed that would protect air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment, but would permit technicians to clean
refrigerant themselves by recycling, rather than sending the
refrigerant to a reclaimer.
Since the implementation of these regulations, EPA believes that
there is consensus concerning the need to continue to depend on ARI
Standard 700 as the appropriate standard for purity of used
refrigerants. Therefore, EPA considered extending the current
reclamation requirement indefinitely. EPA strongly believes this
requirement has provided an effective means for ensuring refrigerant
purity and, therefore, protecting consumers. However, the industry
standard that is the basis for today's proposal maintains the important
aspects of the current requirement while providing greater flexibility.
Where an alternative to sending the entire refrigerant charge to a
certified reclaimer is advocated, a protocol for analyzing the
refrigerant has been maintained. Since chemical analysis is the crux of
the reclamation program EPA believes it is possible to provide this
flexibility while maintaining an effective program. As stated above,
the Agency's goal has been to develop a more flexible procedure that
would ensure compliance with the standard without disrupting the
marketplace.
While EPA has required that refrigerant transferred between
different owners be reclaimed, EPA has encouraged the development of a
procedure for ensuring the purity of used refrigerants. This procedure
is referred to as ``off-site recycling.'' Since May 1993, EPA has
monitored the industry's development of new standards. EPA has
participated and observed several industry forums and has met with
various stakeholders. As development of a potential standard for off-
site recycling progressed, it became apparent that such a standard
could not be developed by industry and adopted by EPA prior to the
expiration of the promulgated reclamation requirement on May 14, 1995.
Therefore, EPA extended the reclamation requirement until March 17,
1996 (60 FR 14607) and more recently published an action to further
extend the effectiveness of these requirements. These actions ensured
that a purity standard remained in effect during consideration of the
newly developed industry standard discussed below. If EPA adopts the
standard proposed today, EPA will simultaneously sunset the current
reclamation requirement.
``Handling and Reuse of Refrigerants in the United States,''
commonly known as Industry Recycling Guide (IRG-2), was published in
December 1994. IRG-2 was developed and endorsed by the following
organizations:
--Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI);
--Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA);
--Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM);
--Food Marketing Institute (FMI);
--Mechanical Service Contractors of America (MSCA);
--Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA);
--National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors
(NAPHCC);
--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES);
--Sheet Metal and Air-Conditioning Contractors National--Association,
Inc. (SMACNA);
--Spauschus Association, Inc.; and
developed in cooperation with the General Services Administration of
the U.S. Government.
This group represents refrigerant reclaimers, manufacturers of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment, manufacturers of recovery and
recycling equipment, compressor manufacturers, contractors, engineers,
food stores, building owners and managers, and the federal government.
IRG-2 provides guidelines for determining how to handle refrigerant
that has been recovered from an air-conditioning or refrigeration
appliance. IRG-2 describes four potential options:
(1) Putting the refrigerant back into the system without recycling
it;
(2) Recycling the refrigerant and putting it back into the system
from which it was removed or back into a system with the same owner;
(3) Recycling the refrigerant, testing to verify conformance with
ARI Standard 700 prior to reuse in a different owner's equipment,
provided that the refrigerant remains in the contractor's custody and
control at all times from recovery through recycling to reuse; and
(4) Sending the refrigerant to a certified reclaimer.
The current regulations allows options 1, 2, and 4. Through this
action, EPA is proposing also to permit option 3.
While not part of today's proposal, EPA notes that a technician
should consider many factors when servicing an appliance and deciding
how to handle the refrigerant that has been recovered. Technicians
should consider
[[Page 7860]]
why the system is being serviced. Compressor failures, particularly
motor burnouts, will affect the service person's decision concerning
how to clean the refrigerant. The service history and age of the
appliance can be important. Appliances that have not been cleaned or
evacuated properly from a previous service problem may have higher
levels of contamination in the refrigerant and in the oil. If the
service history is unavailable the technician may, at a minimum, wish
to recycle the refrigerant. If the appliance had a previous burnout,
the technician should be concerned with the purity of the refrigerant.
Technicians should consider the equipment manufacturer's policies and
recommendations concerning the use of recycled refrigerant. Finally,
the technician should consider the cleaning capacity of the recycling
equipment.
If the refrigerant needs to be recycled it should be cleaned to
acceptable contaminant levels. Equipment certified to meet ARI Standard
740, ``Performance of Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment,''
should be able to clean refrigerants, although it should be noted ARI
Standard 740-1993 does not specify minimum contaminant levels and
equipment designed for recycling cannot separate mixed refrigerants.
Technicians may need to consider the cleaning capabilities of their
recycling equipment over time to ensure that its cleaning performance
has not significantly diminished. In addition, filter systems in
recycling equipment need to be changed or cleaned regularly to ensure
maximum performance.
These factors are part of the complex decisionmaking system the
technicians use when determining the appropriate actions for safe
refrigerant management. If EPA adopts today's proposed contractor
reclamation standard, in many cases the technicians may still choose to
recover and have the refrigerant reclaimed by a certified reclaimer.
EPA would like to clarify that what has formerly been referred to
as an ``off-site recycling standard'' is essentially reclamation by the
technician or contractor, instead of reclamation by the certified
reclaimer. EPA and industry have distinguished between recycling and
reclamation. To recycle refrigerant means to extract refrigerant from
an appliance and to clean the refrigerant for reuse without meeting the
requirements for reclamation. Recycled refrigerant is cleaned using oil
separation and one or more passes through recycling devices. Recycling
procedures are usually performed at the job site. As discussed above,
reclamation means that the refrigerant has been cleaned and chemically
analyzed for conformity with the ARI Standard 700-1993 purity levels.
EPA believes the pertinent part of the definition of reclamation is
conformance with the ARI Standard 700-1993 purity levels. Hence,
refrigerant that has been cycled through recycling equipment and tested
to ensure that ARI Standard 700-1993 has been achieved is actually
reclaimed refrigerant. Therefore, henceforth in this notice, EPA will
refer to this procedure as contractor reclamation, or contractor
reclaiming rather than off-site recycling. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to revise the definition of reclamation to eliminate
references to the physical location where reclamation can occur.
EPA is proposing that when the refrigerant remains in the custody
of a single technician or contractor and a representative sample of
that refrigerant has been chemically analyzed to determine conformance
with the ARI Standard 700-1993, the refrigerant will be considered
reclaimed and may be charged into a new owner's appliance. A
representative sample may be defined as a sample taken from each
container of refrigerant to be chemically analyzed and tested to ARI
Standard 700-1993 prior to packaging for resale or reuse. Such samples
will be at least 500 ml and shipped in stainless steel test cylinders
that include \1/4\'' valve assembly and pressure relief rupture disc.
Cylinders should be rated by the Department of Transportation. EPA
believes that as long as representative samples of the refrigerant are
chemically analyzed by certified laboratories to meet the contaminant
levels in ARI Standard 700-1993, and as long as refrigerant remains in
the contractor's custody and control, the quality and purity of the
reclaimed refrigerant can be ensured.
EPA believes it is essential that the contractor-reclaimed
refrigerant remain in the custody and control of the contractor prior
to resale. EPA believes that the contractors and technicians understand
the importance of maintaining refrigerant purity, particularly in light
of the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances. EPA's technician
certification program, other relevant educational venues, and work
experience, provides contractors and technicians with a level expertise
in their chosen endeavor. Their training has made the contractors and
technicians aware of the need to avoid releases and refrigerant
contamination as well as the dangers that could result from such
actions. These factors lead EPA to believe that contractors and
technicians can protect the integrity of refrigerant in their charge.
There is no practical method for tracking and verifying the purity of
refrigerant charges where the custody and control of the refrigerant
charges have not been maintained. EPA believes it is necessary to
ensure that such mechanisms exist because of the need to ultimately
ensure the protection of the equipment that will be charged with the
refrigerant. Through this action, EPA is proposing that the contractor
or technician maintain records consisting of the date and location of
where the refrigerant was recovered, the date(s) and location(s) of
where the refrigerant is stored, the date(s) and location(s) of where
representative samples are drawn, and the date(s) and location(s) of
where the refrigerant is sold after a certified laboratory has verified
the quality of the refrigerant. EPA believes this recordkeeping is
necessary to ensure that only suitable refrigerant is charged into
equipment with different ownership.
Under this proposal, each representative sample of the refrigerant
must be chemically analyzed for conformity with ARI Standard 700-1993
by a laboratory that participates in an EPA-approved laboratory
certification program. The requirements for laboratory certification
are discussed in a later section of today's notice. If the laboratory
report shows that the representative sample meets ARI Standard 700-1993
purity levels, then the refrigerant would be considered reclaimed and
can be charged into a different owner's appliance.
EPA believes that this contractor reclamation option creates
flexibility for the contractors and technicians while continuing to
protect the owners or operators of the affected appliances and to meet
the statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA
believes that permitting contractor reclamation of refrigerants will
provide savings to the contractors that may be passed on to the
appliance owners. Shipping refrigerants to certified reclaimers often
may constitute a large capital outlay for the contractor, whereas
shipping only representative samples to laboratories may limit the
expenses for the contractors. EPA also believes that this flexibility
will not compromise compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act Amendments. Section 608(a) of the Clean Air Act Amendments requires
that regulations include requirements that (A) reduce the use and
emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level, and (B)
maximize the recapture and recycling of such
[[Page 7861]]
substances. EPA believes that as long as the chain of custody and
control of the refrigerant is not compromised, as discussed in IRG-2,
and the purity of the refrigerant is chemically analyzed to ensure
conformance with ARI Standard 700-1993, the purity of the refrigerant
can be assured. In addition, this added flexibility will not increase
emissions or lessen the recapture of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
Technicians already recover these refrigerants and, where ownership of
the refrigerant will change, the technicians already transfer the
refrigerants to certified reclaimers. In accordance with the proposed
contractor reclamation option, technicians would still recover the
refrigerant. The only significant change is the ability to submit a
representative sample for testing rather than shipping the entire
refrigerant charge. Since the same required practices for handling
refrigerants apply in both cases there is no additional risk of release
of refrigerant stemming from this proposed change in the regulations.
EPA believes this approach provides economic benefits for the
contractors and the appliance owners while maintaining the integrity of
the refrigerant supply.
EPA believes that refrigerant will continue to be reclaimed
properly even where someone other than a certified reclaimer is
responsible for the refrigerant. EPA requests comment regarding
contractor reclamation.
EPA also requests comments on the definition of a representative
sample. EPA believes a more detailed definition is not necessary. A
sample for chemical analysis is only as good as the method used to
extract that sample. If samples that are not truly representational of
the refrigerant charge are used for analysis, the results could be
inaccurate. However, EPA understands that there are trade
organizations, such as ARI, that can provide guidance on the correct
procedures for sampling refrigerant. EPA also understands that
laboratories can provide information to technicians concerning these
methods for sampling and may not accept samples that have not been
correctly extracted. Therefore, EPA does not believe it is necessary
for the Agency to include such information in a definition.
EPA is also interested in how much savings the adoption of
contractor reclamation may represent for contractors and technicians.
EPA believes that shipping samples rather than the entire refrigerant
charge should lessen costs. There may be other economic benefits
derived from the adoption of contractor reclamation as well. EPA is
interested in both anecdotal and analytical information concerning the
reduction of costs.
B. Laboratory Certification
The proposed adoption of contractor reclamation is directly linked
to a means of ensuring that laboratories analyzing representative
samples of the refrigerant charges are qualified to perform such
services. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to ensure that a
means of oversight for the laboratories exists. Through this action,
EPA will propose the adoption of a third-party certification program
for laboratories. EPA is aware of a voluntary program developed by ARI
to certify laboratories. Key elements of the program include qualifying
tests, ongoing testing, and site visits. EPA believes that many of
these elements are consistent with the elements that EPA is proposing
for any person seeking to become a third-party laboratory certifier.
EPA considered other alternatives to third-party certification,
including a direct certification program. However, the agency believes
a third-party program would be more appropriate because industry
organizations have the expertise and resources to establish and
maintain an effective program. Moreover, EPA has learned from
experience with other certification programs administered under subpart
F that third-party certification can be highly effective, particularly
where the third-party has already operated similar voluntary programs
that can be used to help fine-tune the administration of a required
certification program.
A third-party certification program would require EPA approval of
the certifying programs and the development of standards for both the
certifying programs and standards for the laboratories. This approach
is similar to the several other certification programs successfully
administered under the section 608 program.
1. Requirements for Laboratory Certification Programs
EPA believes that a laboratory certification program should develop
a set of minimum performance requirements for initial and continuing
certification. EPA has reviewed a draft program to be established by
ARI. Many of the key elements included in this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) are analogous to ARI's draft requirements.
EPA believes a signed agreement between the laboratory and the
laboratory certification program will be necessary to ensure an
understanding of the responsibilities of both the laboratory and the
certifying program. Such an agreement should include information
concerning a laboratory's ability to test representative samples of
refrigerant to the purity levels acceptable under the ARI Standard 700-
1993 standard and a willingness to comply with the standards
established by the EPA-approved laboratory certification program.
To become certified, EPA believes that a laboratory applying for
certification should test and verify the composition of at least three
refrigerants submitted by the EPA-approved laboratory program. Only
laboratories that accurately determine, within an acceptable range,
each contaminant in any of the qualifying samples should be certified.
EPA believes the following list of values constitute acceptable ranges
for reporting contaminants:
Purity: +/- 0.10%;
Water: +/- the greater of 3ppm or 10% of the actual value;
High Boiling Residue: +/- the greater of 0.01% (absolute) or 20% of the
actual value; and
Non-condensibles: +/- the greater of 0.2% (absolute) or 10% of the
actual value.
These values were developed by ARI and reviewed by EPA staff. EPA has
determined that these values should ensure that a laboratory is able to
provide accurate results within an acceptable range.
The laboratory certification program should perform a site visit
prior to certifying the laboratory to ensure that the laboratory is
capable of performing correct refrigerant analysis and performed its
own analysis of the samples submitted for verification. Site visits
should include a visual inspection of the laboratory's equipment and
ascertain whether each item necessary for routine refrigerant analysis
is present and is functional. In addition, the site visit should
include a procedural review of the laboratory's methods and procedures
for refrigerant analysis. EPA anticipates that a schedule of continued
site visits will be necessary to ensure the continued qualifications of
the laboratory. EPA believes these visits should occur on at least a
semiannual basis.
To provide contractors and technicians with information concerning
the status of the laboratory, EPA believes it is necessary for the
laboratory certification program to provide the laboratory with
evidence that the laboratory is certified. EPA is proposing to require
that this evidence be displayed conspicuously; therefore, EPA
anticipates that a seal or logo will be necessary. In addition, EPA
believes
[[Page 7862]]
that the seal or logo should contain standardized language. EPA is
proposing that the seal or logo include the following statement:
``________ has been certified as a laboratory to analyze refrigerant,
as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.'' This evidence demonstrates
to those unfamiliar with the status of every laboratory, that a
particular facility is properly certified. The requirement to display
evidence is consistent with the requirements for other third-party
certification programs promulgated under subpart F. This notification
could be particularly important if a technician or contractor is aware
of which laboratory certification programs are approved by EPA, but
does not have a list of every laboratory that has been certified. EPA
anticipates that there will be a limited number of laboratory
certification programs; however, the potential list of laboratories
certified to test and verify refrigerant samples could be extensive.
Laboratories that are unable to substantiate their ability to
comply with the criteria established through this rulemaking, or with
any relevant additional criteria established by the EPA-approved
laboratory certifier, should be disqualified from the review process.
The laboratory should be permitted to reapply at a later date. A
certified laboratory no longer able to meet the continuing criteria
should be decertified. EPA believes that laboratories that misrepresent
their status, do not comply with the payment of any reasonable fees to
the certifying program, and laboratories that do not submit required
data, are examples of laboratories that should be disqualified. If a
laboratory is decertified, the laboratory certification program should
inform EPA within 30 days.
Laboratory certification programs that cannot or do not decertify
laboratories that do not comply with the standards set forth in this
proposal could have their EPA approval revoked. If such a case arises,
laboratories certified by that laboratory certification program would
be required to be certified by another approved program within 6
months.
EPA proposes to approve laboratory certification programs that
demonstrate to EPA their ability to establish and maintain a program
that includes the elements discussed in this proposal and that provide
the necessary level of continued oversight for the certified
laboratories. At a minimum, those seeking EPA-approval for a laboratory
certification program would need to submit information to EPA
demonstrating the program's ability to meet the criteria established by
this proposal. Furthermore, EPA anticipates that there may be a need
for a site visit by EPA to the potential laboratory certification
program to ensure the ability of the potential program to perform
verification of representative samples. If the laboratory certification
program uses an independent laboratory to analyze samples, information
concerning that laboratory and/or inspection of that laboratory may be
necessary.
2. Requirements for Laboratories
Through this action, EPA is proposing a process for third-party
certification of laboratories that would analyze samples of refrigerant
submitted by contractors in accordance with the proposed scheme for
contractor reclamation. Those seeking to become laboratory
certification programs would submit information demonstrating their
ability to meet the requirements specified in this proposal.
EPA requests comments on the proposed certification of
laboratories. EPA particularly is interested in comments concerning the
criteria for the laboratories that would be certified under this
proposed scheme. EPA has not set forth a protocol for handling
representative samples in this NPRM. EPA is interested in whether it is
necessary to require a protocol, and if so, what such a protocol should
encompass. In addition, EPA requests comments on the requirement that
laboratory certification programs receive and maintain EPA approval.
EPA is also interested in comments concerning decertification and
revocation.
C. Revocation and Suspension
Failure to abide by any of the provisions of Subpart F may result
in the revocation or suspension of the approval of the laboratory
certification program. In addition, EPA is proposing that these same
procedures be applicable to other third-party certification programs
promulgated under Subpart F. Those certification programs include:
technician certification, equipment certification, recovery and
recycling equipment certification and reclaimer certification as
discussed later in this notice. In such cases, EPA will notify the
certification program in writing. Today's action specifies the proposed
procedures for suspension and revocation as well as providing
information concerning the ability of an approved certification program
to challenge a decision of revocation or suspension. In such cases the
program may request a hearing within 30 days; however, the program must
submit in writing the program's objections and supporting data. If,
after review of the request the Agency agrees that the program raises a
substantial and factual issue the Agency would provide a hearing and
assign a Presiding Officer. The Agency may direct that all arguments
and presentation of evidence be concluded within a specified time of no
less than 30 days from the date that the first written offer of a
hearing was made and may direct that the decision of the Presiding
Officer will be final. EPA is proposing that the decision of the
Presiding Officer will be final without further proceedings, unless
there is an appeal or motion for review by the Administrator within 20
days of the decision. On appeal, EPA is proposing to provide the
Administrator with all the powers that he or she would have in making
the initial decision, including the discretion to require or permit
briefs, oral arguments, the taking of additional evidence, or the
remanding to the Presiding Officer for additional proceedings. EPA
requests comments on these proposed procedures.
D. Adoption of Third Party Approval of Reclaimers
In order to ensure the quality of reclaimed refrigerant on the
market, EPA requires the certification of reclaimers. Currently,
reclaimers certify to EPA that they return refrigerant to at least the
ARI Standard 700-1993, verify the purity using the methods set forth in
ARI Standard 700-1993, and dispose of wastes from the reclamation
process in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. During
initial rulemaking under section 608, EPA considered an option whereby
EPA would approve third parties that would certify reclaimers, and
could administer site inspections and/or sampling of refrigerant. EPA
stated that a third-party certification would be more reliable than
self-certification. Inspections and sampling would provide independent
evidence that the ARI Standard 700-1993 was being achieved at the
reclamation facility. At the time the rule was drafted, one party
demonstrated interest in seeking approval to be a third-party
certifier. EPA indicated in the preamble discussion (58 FR 28699) that
at a future date, it may consider replacing the self-certification
program with third-party certification.
Through this notice, EPA is proposing to take such action. EPA
believes that ARI and perhaps other industry entities will be
interested in applying to become an EPA laboratory certification
program. These organizations could provide site inspections and test
refrigerant samples. EPA understands that to ensure compliance with a
voluntary program
[[Page 7863]]
currently administered by ARI, ARI audits refrigerant to verify the
ability of the ARI-certified reclaimers to comply with the program's
criteria. EPA believes this type of oversight provides a stronger
mechanism for ensuring the purity of refrigerants than the self-
certification program currently administered by EPA.
EPA believes that since its inception, ARI's voluntary program has
been highly successful. The program ensures the quality of the
refrigerant, thus protecting the appliances and the consumer.
Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to replace its self-
certification program with a third-party certification that includes
certain aspects of the ARI program.
EPA believes reclamation certification programs should perform
oversight and refrigerant analysis to ensure conformance. In addition,
programs would be required to process and maintain reports concerning
the amount of reclaimed refrigerant that each certified reclaimer
processes. The reclamation certification program would be required to
verify the information reported by the reclaimers. Verification could
be part of the inspection and testing process. Aggregate annual
reporting to EPA would be required.
At a minimum the reclamation certification program would be
required to ensure that at least four samples of reclaimed refrigerant
from each certified reclaimer's facilities are tested by a laboratory
and verified by the program each year. The particular samples to be
tested are to be selected from an inventory of refrigerant that has
been reclaimed by the reclaimer. If the reclaimer processes many types
of refrigerants, each refrigerant listed by the reclaimer should be
tested at least once a year. These tests must be performed on a random
basis. Certified reclaimers should be required to display a logo, seal,
or other like notification, indicating which EPA-approved reclamation
certification program has certified the reclaimer. This notification
ensures that the refrigerant purchaser is suitably informed about the
certified reclaimer's affiliations. EPA believes that the seal or logo
should contain standardized language. EPA is proposing that the seal or
logo include the following statement: ``________ has been certified as
a refrigerant reclaimer, as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.''
This seal or logo should be displayed in a manner that permits a
technician or contractor to know that the reclaimer is certified by an
EPA-approved program. This information could be particularly important
if a person knows the names of all EPA-approved reclamation
certification programs but does not know the names of all the certified
reclaimers. EPA anticipates that there will be a limited number of
approved reclamation certification programs; however, the potential
list of certified reclaimers is far more extensive.
Reclaimers that are unable to substantiate their ability to comply
with the criteria established through this rulemaking, or with other
relevant state, local or federal requirements, should not be certified.
In addition, a certified reclaimer no longer able to meet the
continuing criteria should be decertified. For example, reclaimers that
submit incomplete or inaccurate reports, refuse to permit site
inspections, or fail to perform sufficient refrigerant analysis should
be decertified. The reclaimer should be permitted to reapply at a later
date. The reclaimer certification program would be required to inform
EPA that a reclaimer has been decertified within 30 days.
Reclamation certification programs that cannot or do not decertify
reclaimers that do not comply with the standards set forth in this
proposal, or do not comply with other provisions, could have their EPA
approval revoked. If such a case arises, reclaimers certified by the
certifying program would be required to be certified by another
approved program within six months. Such a requirement is necessary to
ensure that the reclaimer continues to be certified by an EPA-approved
program, not a program that has had its approval revoked. Moreover,
such a requirement is necessary because if EPA has taken action to
revoke approval, such action may be based on improper certification
procedures used by the program. As discussed above, EPA is proposing
specific procedures for suspension and revocation, as well as providing
information concerning the ability of a reclaimer certification program
to challenge a decision of revocation or suspension. These procedures
would be the same for all third-party certification programs
established under Subpart F.
EPA is concerned with transferring one aspect of its current
reclaimer certification program to third parties. Certified reclaimers
currently certify to EPA compliance with requirements for waste
disposal. EPA is not convinced that approved reclamation certification
programs would be capable of ensuring full compliance with federal,
state, or local requirements outside of those promulgated under section
608, such as hazardous waste disposal. However, it is necessary that
any potentially certified reclaimer either indicate to EPA or to an
approved reclamation certification program that such compliance is
occurring. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the reclaimers certify that
they dispose of wastes from the reclamation process in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations. However, if the certification program
suspects that these laws and regulations are not being met, such
information would be forwarded to EPA for further investigation.
EPA believes that at a minimum, one organization that already has a
voluntary reclamation certification program may apply. EPA believes
that other organizations will also consider applying to become an
approved reclamation certification program. EPA believes that third-
party certification will better meet EPA's goals. Moreover, the success
of the third-party recycle/recovery equipment certification, and the
third-party technician certification, demonstrates the effectiveness of
this approach. Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify the reclamation
requirements to state that reclaimers must instead be certified by an
EPA-approved reclaimer certification program. EPA plans to approve
certifiers based on the criteria discussed above as soon as the
criteria is promulgated. Those reclaimers already certified by EPA will
need to be certified by an EPA-approved reclaimer certification
program.
Those interested in becoming approved reclamation certification
programs would be required to submit information to EPA indicating the
ability to conform with all regulatory requirements for certifying and
monitoring reclaimers. EPA would review this information and if
appropriate, issue a letter of approval.
EPA realizes that provisions must be made for the changeover.
Therefore, EPA proposes to continue to permit the reclamation of
refrigerant by EPA-approved reclaimers until six months from the date
EPA approves of at least one reclamation certification program. During
the six months after EPA has approved at least one reclamation
certification program, reclaimers not certified by EPA but instead
certified by the EPA-approved program would also be permitted to
reclaim refrigerant. Those certified by EPA will be required to become
certified by an EPA-approved program prior to the end of that six-month
period. After that date, reclaimers previously certified by EPA that
have not been recertified by an approved third-party, will no longer be
considered certified.
EPA requests comment on the adoption of a third-party certification
program for reclaimers. EPA is particularly interested in the increased
[[Page 7864]]
benefits that may derive from this regulatory scheme rather than the
current self-certification program run directly by the Agency. EPA also
requests comments on the proposed procedure for converting to third-
party certification, including provisions to include reclaimers that
are currently certified by a program submitting an application. EPA
also requests that any program that intends to apply to become a third-
party certifier submit a draft application. EPA believes that reviewing
draft applications during the comment period will permit EPA to include
information on the timeframe for approving applications in the final
rule.
E. Technician Certification and the Sales Restriction
1. Recordkeeping
EPA is concerned with the maintenance of records for certified
technicians by approved programs that no longer provide test
administration. Currently there are more than 90 EPA-approved
technician certification programs that provide testing in accordance
with Sec. 82.161 and Appendix D. These programs administer and grade
tests, maintain records, issue certification credentials, and submit
reports to EPA twice each calendar year. EPA believes that technician
certification has been very effective. Within 24 months, more than
600,000 technicians were certified. However, it has come to the
Agency's attention that since the bulk of existing technicians have
become certified, and the certification market now focuses on those
first entering this field, some EPA-approved certification programs may
choose to discontinue providing this service. To date, three programs,
two of which did not actually ever administer tests, have withdrawn.
EPA is concerned with the maintenance of records for technicians
who were tested by a program that no longer exists or no longer
provides technician certification. EPA believes that the likelihood of
this occurring will increase in the future. EPA is concerned that if a
technician's certification credentials are lost and the program no
longer exists, it may not be possible for the technician to receive
duplicate credentials, thus denying the technician the ability to
purchase class I or class II refrigerants.
Currently, programs that have been approved to administer the test
must maintain records for three years (58 FR 28734). However, EPA does
not believe an enforcement mechanism exists that would effectively
ensure that this occurs if the program declares bankruptcy.
Furthermore, even if the program does continue to maintain the records,
access to the records may be difficult if the program itself is no
longer in business. Therefore, EPA is considering several potential
options.
EPA could require programs to forward their records to EPA. EPA
would therefore be responsible for maintaining those records. However,
EPA is concerned that the Agency does not have adequate resources for
maintaining these records effectively. A second option would be to have
the programs send the records to EPA and have EPA choose a suitable
existing certification program to maintain the records and forward the
records to that program. EPA is uncertain as to adequate criteria that
would be used for choosing the appropriate program. With more than 90
existing programs, all approved based on the same criteria, EPA would
not be in a position to select a single program without acting in an
arbitrary manner. A third option would be to have the program that
intends to cease operation determine which active program, willing to
accept the records, to submit its records to, and to notify EPA of its
decision. In this scenario, all pertinent information, including the
records relating to the technicians and the testing information would
be forwarded to another program. The program pulling out would notify
EPA of its decision, and the recipient of the records would notify EPA
upon receipt of the records.
EPA believes the third option represents the most equitable
approach. EPA believes that having an existing company maintain records
is most appropriate. Therefore, EPA is proposing to promulgate this
option.
EPA requests comments on requiring programs that no longer offer
technician certification to locate a suitable program for continuation
of the maintenance of the relevant records. EPA also requests comment
on the two alternative methods for ensuring that recordkeeping is
adequately provided.
In addition, EPA is also concerned with whether certification
records should be maintained beyond the current three-year requirement.
EPA believes that if a technician loses his/her identification card
after the three years has passed, it should be possible for a
replacement card to be issued. However, without a requirement that
records are maintained indefinitely, it is unclear that the approved
certification organizations will retain sufficient information to issue
new credentials. Therefore, through this action, EPA requests comments
on whether or not there are more appropriate timeframes.
2. Technicians Certified to Work on Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
EPA is concerned about an inconsistency that exists in the sales
restriction. Currently, technicians who are certified by either an EPA-
approved section 608 or section 609 program, in accordance with
Sec. 82.40 and Sec. 82.161, may purchase ozone-depleting
refrigerants.\1\ At the time the sales restriction was drafted and
promulgated in May 1993 (58 FR 28714, May 14, 1995), EPA was aware that
potential substitutes for CFC-12 for use in motor vehicle air
conditioners (MVACs) could include an HCFC or a blend with an HCFC
component. Therefore, EPA did not restrict the types of refrigerants
that could be purchased by those with section 609 certification.
\1\ 1. The sale of small cans of CFC-12 is further restricted to
those certified by an EPA-approved Sec. 609 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, EPA was also drafting and later promulgated
regulations regarding acceptable and unacceptable alternatives to class
I substances. Those regulations, promulgated under section 612,
identify acceptable alternatives in various sectors, including
refrigeration. These regulations, known as the Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program were not yet promulgated when the
sales restriction was promulgated. Therefore, EPA did not know to what
extent the refrigeration sector would be subdivided. Subsequently, the
SNAP refrigerant sector has been subdivided to indicate which
refrigerants are acceptable for various types of appliances. Therefore,
since SNAP now clearly delineates which refrigerants are acceptable for
use in MVACs, EPA believes it is appropriate for the sales restriction
under Sec. 608 to employ a similar provision.
Furthermore, EPA is concerned with reports that those certified to
work on MVACs are purchasing refrigerants that are not acceptable for
use in MVACs. In all likelihood, this refrigerant is either being
improperly installed in MVACs or those technicians may be servicing
other appliances in violation of the regulations promulgated under
Section 608. The sales restriction is intended to decrease emissions of
ozone-depleting substances. If refrigerant not suitable for use in
MVACs is improperly installed it may be vented. A technician certified
to service MVACs with recovery equipment for use with suitable
refrigerants may vent the unsuitable refrigerant rather than risk
contaminating the recovery equipment. A person who is not certified to
service
[[Page 7865]]
appliances other than MVACs and purchases refrigerant with the intent
of servicing non-MVACs or non-MVAC-like appliances, may not be familiar
with the required service practices established by EPA under
Sec. 82.156 and intended to ensure the lowest achievable emissions
level. Improper service by that technician could lead to the release of
the class I or class II refrigerant as well as damage to the appliance.
Therefore, through this action, EPA is proposing to modify the
sales restriction. The proposed changes would restrict the sale of
refrigerants to those certified in accordance with Sec. 82.34, by a
program approved under Sec. 82.40, to purchasing CFC-12 in small cans
and refrigerants listed as acceptable for use in MVACs in accordance
with all regulations promulgated under Section 612. EPA requests
comment on the appropriateness of modifying the sales restriction to
limit the types of refrigerant that can be purchased by those certified
to service and maintain MVACs under Sec. 609.
3. Transfers Between Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries
EPA has received comments from several organizations where one
wholly-owned subsidiary of a holding company would like to transfer
refrigerant to another wholly-owned subsidiary of the same holding
company. The requirement to reclaim refrigerant before the refrigerant
changes ownership applies to these transfers. Therefore, without first
reclaiming the refrigerant, these transfers are not permitted. EPA is
aware of one company that wanted to make such transfers and had the
capability to reclaim refrigerant. This company decided to become
certified rather than have a third party involved.
As discussed in other sections of this proposal, EPA's reclamation
provisions are designed to protect the refrigerant consumer and the
appliances into which used refrigerant is charged. In the example
described above, EPA believes the relationship between these two
subsidiaries should provide a sufficient means to ensure that transfers
between the subsidiaries would be akin to transfers within one company.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to provide an exception to the sales for
the transfers of refrigerant between two wholly-owned subsidiaries of
the same company.
EPA also received comment requesting that EPA permit the transfer
of unreclaimed refrigerant between subsidiaries that are not wholly-
owned. Since these types of subsidiaries would involve other investors
that may have less of a commitment to each of the subsidiaries involved
in the transactions, EPA does not believe transfers between these types
of subsidiaries are akin to those within one organization. Therefore,
EPA is limiting today's proposal to wholly-owned subsidiaries. EPA
requests comment on this proposal.
F. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner-Like Appliances
Through this action, EPA would like to modify the definition of
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC)-like appliances. Sec. 82.152
states that:
MVAC-like appliance means mechanical vapor compression, open-
drive compressor appliances used to cool the driver's or passenger's
compartment of an non-road motor vehicle. This includes the air-
conditioning equipment found on agricultural or construction
vehicles. This definition is not intended to cover appliances using
HCFC-22 refrigerant. (58 FR 28713)
Since the promulgation of this definition in May 1993, EPA has received
requests to clarify whether various types of appliances are in fact
MVAC-like appliances. These appliances include air conditioners on
small private planes, boats and trolleys. In these examples EPA has
agreed that the appliances are MVAC-like. EPA believes that if the
appliance is similar to an MVAC in all substantive manners, it should
be treated as an MVAC. However, EPA has become concerned that the
definition of MVAC-like should include an upper limit on the amount of
refrigerant contained in the appliance. Without an upper limit, the
current definition could be construed to include appliances that are
not similar to an MVAC in all substantive manners. For example, a
chiller located on a marine vessel could be mistakenly considered MVAC-
like. Therefore, an upper limit would prevent any possible confusion.
To ensure consistency between what is an MVAC and what is MVAC-like,
the refrigerant limit for MVAC-like appliances should be similar to the
largest amount of refrigerant contained in most MVACs. EPA believes
that bus air conditioners using CFC-12 may represent the type of MVAC
with the largest average charge size. Moreover, EPA believes that all
MVACs contain less than 20 pounds of refrigerant. EPA does not believe
that the adoption of a 20-pound limit for MVACs would exclude any
appliance that reasonably should be considered MVAC-like.
EPA believes that a limit will provide clarity to those unsure
about whether a particular appliance qualifies as MVAC-like,
specifically where the charge is larger than that of the average
automobile air conditioner, yet smaller than that of the average bus
air conditioner. Therefore, EPA is proposing to add a 20-pound ceiling
to the definition of MVAC-like appliances.
EPA requests comment on amending the definition of MVAC-like
appliances and whether a ceiling of 20 pounds represents an appropriate
cutoff.
G. Changes to the ARI 740 Test Procedure for Refrigerant Recycling and
Recovery Equipment
The final rule published on May 14, 1993 requires that refrigerant
recycling and recovery equipment manufactured after November 15, 1993,
be tested by an EPA-approved laboratory. The laboratory must verify
that the equipment is capable of achieving applicable required
evacuation levels and that the equipment releases no more than 3%
(previously 5%) of the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through
purging of noncondensables. In addition, the laboratory must measure
the vapor and liquid recovery rates of the equipment. To perform all of
these measurements, the laboratory must use the test procedure set
forth in ARI 740-93, an industry test protocol for recycling and
recovery equipment that was included in the final rule as appendix B.
During the comment period on the proposed rule, some commenters
raised concerns regarding the ARI 740 test protocol. After
investigating these concerns, EPA concluded that some were unwarranted,
but that others required further investigation and, in some cases,
action as discussed in that rule (58 FR 28687). Among the issues
requiring more investigation were concerns that (1) the current method
for measuring the vapor recovery rate of equipment yields a maximum,
rather than an average, recovery rate; (2) the test only tests
equipment at one temperature, 75 deg. F, although the performance of
recycling and recovery equipment varies significantly depending upon
ambient temperature, (3) the test does not include measurement of the
quantity of refrigerant that remains in the equipment (e.g., condenser)
at the conclusion of the recovery procedure, potentially allowing
contamination of subsequent recovery or recycling jobs or release of
refrigerant during condenser clearing, and (4) the test does not test
equipment for durability, raising the possibility of widespread
equipment failure after only a few months of use (58 FR 28682, 28687-
88).
Testing experience and international developments have raised other
issues
[[Page 7866]]
since the rule was promulgated. Underwriters Laboratories (UL), one of
the equipment testing organizations approved by EPA, has pointed out
the need to adopt standards for external hose permeability and to
ensure that recovery and recycling equipment is tested with recovery
cylinders no larger than those with which the equipment is used in the
field. The standard for recycling and recovery equipment being
developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) addresses
refrigerant emissions from oil draining in addition to emissions from
air purging and equipment (condenser) clearing, limiting the total that
can be released during these procedures to 3% of the total refrigerant
processed. Finally, the Industry Recycling Guideline 2 (IRG-2)
established a recommended ``clean-up'' standard for recycled
refrigerant that is used in the same owner's equipment (Maximum
Contaminant Levels of Recycled Refrigerants in Same Owner's Equipment).
EPA has worked closely with the two EPA-approved equipment testing
organizations, the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI)
and Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), to resolve these concerns. EPA has
also worked with members of the International Standards Organization
(ISO) Committee for Recycling and Recovery Equipment to ensure that the
issues are addressed in international standards. With the exception of
durability testing, all of the issues are being addressed by voluntary
changes to both the ISO draft standard and the ARI 740 standard. EPA
participated in the drafting of the revised ARI 740 Standard, and EPA
is planning to adopt the latest version of it, ARI Standard 740-1995.
In addition, EPA is planning to require that equipment that is
advertised as recycling equipment be able to meet the IRG-2 ``clean-
up'' standard. EPA is not planning to require additional durability
testing for recycling and recovery equipment.
1. Measurement of Vapor Recovery Rates
Before the final rule was published on May 14, 1993, ARI had
already indicated that it was willing to adopt a more representative
measure of vapor recovery rates (58 FR 28667). (EPA could not adopt
this methodology in the May 14, 1993, rule because it had not been
proposed.) As discussed in the final rule, the current standard
requires measuring the maximum vapor recovery rate, but two pieces of
equipment with identical maximum recovery rates can have very different
average recovery rates. This is because equipment characteristics that
are not important to vapor recovery rates at the beginning of recovery,
such as compressor clearance, become increasingly important as recovery
progresses. Although EPA has not established minimum vapor or liquid
recovery rates, the Agency believes that the best possible information
on these rates should be available to technicians to ensure that they
purchase recycling and recovery equipment adequate to their needs.
Technicians with adequate recovery equipment are less likely than
technicians with slow equipment to interrupt the recovery procedure
before it is complete. As noted in the final rule, measurement of the
vapor recovery rate would require timing the recovery procedure that is
already included in the standard. EPA is proposing to adopt the most
recent version of ARI 740, 740-1995, which includes a measure of the
average recovery rate. The new test measures the change in mass and
time elapsed as the pressure of the test chamber is lowered from the
saturation pressure of the refrigerant at 24 deg. C (75 deg. F) (or
from atmospheric pressure, if the refrigerant boils at a temperature
above 75 deg.) to the lower of atmospheric pressure or 10% of the
initial pressure. (As discussed below, the test is repeated with R-22
at 40 deg. C (104 deg. F).) This provision is similar to a provision in
the draft ISO standard, which measures the change in mass and time
elapsed as the pressure of the test chamber is lowered from the
saturation pressure of the refrigerant to 15% of that pressure.
For R-12, 10% of the saturation pressure at 75 deg. F is 9.2 psia,
or 11 inches of mercury vacuum, which is slightly lower than the final
recovery vacuum required for recovery equipment used with R-12
appliances containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant (10 inches of
vacuum), but is higher than the final recovery vacuum required for
recovery equipment used with larger R-12 appliances (15 inches of
vacuum). For R-22, 10% of the saturation pressure is 14.7 psia, which
means that atmospheric pressure (14.7 psia) would be the final
pressure. Atmospheric pressure is also the final recovery vacuum
required for recovery equipment used with R-22 appliances containing
less than 200 pounds of refrigerant, but again, is higher than the
final recovery vacuum required for larger R-22 appliances (10 inches of
vacuum). Finally, for R-11, 10% of the saturation pressure is 1.47 psia
(27 inches of vacuum), which again is slightly higher than the final
recovery vacuum required for recovery equipment used with R-11
appliances (29 inches of vacuum).
EPA requests comment on adopting this method of measuring the
average recovery rate of recycling and recovery appliances. EPA
specifically requests comment on whether the final pressure of 10% of
the saturation pressure is close enough to the required vacuum to
ensure that the test is representative of recovery rates in the field.
EPA also requests comment on whether the current measure of maximum
vapor recovery rates yields any useful information that the new test
would not, and on whether it should therefore be retained.
2. High-Temperature Testing
One of the most important additions to the ARI 740 standard is a
requirement that the vapor recovery rate and final recovery vacuum of
recovery and recycling equipment be measured at 40 deg. C (104 deg. F),
in addition to 24 deg. C (75 deg. F), for recovery and recycling
equipment intended for use with high-pressure refrigerants. As noted in
the final rule published on May 14, 1994, recovery and recycling
equipment in the field is likely to have to function at temperatures
considerably higher than 75 deg. F (58 FR 28683). For instance,
recovery often takes place on rooftops in the summer, where
temperatures frequently exceed 100 deg. F. The performance of recovery
and recycling equipment is likely to be affected by such high
temperatures (58 FR 28688). This is because high temperatures raise the
saturation pressure of the refrigerant in the recovery tank, raising
the compression ratio against which the compressor in the recovery
device must work to evacuate the appliance. This can both slow recovery
and prevent the equipment from achieving vacuums that it can achieve at
75 deg. F. In some cases, equipment can actually stop running at high
temperatures, because pressures rise too high or because the motor
overheats or draws too much current in its attempt to recover the
refrigerant, tripping safety switches. Underwriters Laboratories
reported that over 50 percent of refrigerant recovery and recycling
units initially failed to operate continuously during high temperature
testing that is required as part of UL's safety testing (letter from
Glenn Woo and Larry Kettwich to Debbie Ottinger) 2.
\2\ The equipment was redesigned to operate at elevated
temperatures before it was UL listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that the high-temperature tests included in the
revised ARI 740 standard would provide useful information on
equipment's
[[Page 7867]]
ability and quickness to draw vacuums at high temperatures. At the same
time, these tests are likely to reveal many of the problems that might
occur in equipment operated at high temperatures in the field (as has
UL's safety test at 104 deg. F), such as thermal or electrical
overloading of motors. The test requires that the mixing chamber, a
container with a minimum volume of three cubic feet, be filled with
refrigerant vapor (but no liquid) at the refrigerant's saturation
pressure at 104 deg. F. As in the 75 deg. test, this vapor is then
recovered until the final recovery vacuum is reached. Also as in the
75 deg. test, the vapor recovery rate is measured while the pressure in
the mixing chamber is reduced to 10% of the initial pressure. Because
repeating the test with all of the refrigerants for which the equipment
is rated would considerably raise the costs of certification, the high-
temperature test is performed with one refrigerant, R-22. (If the
recycling or recovery equipment is not rated for R-22, then equipment
is tested with the refrigerant with the lowest boiling point, and
therefore highest saturation pressure, for which it is rated.)
R-22 is used because it has the second highest saturation pressure
of the common high-pressure refrigerants and because it has a high
discharge temperature, putting more stress on both the compressor and
motor of recovery equipment than other high pressure refrigerants.
Thus, if a recovery device passes high-temperature testing with R-22,
it is likely to be able to perform at high temperatures with all high-
pressure refrigerants. This expectation is supported by experience;
according to UL personnel, most recycling and recovery equipment
(except that intended for use exclusively with motor vehicle air
conditioners) that failed high-temperature testing failed during tests
involving R-22. In addition, R-22 is the most common high-pressure
refrigerant used outside of the motor vehicle air conditioner sector.
Because the 104 deg. vapor recovery rate measurement begins at a
higher pressure than the 75 deg. vapor recovery rate measurement, it
also ends at a higher pressure, atmospheric pressure. (Ten percent of
the initial saturation pressure is actually 22.3 psia, which is higher
than atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia, but the test requires recovery at
least to atmospheric pressure.) Atmospheric pressure is the level to
which appliances containing less than 200 pounds of R-22 must be
evacuated; however, it is higher than 10 inches of vacuum, which is the
level to which appliances containing more than 200 pounds of R-22 must
be evacuated. EPA requests comment on whether the final pressure of 10%
of the saturation pressure is close enough to the required vacuums to
ensure that the test is representative of high-temperature recovery
rates in the field.
The test procedure mimics what is often the most stressful portion
of the recovery process at high temperatures, the recovery of vapor
that remains in recycling and recovery equipment after all liquid has
been recovered. Many recovery devices recover liquid from appliances,
evaporating it to separate it from contaminants and then recondensing
it to store it in the recovery tank. As long as liquid is available to
evaporate, the evaporator can be used to absorb heat from the
condenser. However, when no liquid remains in the appliance (or the
mixing chamber that represents it in the ARI 740-1995 test procedure),
the evaporator can no longer absorb any heat. Thus, the condenser,
along with the compressor, begins to heat up. At the same time, the
vapor pressure inside the appliance (or mixing chamber) begins to fall
as vapor is pumped out. This has two consequences. First, it raises the
compression ratio between the inlet and discharge sides of the
compressor, raising the discharge temperature of the refrigerant.
Second, it decreases the flow of refrigerant over the motor that
hermetic compressors rely upon to cool the motor. By the time a ten-
inch vacuum is reached, this flow is less than five percent of the flow
that the motor started out with. Both of these effects accelerate the
heating of the motor and compressor.
EPA believes that, in general, the high-temperature vapor recovery
procedure in the revised standard is more likely to identify inadequate
recycling and recovery equipment than the vapor recovery procedure in
the current standard. However, the current standard duplicates one type
of stress on recovery equipment that the revised standard does not.
This stress is that experienced by recovery equipment that is capable
of recovering only vapor when liquid is present in the appliance.
When liquid is present in the appliance or test chamber, the mass
flow through the recovery or recycling equipment is at its maximum.
This yields a high estimate of the vapor recovery rate; however, it
also imposes a high power demand on the recovery equipment's compressor
as the compressor attempts to move the refrigerant, and it burdens the
recovery equipment's condenser with a relatively large amount of heat
to reject (because this heat is related not only to the temperature but
also to the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the condenser).
A laboratory that participated in the development of ARI 740-1995
expressed concern that equipment that had failed (through tripping of
safety switches) the vapor recovery test of ARI 740-1993 might pass the
vapor recovery test in ARI 740-1995. To investigate this concern, the
laboratory tested the equipment first using the vapor recovery test in
ARI 740-1993, and then the high-temperature vapor recovery test in ARI
740-1995. The laboratory found that equipment that cut out after 18
minutes of operation under ARI 740-1993 cut out after less than 10
minutes of operation under ARI 740-1995. (It should be noted that ARI
740-1993 does not expressly require lengthy, continuous vapor recovery
at the saturation pressure of the refrigerant.) In view of this result
and the fact that most recovery equipment is capable of recovering
liquid, EPA believes that ARI 740-1995 will detect faulty equipment.
EPA requests comment on the usefulness of high-temperature testing,
and on the choice of R-22 as a representative refrigerant.
3. Use of Representative Recovery Cylinders
To further ensure that equipment testing is representative of
likely performance in the field, ARI 740-1995 specifies that recovery
cylinders used in testing must be the same size as those sold with the
equipment, and must be at the saturation pressure of the refrigerant
when testing begins. Use of oversize or evacuated cylinders can yield
artificially high recovery rates and artificially deep recovery
vacuums, because the recovery compressor does not have to work as hard
to move refrigerant into oversize or evacuated cylinders as it does to
move refrigerant into normal size cylinders at the saturation pressure
of the refrigerant. Both of these requirements codify procedures that
are being followed voluntarily at both of the EPA-approved equipment
testing laboratories.
4. Limiting Emissions from Condenser Clearing, Oil Draining, Purging,
and External Hoses
ARI 740-1995 addresses three potential sources of refrigerant
emissions that ARI 740-1993 did not address: condenser clearing, oil
draining, and emissions from external hoses. As noted in the May 14,
1994 final rule, substantial quantities of refrigerant may remain in
the condensers of recycling and recovery equipment after refrigerant
has been transferred to a recovery tank or back
[[Page 7868]]
into an appliance. Unless this refrigerant is properly removed, it will
either contaminate subsequent batches of refrigerant, a serious concern
when switching refrigerants (e.g., from R-12 to R-22), or be released
to the atmosphere. There are a number of methods to remove this
refrigerant properly; however, some of these methods are more
complicated and time-consuming than others. One of the most important
factors in the speed and effectiveness of the refrigerant clearing
process is the design of the recovery or recycling equipment itself.
To help ensure that the design of recovery equipment minimizes the
amount of residual refrigerant that either escapes to the atmosphere or
contaminates subsequent batches, ARI 740-1995 includes measurements
both of the mass of refrigerant that is released during clearing and of
the mass of refrigerant that remains in the equipment after clearing is
complete. The mass of refrigerant released during clearing is added to
the masses released during non-condensables purging and oil draining
(see below); this total cannot exceed three percent of the total mass
of refrigerant processed through the equipment. The mass of refrigerant
that remains in the equipment is not limited, but is reported in the
equipment ratings so that prospective buyers can use the information in
their purchasing decisions.
In these measurements and limits, ARI 740-1995 is similar to the
draft ISO standard for recycling and recovery equipment. The one
significant difference is that the draft ISO standard, in addition to
weighing the residual refrigerant that remains trapped in the
equipment, measures cross-contamination directly by processing a batch
of a different refrigerant through the equipment after clearing is
complete. This batch is then analyzed to determine the concentration of
the first refrigerant using gas chromatography. The drafters of the ARI
740-1995 standard decided not to include this cross-contamination test
because they believed that it would yield little additional
information, while adding considerable expense to the test procedure.
(Gas chromatography is one of the more costly components of
certification testing.) Based on information gathered to date, EPA
concurs; however, the Agency requests comment on whether the mass of
residual refrigerant is likely to be a good predictor of cross-
contamination or whether a more extensive test of cross-contamination
is required.
To help ensure that the clearing procedure is not excessively
complicated or time-consuming, ARI 740-1995 also requires that the
manufacturer provide a method and instructions that accomplish
connections and clearing within 15 minutes. Any special equipment
required for clearing, other than a vacuum pump or manifold gauge, must
be provided by the manufacturer along with the recovery or recycling
equipment, and the clearing procedure cannot rely upon a storage
cylinder below the saturated pressure of the refrigerant. In setting up
these constraints, ARI recognized that procedures that require exotic
equipment or excessive time are less likely to be followed than
procedures that are simple and fast.
Another source of potential emissions is oil draining. Refrigerant
oils are designed to mix well with refrigerants so that they flow
easily within the refrigeration system. A drawback to this
characteristic is that significant quantities of refrigerant can remain
entrained in oil that is withdrawn from appliances. Because several
system contaminants tend to concentrate in the oil, many recycling and
recovery machines include an oil separator that must be periodically
emptied. To ensure that oil draining does not result in excessive
refrigerant emissions, the ARI 740-1995 procedure measures the mass of
refrigerant that is released from oil after its removal from the
recovery or recycling equipment. As noted above, the sum of the masses
of this refrigerant, the refrigerant emitted during condenser clearing,
and the refrigerant emitted during noncondensables purging cannot
exceed three percent of the mass of refrigerant processed by the
equipment.
The third source of emissions addressed by ARI 740-1995 is external
hose assemblies. Although ARI 740-1993 includes a permeability limit
for internal hoses (of 5.8 g/cm2/yr), it does not include such a
limit for external hoses. ARI 740-1995 establishes a limit of 3.9 g/
cm2/yr at 48.8 deg. C (120 deg. F) for all hose assemblies, to be
tested under the conditions of UL 1963. (Hoses that are already UL
recognized as having passed UL 1963 need not be retested).
EPA believes that these emissions limits will ensure that recycling
and recovery equipment achieves the lowest achievable level of
emissions. EPA requests comment on adopting these emissions limits from
the ARI 740-1995 standard.
5. Requirements for Equipment Advertised as ``Recycling Equipment''
Because EPA is proposing to require that representative samples of
used refrigerants be chemically analyzed to verify their purity before
they are used in another owner's equipment, EPA does not believe that
it is necessary to require that refrigerant be processed or recycled in
any particular way. The analysis itself guarantees that refrigerant
meets the required purity standard. For this reason, EPA is not
requiring that contractors use recycling as opposed to recovery
equipment to handle refrigerants. (Recovery equipment is designed
simply to recover the refrigerant without cleaning it; recycling
equipment is designed to clean the refrigerant to some extent.)
However, EPA believes that technicians and contractors should have some
assurance that equipment that is marketed as ``recycling equipment'' is
capable of cleaning up used refrigerant to some minimum level. This
assurance would be especially useful to contractors who use recycling
equipment to purify refrigerant for use in the same owner's equipment
because these contractors may not use any other means to assure
refrigerant purity.
Although ARI 740-1995 includes a test of the ability of recycling
equipment to clean up a standard sample of dirty refrigerant and
requires that the final contaminant levels of the recycled refrigerant
be presented for each make and model, it does not establish any maximum
allowable levels for these contaminants. However, IRG-2 contains
recommended maximum contaminant levels for refrigerant that is returned
to its original equipment or to equipment with the same owner. IRG-2
further states:
Recycling equipment that is certified to ARI Standard 740,
``Performance of Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment,'' and
capable of consistently cleaning refrigerant to the contaminant
levels in this Table should be used. The refrigerant sample used in
ARI Standard 740 is representative of a highly contaminated system,
so recycling equipment that can clean the refrigerant in this test
to the contaminant levels in the Table has acceptable cleaning
capabilities.
Thus, the ``clean-up'' test in the ARI 740 Standard and the maximum
contaminant levels in IRG-2 can be combined to establish a test and
standard for recycling equipment. EPA is proposing that equipment that
is marketed as ``recycling'' equipment would have to be able to clean
up the ARI 740 sample of dirty refrigerant to the maximum contaminant
levels listed in IRG-2 when tested under the conditions of ARI 740.
Below is a reprint of the Maximum Contaminant Levels of Recycled
Refrigerants included in the IRG-2 standard. EPA is proposing to make
the change effective 90 days after publication of the final
[[Page 7869]]
rule to give manufacturers the opportunity to change their advertising
and marketing materials, if necessary. EPA requests comment on this
proposal and the proposed effective date.
Maximum Contaminant Levels of Recycled Refrigerants in Same Owner's Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low pressure All other
Contaminants systems R-12 systems systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Content (by wt.)........................................ 1.0 PPM........ 1.0 PPM........ 1.0 PPM
Moisture (by wt.)............................................ 20 PPM......... 10 PPM......... 20 PPM
Non Condensable Gas (by vol.)................................ N/A............ 2.0%........... 2.0%
High Boiling Residues (by vol.).............................. 1.0%........... 0.02%.......... 0.02%
Chlorides by Silver Nitrate Test............................. No turbidity... No turbidity... No turbidity
Particulates................................................. Visually clean. Visually clean. Visually clean.
Other Refrigerants........................................... 2.0%........... 2.0%........... 2.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Durability Testing
One suggested addition to ARI 740-1993 that was not included in ARI
740-1993 is mandatory, long-term durability testing of recovery and
recycling equipment. Equipment durability is of concern because if
equipment repeatedly fails prematurely, technicians may eventually
elect not to spend the money to repair or replace it, resulting in
refrigerant emissions. As noted in the final rule published on May 14,
1994, recovery and recycling equipment may be constructed using
components very similar to those in air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, but recovery and recycling equipment is regularly subject to
more stressful conditions than most air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment. For instance, recovery and recycling equipment will often
operate at higher than ideal temperatures as it pulls vacuums on
appliances.
To investigate the need for mandatory third-party equipment
durability testing, EPA has met with the commenters who supported such
testing and with ARI and manufacturers of recovery and recycling
equipment. EPA has also used its information collection authority under
section 114 of the Act to survey manufacturers of recovery and
recycling equipment regarding causes and rates of recovery equipment
failure. Finally, EPA has considered the extent to which the goals of
mandatory durability testing may already be met by manufacturers' in-
house durability testing, market forces, and the revisions to the ARI
740 Standard discussed above.
Based on this investigation, EPA does not believe that mandatory,
third-party durability testing is necessary to ensure adequate
equipment performance. First, equipment durability has a much less
direct relationship to refrigerant emissions than do refrigerant
recovery levels or rates. In fact, unless recovery equipment is so
short-lived that technicians repeatedly wear it out and grow tired of
repairing it or replacing it, durability has no effect on refrigerant
emissions. Detailed statistics obtained from manufacturers indicate
that recovery equipment does not wear out this quickly; failure rates
generally fall below five percent per year.
Second, to the extent that durability has been a problem, the
market itself appears to have acted to address it. According to
manufacturers, models that experienced relatively high failure rates
have either been taken off the market or have had their designs
corrected to address the problem. An article from the Air Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration News supports this view 3. Contractors
noted either that their recovery units were holding up well, or that
they had changed their purchasing criteria to emphasize durability over
price. The contractors who had changed their criteria observed that job
interruptions caused by recovery equipment breakdowns had cost them
business. Similarly, recovery equipment manufacturers stated that
excessive repairs under warranty were expensive to bear, giving them a
clear incentive to increase equipment longevity and reliability.
\3\ ``Hot Customers Don't Sweat Over Extra Recovery Costs,'' B.
Checket-Hanks, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration News,
August 21, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, manufacturers observed that recovery technology in general,
including features to enhance equipment durability, has advanced
markedly since refrigerant recovery was first required in 1992. Many
problems emerged during the first year of manufacture and use of
recovery equipment, which involved adapting existing refrigeration
technology to new demands. These problems have been detected and
addressed.
Fourth, EPA believes that any new equipment that is likely to fail
under stress is likely to be identified by the enhanced ARI 740
Standard, which, as discussed above, includes new, more strenuous
testing at high temperatures. Testing laboratories have indicated that
equipment that passed the old test ``marginally'' have not passed the
new one.
Finally, ARI and manufacturers have noted that durability testing,
because it is necessarily lengthy, would add considerable cost to the
equipment certification procedure. One test that was submitted by a
commenter who supported durability testing would require the continuous
operation of the equipment for 30 hours. This would double or triple
the cost of equipment certification. At the same time, the information
gathered from such a test may not be applicable to the field, since
recovery equipment is seldom required to function continuously for 30
hours. Given the improvements in recovery equipment that have resulted
from the market and the enhanced ARI 740 standard, EPA does not believe
that any further environmental benefits gained from durability testing
would justify its costs. Therefore, today's action does not propose
mandatory durability testing of recycling and recovery equipment.
H. Major and Minor Repairs
Effective July 13, 1993, technicians were required to evacuate air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment to established vacuum levels.
However, EPA granted an exception to the evacuation requirements for
non-major repairs that are not followed by an evacuation of the
appliance to the environment, and for appliances with leaks that make
the required evacuation levels impossible to attain. EPA intended non-
major repairs to include procedures that involve uncovering only a
small opening in the appliance, that take place in only a few minutes,
and that are not followed by an evacuation of the appliance to the
environment (high-level evacuation). EPA believed that such repairs
would
[[Page 7870]]
result in the release of very little refrigerant to the environment.
However, EPA did not explicitly define ``non-major'' repairs;
instead, EPA defined ``major'' repairs as maintenance, service, or
repair that involves removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator,
or auxiliary heat exchanger coil. These procedures are relatively time-
consuming and/or leave large openings in the system through which
refrigerant can escape (and air and moisture can enter). After such
procedures, evacuation of the system to the environment is customarily
performed, expelling any residual refrigerant into the atmosphere.
1. Comments Received Since the Final Rule
Since the final rule was published, EPA has received several
comments that request that EPA expand and clarify the current
definition of ``major'' and explicitly define ``non-major'' repairs.
Commenters believed that the current definition of major repairs
was too narrow, excluding some types of repair that result in
considerable refrigerant release. They recommended that the definition
be modified to reflect the following: major repairs or service
procedures that (1) involve the removal of the compressor, condenser,
evaporator or auxiliary heat exchanger, or (2) require the appliance to
be open to the atmosphere for an extended period of time, or (3)
require the uncovering of large openings that cannot be isolated or
capped. The commenters also recommended that before major repairs were
undertaken, appliances should be required to be evacuated to 25 mm Hg
absolute (per EPA standards).
Several commenters maintained that non-major repairs should be
explicitly defined as repairs or service procedures that involve
uncovering only a small opening in the appliance and take place in only
a few minutes, or that involve openings that may be capped or isolated
using isolation valves, thereby limiting the quantity of refrigerant
lost to the atmosphere. Additionally, commenters recommended that
technicians be required to meet the following standards for minor
repairs: 1) technicians must be able to hold the unit at 0 PSIG; (2)
the unit may not be open for more than 15 minutes.
One commenter submitted the following list, which classifies
several common service procedures or repairs as either major or minor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance/service task Minor Major
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Shaft Seal Replace (OCV)................. ............ XXX
2. Oil Change (oil temp @ 135 deg.)......... XXX ............
3. Oil Filter Change........................ XXX ............
4. Vent Line Solenoid Valve Repair.......... XXX ............
5. Vent Line Solenoid Replace............... ............ XXX
6. Oil Pump and/or Motor.................... ............ XXX
7. Oil Pressure Regulator................... XXX ............
8. 3rd Stage Vane Bellows Repair/Replace.... ............ ............
9. 1st Stage Vane Oper. Repair/Replace...... XXX ............
10. Oil Eductor............................. XXX ............
11. Motor Cooling Orifice................... XXX ............
12. Thrust Bearing (ball bearing) Replace... ............ XXX
13. Thrust Bearing Cover Gasket Replace..... XXX ............
14. Pressure Control/Transducer/Gage Replace XXX ............
15. Suction Elbow Gasket Replace............ ............ XXX
16. Terminal Board Gasket Replace........... ............ XXX
17. Terminal Stud ``O'' Ring Replace........ ............ XXX
18. Purifier Purge Drier Core Replace....... XXX ............
19. Old Style Purge Service and Repair (all) XXX ............
20. Economizer Gasket Replace (upper)....... XXX ............
21. Economizer Gasket Replace (lower)....... ............ XXX
22. Hot Gas Bypass/Free Cool. Val. Stem
Repair..................................... XXX ............
23. Hot Gas Bypass/Free Cool. Val. Gasket
Replace.................................... ............ XXX
24. Oil Cooler replace with Isolation Valves XXX ............
25. Oil Cooler replace without Isolation
Valves..................................... ............ XXX
26. Oil Heater (direct immersion) Replace... XXX ............
27. Orifice Check/Clean ``Upper'' 15 Minutes
Max........................................ XXX ............
28. Orifice Work Upper/Lower Over 15 Minutes ............ XXX
29. Rupture Disk Replace.................... XXX ............
30. Purge Solenoid Valve Replace............ XXX ............
31. Discharge Spool Gasket Replace.......... ............ XXX
32. Oil Sump Gasket Replace................. ............ XXX
33. Sight Glass Replace (Evap. glass or any
solder type)............................... ............ XXX
34. Sight Glass Replace (oil system, non-
solder).................................... XXX ............
35. Valves, Service, Liquid................. XXX ............
36. Valves, Service, Vapor.................. XXX ............
37. Flare Fitting Repair.................... XXX ............
38. Solder or Braze Joint Repair, Vapor
Section.................................... XXX ............
39. Solder or Braze Joint Repair, Liquid
Section.................................... ............ XXX
40. Oil Cooler Repair/Replace............... ............ XXX
41. Float Chamber Gasket Replace or Float
Repair..................................... ............ XXX
42. Motor Temp. Sensor Place O'Ring Replace. XXX ............
43. Rupture Guard Installation.............. XXX ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7871]]
2. Proposed Definitions
EPA agrees with the commenters that major repairs of low-pressure
chillers have been defined too narrowly and should be expanded. EPA is
therefore proposing to revise the definitions of major repairs and to
define non-major repairs as follows:
(a) Non-Major Repairs of Low-Pressure Chillers. To be classified as
non-major repairs or service procedures, the procedure or repair must
(1) involve uncovering only a small opening (less than 2 inches in
diameter) in the appliance, or involve openings that may be capped or
isolated using isolation valves, (2) require the appliance to be open
for no more than 15 minutes, and (3) permit the technician to hold the
appliance at 0 psig.
(b) Major Repairs for Low-Pressure Chillers. Major repairs for low-
pressure chillers: (1) involve removal of the compressor, condenser,
evaporator or auxiliary heat exchanger, (2) require the appliance to be
open to the atmosphere for more than 15 minutes, or (3) involve a large
opening.
EPA requests comments on these definitions. EPA is particularly
interested in whether these definitions are specific enough, whether
other types of repairs should be considered and whether this definition
is consistent with industry practices and/or terminology.
I. Change in the Definition of Small Appliance
1. Background
On May 14, 1993, EPA published final regulations expanding its
proposed definition of ``small appliance.'' EPA had previously proposed
a definition for small appliances that included air-conditioning or
refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound of charge during
normal operation.
EPA received a number of comments that the one-pound limit used in
the proposed definition was too restrictive. Commenters also stated
that room air conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners, and
packaged terminal heat pumps are sufficiently similar to household
refrigerators and freezers to justify inclusion in the definition of
``small appliances.''
EPA agreed with these comments and expanded the definition of small
appliances to the following:
Small appliance means any of the following products that are
fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in a factory
with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant: Refrigerators and
freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners (including
window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners),
packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under-the-counter ice
makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.
2. Additional Comments
Since the promulgation of the final rule, EPA has received
additional comments requesting further expansion of the definition of
small appliances to include units that meet the criteria for small
appliances described in the beginning of the definition, but that are
not specifically listed at the end of the definition. EPA could
accomplish this by making the list of appliances in the definition
illustrative rather than restrictive, by removing the list of
appliances from the definition (leaving only the criteria), or by
explicitly adding refrigerators and freezers built for medical
research, industrial research and processes, and as components in other
equipment, to the definition.
These comments stated that these refrigerators and freezers used
for medical research, industrial research and processes and as
components in other equipment (such as purge units in chillers) are
extremely similar to the products designed for home use but are
excluded from language of the current definition of small appliances.
Commenters stated that these units meet the spirit of the definition of
small appliances in that they are hermetically sealed in the factory
with five (5) pounds of refrigerant or less, rarely require entry into
the system and rarely develop refrigerant leaks. Thus, the definition
should be expanded to treat them the same way in the rule as household
refrigerators and freezers.
3. Today's Proposal
EPA agrees with the commenters that refrigerators and freezers that
are built for medical research, industrial research, or processes, or
that used as components in other equipment, and that are hermetically
sealed at the factory and contain less than five (5) pounds of charge,
should be added to the definition of small appliances. EPA is therefore
proposing to revise the final definition of ``small appliances'' to:
Small appliance means any product that is fully manufactured,
charged and hermetically sealed in a factory with five (5) pounds or
less of refrigerant, including, but not limited to, refrigerators
and freezers designed for home use, as components in other
equipment, medical research, or industrial research, room air
conditioners (including window air conditioners and packaged
terminal heat pumps), dehumidifiers, under-the-counter ice makers,
vending machines, and drinking water coolers,
Note that the list of appliances in this revised definition is
illustrative rather then restrictive. EPA requests comments on this
proposed definition of small appliances. EPA is particularly interested
in whether it would be helpful to list additional examples of
appliances that would be considered ``small appliances'' under the
criteria of the definition.
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 action to
amendment to the final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject
to OMB review under the Executive Order.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for
obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of
[[Page 7872]]
regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a
budgetary impact statement must be prepared. The Agency must select
from those alternatives the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless
the Agency explains why this alternative is not selected or the
selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this NPRM is estimated to result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments or private sector of less than
$100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary
impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because
small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by
this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan with regard to
small governments. As discussed in this preamble, many aspects of this
NPRM proposes to provide increased flexibility that may have the net
effect of reducing the burden of part 82 subpart F of the Stratospheric
Protection regulations on regulated entities, including State, local,
and tribal governments or private sector entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted to by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and will be assigned a
control number. OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.
Since there are additional informational collection requirements
required by this proposed amendment, EPA has determined that the
Paperwork Reduction Act does apply to this proposed rulemaking and a
revised Information Collection Request document is being prepared.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Director, Regulatory Information Division; EPA; 401 M Street
SW. (Mail Code 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.''
D. 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 amendment will have on the
regulated community will either serve to provide relief from otherwise
more burdensome requirements, or will not have a negative economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. An examination of the
impacts on small entities was discussed in the initial final rule
promulgated under Sec. 608 (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 amendment to the refrigerant recycling rule
will not have any additional negative economic impacts on any small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Contractors,
Laboratories, Major repairs, Minor repairs, Reclaimers, Reclamation,
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technician.
Dated: February 14, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Part 82, chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations,
part 82, is proposed to be amended 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 definition for ``Major
repair,'' by revising the definition for ``MVAC-like appliance,''
``reclaim,'' and ``small appliance:'' and by adding new definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 82.152 Definitions.
* * * * *
Contractor-reclaimed refrigerant means refrigerant that has
remained in custody of a single technician or contractor and a
representative sample of that refrigerant as defined in this section
has been chemically analyzed by a certified laboratory to determine
that it has been reprocessed to at least the purity specified in the
ARI Standard 700-1993, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants
(appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F). Refrigerant reprocessed in
this manner will be considered reclaimed refrigerant consistent with
the definition of reclaim contained in this section.
* * * * *
Major repairs of low-pressure chillers means repair involving
removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator or auxiliary heat
exchanger, or any repair that requires the appliance to open to the
atmosphere for more than 15 minutes or that requires large openings to
be uncovered.
* * * * *
MVAC-like appliance means mechanical vapor compression, open-drive
compressor appliances with a normal charge of 20 pounds or less of
refrigerant used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of a
non-road motor vehicle. This includes the air-conditioning equipment
found on agricultural or construction vehicles. This definition is not
intended to cover appliances using HCFC-22 refrigerant.
* * * * *
Non-major repair of low pressure chillers means any service
procedures or repairs that: (1) involve uncovering only a small opening
(less than 2 inches in diameter) in the appliance for no more than 15
minutes, or (2) involve openings that may be capped or isolated using
isolation valves, and (3) permit the technician to hold the appliance
at 0 psig.
* * * * *
Reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to at least the
purity specified in the ARI Standard 700-1995, Specifications for
Fluorocarbon Refrigerants (appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F),
and to verify this purity using the analytical methodology prescribed
in the ARI Standard 700-1995. Contractor-reclaimed refrigerant as
defined in this section is included in this definition.
* * * * *
Representative sample means for the purposes of 40 CFR Part 82,
subpart F, a sample taken from each container of refrigerant to be
chemically analyzed and tested to ARI Standard 700-1995 prior to
packaging for resale or reuse. Such samples will be at least 500 ml and
shipped in stainless steel test cylinders that include \1/4\'' valve
assembly and pressure relief rupture
[[Page 7873]]
disc. Cylinders shall be rated by the Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
Small appliance means any product that is fully manufactured,
charged, and hermetically sealed in a factory with five (5) pounds or
less of refrigerant, including, but not limited to, refrigerators and
freezers designed for home use or for medical or industrial research,
room air conditioners (including window air conditioners and packaged
terminal air heat pumps), dehumidifiers, under-the-counter ice makers,
vending machines, and drinking water coolers.
* * * * *
3. Section 82.154 is amended by revising paragraphs (g), (h), and
(m) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.154 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(g) No person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant any
class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of used
refrigerant unless:
(1) The class I or class II substance has been reclaimed as defined
in Sec. 82.152;
(2) The class I or class II substance was used only in an MVAC or
MVAC-like appliance and is to be used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like
appliance and recycled in accordance with 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart B;
(3) The class I or class II substance is contained in an appliance
that is sold or offered for sale together with the class I or class II
substance; or
(4) The class I or class II substance is being transferred between
two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same holding company.
(h) No person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant
any class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of used
refrigerant unless:
(1) The class I or class II substance has been reclaimed by a
person who has been certified as a reclaimer pursuant to Sec. 82.165 or
the substance has undergone contractor reclamation;
(2) The class I or class II substance was used only in an MVAC or
MVAC-like appliance and is to be used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like
appliance and recycled in accordance with 40 CFR 82 part Subpart B;
(3) The class I or class II substance is contained in an appliance
that is sold or offered for sale together with the class I or class II
substance; or
(4) The class I or class II substance is being transferred between
two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same holding company.
* * * * *
(m) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or
distribution, any class I or class II substance for use as a
refrigerant to any person unless:
(1) The buyer has been certified as a Type I, Type II, Type III, or
Universal technician pursuant to Sec. 82.161;
(2) The buyer has completed a voluntary certification program
requesting approval under Sec. 82.161(g) by December 9, 1994. This
paragraph expires on May 15, 1995.
(3) The buyer has been certified pursuant to 40 CFR part 82,
subpart B and the refrigerant is either CFC-12 or an approved
substitute consisting wholly or in part of a class I or class II
substance for use in motor vehicle air conditioners pursuant to 40 CFR
part 82, subpart G;
(4) The refrigerant is sold only for eventual resale to certified
technicians or to appliance manufacturers (e.g., sold by a manufacturer
to a wholesaler, sold by a technician to a reclaimer);
(5) The refrigerant is sold to an appliance manufacturer;
(6) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance, and after January
9, 1995, the refrigerant is contained in an appliance with a fully
assembled refrigerant circuit;
(7) The refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a certified
technician or an apprentice during maintenance, service, or repair; or
(8) The refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a technician
who successfully completed a voluntary certification program requesting
approval under Sec. 82.161(g) by December 9, 1994. This paragraph
(m)(8) expires on May 15, 1995.
(9) Rules stayed for reconsideration. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this subpart, the effectiveness of 40 CFR 82.154(m), only
as it applies to refrigerant contained in appliances without fully
assembled refrigerant circuits, is stayed from April 27, 1995
[until EPA takes final action on its reconsideration of these
provisions. EPA will publish any such final action in the Federal
Register].
* * * * *
4. Section 82.156 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) to
read as follows:
Sec. 82.156 Required practices.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Be pressurized to 0 psig before it is opened if it is a low-
pressure appliance and cover openings when isolation valves are present
or when the openings can be capped during the service. 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
* * * * *
5. Section 82.158(b)(1) is amended by removing the phrase ``ARI
Standard 740-1993, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling and/
or Reclaim Equipment (ARI 740-1993) (appendix B)'' and adding in its
place ``appendix B'', by revising paragraph (b)(3), by removing
paragraph (b)(4), by redesignating paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) as
paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5), and by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 82.158 Standards for recycling and recovery equipment.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The equipment must meet the ``General Equipment Requirements''
in Section 4 of appendix B.
* * * * *
(6) Effective [90 days after publication of the final rule],
equipment that is advertised or marketed as ``recycling equipment''
must be capable of cleaning the standard contaminated refrigerant
sample of appendix B, Section 5, to the levels in the following table
when tested under the conditions of appendix B.
Maximum Contaminant Levels of Recycled Refrigerants in Same Owner's Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminants Low pressure systems R-12 systems All other systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Content (by wt.)................ 1.0 PPM................ 1.0 PPM................ 1.0 PPM
[[Page 7874]]
Moisture (by wt.).................... 20 PPM................. 10 PPM................. 20 PPM
Non Condensable Gas (by vol.)........ N/A.................... 2.0%................... 2.0%
High Boiling Residues (by vol.)...... 1.0%................... 0.02%.................. 0.02%
Chlorides by Silver Nitrate Test..... No turbidity........... No turbidity........... No turbidity.
Particulates......................... Visually clean......... Visually clean......... Visually clean.
Other Refrigerants................... 2.0%................... 2.0%................... 2.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Section 82.164 is amended by revising the heading and paragraphs
(a), (b), and by removing paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) to read
as follows:
Sec. 82.164 Reclaimer certification programs.
* * * * *
(a) Effective persons reclaiming used refrigerant for sale to a new
owner must either:
(1) Be a reclaimer certified by an EPA-approved reclaimer
certification program in accordance with this section and the
requirements specified in Sec. 82.165;
(2) In cases where the custody and control of the refrigerant
charge is maintained, have a representative sample of that refrigerant
from each container tested by a laboratory certified by an EPA-approved
laboratory certification program in accordance with Sec. 82.167 to
ensure that the refrigerant has been reclaimed to at least ARI Standard
700-1995; or
(3) As permitted in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Reclaimers certified by EPA prior to [30 Days From the Date of
Publication of the final rule] may continue to reclaim used refrigerant
for sale to a new owner until six months from the date EPA approves at
least one reclaimer certification program.
(2) Reclaimers certified by EPA prior to [30 Days From the Date of
Publication of the final rule] may not reclaim used refrigeration for
sale to a new owner six months after the date EPA approves at least one
reclaimer certification program, unless the reclaimer has been
certified by an EPA-approved reclaimer certification program, approved
in accordance with this section.
(b) Any person seeking approval as a reclaimer certification
program may apply for approval by the Administrator. The application
must be sent to: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager, Reclaimer
Certification, Stratospheric Protection Division, 6205J, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. Applications for approval must include written information
verifying the ability of the reclaimer certification program to ensure
that reclaimers it certifies meet the criteria listed in this section
and in Sec. 82.165.
(1) Reclaimer certification programs must demonstrate to EPA the
ability to perform oversight and verification to provide reasonable
assurance that the certified reclaimers will reclaim used refrigerant
for sale to a new owner to at least ARI Standard 700-1995 in accordance
with this section.
(2) Reclaimer certification programs must demonstrate to EPA the
ability to perform all recordkeeping and reporting requirements listed
in Sec. 82.166(g), (h) and (s) and verify that all persons seeking to
become and remain certified reclaimers meet the criteria set forth in
Sec. 82.165.
(3) Reclaimer certification programs must maintain and effectively
distribute a list of names and addresses of all reclaimers certified by
the reclaimer certification program.
(4) Reclaimer certification programs must create, distribute, and
control the use of a seal, logo, or other like notification, indicating
that an approved reclaimer certification program has certified the
reclaimer. The seal, logo, or other like notification must contain the
following standardized language: ``________ has been certified as a
refrigerant reclaimer required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.'' The
certified reclaimer must display this notification conspicuously.
(5) Reclaimer certification programs must decertify a program where
a pattern of violations occurs. The method of revoking certification of
the particular reclaimer must be reasonable (such as including a
provision for appeal) and conducted in a timely manner.
(6) Reclaimer certification programs must submit to EPA, in
accordance with Sec. 82.166(h), information concerning the quantity of
material sent for reclamation, the mass of refrigerant reclaimed, and
the mass of waste products.
(7) Reclaimer certification programs must demonstrate that
certificates or other information indicating the certification of a
reclaimer will not be transferable. In the event of a change in
ownership of a certified reclaimer the new owner of the entity shall
notify the reclaimer certification program within 30 days of the change
of ownership.
(8) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may
result in the revocation or suspension of the approval of the reclaimer
certification program. In such cases, the Administrator or her or his
designated representative shall give notice to the organization setting
forth the basis for her or his determination and comply with the
procedures contained in Sec. 82.169.
6a. Section 82.165 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 82.165 Reclaimer certification criteria.
(a) Persons seeking to become certified reclaimers must be
certified by an EPA-approved reclaimer certification program in
accordance with Sec. 82.164. Persons seeking to become certified
reclaimers will be required to demonstrate the ability to meet the
criteria set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
(b) Certified reclaimers must submit monthly processing reports to
the approved certification program. These processing reports must
include, but are not limited to, the amount of reclaimed refrigerant
each certified reclaimer has processed during the preceding month. The
reclaimer certification program will examine the data received by the
reclaimers to ensure completeness.
(c) Reclaimers seeking to become certified must submit to the
reclaimer certification programs at least three samples of reclaimed
refrigerant. The reclamation certification program or a designated
laboratory must chemically analyze three samples of refrigerant
processed by each of the reclaimer's facilities prior to certifying the
reclaimer. Each calendar year the reclaimer certification program must
receive and chemically analyze at least four representative samples of
refrigerant processed by each of the reclaimer's facilities. These
tests must be performed on a random basis.
(d) Reclaimers must submit and update an accurate list of all
equipment used to reprocess and analyze used refrigerant to the
reclamation certification program. Reclaimer
[[Page 7875]]
certification programs must maintain a list of equipment used to
reprocess and to analyze the used refrigerant by each reclaimer
certified by that reclaimer certification program.
(e) Reclaimers certified by a reclaimer certification program that
has its certification revoked in accordance with Sec. 82.164(b)(7) must
be recertified by another EPA-approved certification program within six
months of receiving notification of the revocation.
(f) Reclaimers certified by a reclaimer certification program must
release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during the
reclamation process and dispose of wastes from the reclamation process
in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
7. Section 82.166 is amended by revising paragraph (g) and adding
paragraphs (r), (s), and (t) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(g) Reclaimer certification programs must maintain records of the
quantity of material sent to them for reclamation, the mass of
refrigerant reclaimed, and the mass of waste products. Reclaimer
certification programs must report this information to the
Administrator annually within 30 days of the end of the calendar year.
* * * * *
(r) Laboratory certification programs must maintain records of the
quantity of material sent to them for purity testing, the mass of
refrigerant tested, mass of waste products and information indicating
the amount of the total charge of used refrigerant that the
representative sample received and analyzed by the certified
laboratories was drawn from. Laboratory certification programs must
report this information to the Administrator annually within 30 days of
the end of the calendar year.
(s) Reclaimer certification programs must maintain a list of
equipment used to reprocess and to analyze the refrigerant used by each
reclaimer certified by the reclaimer certification program. Reclaimer
certification programs must maintain a list of names and addresses of
all reclaimers certified by the reclaimer certification program.
(t) Any contractor or technician reclaiming refrigerant consistent
with the definition of contractor reclamation must keep records
indicating that the custody and control of the refrigerant has been
maintained. Records must include the quantity of refrigerant, the date
and location of where the refrigerant was recovered, the date(s) and
location(s) of where the refrigerant is stored, the date(s) and
location(s) of where representative samples are drawn, and the date(s)
and location(s) of where the refrigerant is sold after a certified
laboratory has verified the quality of the refrigerant.
8. Section 82.167 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 82.167 Laboratory certification.
(a) Any laboratory certification program may apply for approval by
the Administrator to certify laboratories. The application must be sent
to: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager, Laboratory Certification,
Stratospheric Protection Division, 6205J, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Applications for
approval must include written information verifying the ability of the
laboratory certification program to ensure that laboratories it
certifies meet the criteria listed in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this section and Sec. 82.168.
(b) Laboratory certification programs must demonstrate to EPA the
ability to perform oversight and analysis to ensure that the certified
laboratories will test representative samples of used refrigerant for
sale to a new owner to at least ARI Standard 700-1995 in accordance
with this section.
(c) Laboratory certification programs must demonstrate to EPA the
ability to perform all recordkeeping and reporting requirements listed
in Sec. 82.166(r) and (t) and to verify that all persons seeking to
become and remain certified laboratories meet the criteria set forth in
Sec. 82.168.
(d) Laboratory certification programs must maintain information
concerning a certified laboratory's ability to test refrigerant purity
levels acceptable under the ARI 700-1995 standard and a commitment to
comply with the standards established by the EPA-approved certifier.
(e) Laboratory certification programs must test verify at least
three refrigerants submitted by a potentially certified laboratory
prior to the issuance of certification. Only laboratories that
accurately determine within an acceptable range each contaminant in any
of the qualifying samples will be certified. The following list of
values constitutes acceptable ranges for reporting contaminants:
(1) Refrigerant purity: +/-0.01%;
(2) Water: +/-the greater of 3ppm or 10% of the actual value;
(3) High Boiling Residue: +/-the greater of 0.01% (absolute) or 20%
of the actual value; and
(4) Non-condensibles: +/-the greater of 0.2% (absolute) or 10% of
the actual value.
(f) Laboratory certification programs must perform a site visit
prior to certifying the laboratory to ensure that the laboratory has
the capability of performing correct refrigerant analysis and that the
laboratory did analyze samples submitted for verification. Site visits
must include a visual inspection of the laboratory's equipment and
ascertain whether each item necessary for routine refrigerant analysis
exists and is functional. In addition, the site visit must include a
procedural review of the laboratory's methods and procedures for
refrigerant analysis.
(g) Laboratory certification programs must develop and perform a
schedule of continued site visits to ensure the continued
qualifications of the laboratory. These visits will be consistent with
the requirements in Sec. 82.168(c). Site visits must occur on at least
a quarterly basis.
(h) Laboratory certification programs must require, receive, and
consolidate monthly processing reports submitted from the certified
laboratories. These processing reports must include, but are not
limited to, the amount of used refrigerant tested during the preceding
month and the total amount of used refrigerant the tested amount
represents. The laboratory certification program will examine the data
received by the laboratories for completeness and accuracy.
(i) Laboratory certification programs must submit to EPA in
accordance with Sec. 82.166(r) information concerning the quantity of
material sent for testing, the mass of refrigerant tested, the mass of
waste products, and the total amount of used refrigerant that has had
its purity verified in this manner.
(j) Laboratory certification programs must create, distribute, and
control the use of a seal, logo, or other like notification, indicating
that an approved laboratory certification program has certified the
laboratory. EPA anticipates that a seal or logo will be necessary. The
seal, logo, or like notification must contain the following statement:
``________ has been certified as a certified laboratory to analyze
refrigerant as required by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.'' The laboratory
certification program must require the display of this notification
conspicuously.
(k) Only laboratories that are able to substantiate their ability
to comply with the criteria established in this subsection may be
certified. A certified laboratory no longer able to meet the continuing
criteria must be decertified.
[[Page 7876]]
If such a case occurs, EPA must be notified within 30 days.
(l) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may
result in the revocation or suspension of the approval of the
laboratory certification program. In such cases, the Administrator or
her or his designated representative shall give notice to the
organization setting forth the basis for her or his determination and
identifying the procedures contained in Sec. 82.169.
9. Section 82.168 is added to subpart F to reads as follows:
Sec. 82.168 Laboratory certification criteria.
(a) Persons seeking to have their laboratories certified must be
certified by a laboratory certification program approved in accordance
with Sec. 82.167. Persons seeking to have their laboratories certified
will be required to demonstrate to the laboratory certification program
the ability to meet the criteria set forth in this section.
(b) Persons seeking to have their laboratories certified must
submit to a laboratory certification program for the purposes of test
verification at least three refrigerants prior to the issuance of
certification. Only laboratories that accurately determine, within an
acceptable range, each contaminant in any of the qualifying samples
will be certified. The following lists of values constitute acceptable
ranges for reporting contaminants:
(1) Refrigerant purity: +/-0.01%;
(2) Water: +/-the greater of 3ppm or 10% of the actual value;
(3) High Boiling Residue: +/-the greater of 0.01% (absolute) or 20%
of the actual value; and
(4) Non-condensibles: +/-the greater of 0.2% (absolute) or 10% of
the actual value.
(c) Persons seeking to have their laboratories certified must
permit a site visit by a laboratory certification program prior to
becoming certified for the purposes of ensuring that the laboratory has
the capability of performing correct refrigerant analysis and that the
laboratory did analyze samples submitted for verification. Site visits
must include a visual inspection of the laboratory's equipment tod
ascertain whether each item necessary for compliance exists and is
functional for routine refrigerant analysis. In addition, the site
visit must include a procedural review of the laboratory's methods and
procedures for refrigerant analysis.
(d) Certified laboratories must permit a schedule of continued site
visits to ensure the continued qualifications of the laboratory. These
visits will be consistent with the requirements in paragraph (c) of
this section. Site visits must occur on at least a quarterly basis.
(e) Certified laboratories must submit monthly processing reports
to the laboratory certification program. These processing reports must
include, but are not limited to, the amount of used refrigerant tested
during the preceding month and the total amount of used refrigerant the
tested amount represents. The laboratory certification program will
examine the data received by the laboratories to ensure completeness
and accuracy.
(f) Laboratories certified by a laboratory certification program
for which certification has been revoked in accordance with
Sec. 82.167(l) must be recertified by another EPA-approved
certification program within six months of receiving notification of
the revocation.
10. Section 82.169 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 82.169 Suspension and revocation procedures.
(a) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may
result in the revocation or suspension of the approval to certify
technicians, laboratories, reclaimers and/or recycling and recovery
equipment. In such cases, the Administrator or her or his designated
representative shall give notice to the organization setting forth the
basis for her or his determination.
(b) The revoked or suspended certification program that chooses to
request a hearing must file that request in writing within 30 days of
the date of the Agency's decision at the address listed in Sec. 82.160
and shall set forth the certification program's objections to the
Agency's decision and data to support the objections.
(c) If, after review of the request and supporting data, the
Administrator or her or his designated representative finds that the
request raises a substantial and factual issue, she or he shall provide
the certification program with a hearing.
(d) After granting a request for a hearing the Administrator or her
or his designated representative shall designate a Presiding Officer
for the hearing.
(e) The hearing shall be held as soon as practicable at a time and
place determined by the Administrator, the designated representative,
or by the Presiding Officer.
(f) The Administrator or her or his designated representative may,
at his or her discretion, direct that all argument and presentation of
evidence be concluded within a specified period established by the
Administrator or her or his designated representative. Said period may
be no less than 30 days from the date that the first written offer of a
hearing is made to the laboratory certification program. To expedite
proceedings, the Administrator or her or his designated representative
may direct that the decision of the Presiding Officer (who may, but
need not, be the Administrator) shall be the final EPA decision.
(g) Upon appointment pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, the
Presiding Officer will establish a hearing file. The file shall consist
of the following:
(1) The determination issued by the Administrator under
Sec. 82.165;
(2) The request for a hearing and the supporting data submitted
therewith;
(3) All documents relating to the request for certification and all
documents submitted therewith; and
(4) Correspondence and other data material to the hearing.
(h) The hearing file will be available for inspection by the
applicant at the office of the Presiding Officer.
(i) An applicant may appear in person or may be represented by
counsel or by any other duly authorized representative.
(j) The Presiding Officer, upon the request of any party or at his
or her discretion, may arrange for a pre-hearing conference at a time
and place he/she specifies. Such pre-hearing conference will consider
the following:
(1) Simplification of the issues;
(2) Stipulations, admissions of fact, and the introduction of
documents;
(3) Limitation of the number of expert witnesses;
(4) Possibility of agreement disposing of any or all of the issues
in dispute; and
(5) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the
hearing, including such additional tests as may be agreed upon by the
parties.
(k) The results of the conference shall be reduced to writing by
the Presiding Officer and made part of the record.
(l) Hearings shall be conducted by the Presiding Officer in an
informal but orderly and expeditious manner. The parties may offer oral
or written evidence, subject to the exclusion by the Presiding Officer
of irrelevant, immaterial, and repetitious evidence.
(m) Witnesses will not be required to testify under oath. However,
the Presiding Officer shall call to the attention of witnesses that
their statements may be subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001
which imposes penalties for knowingly making false statements or
representations or using false documents in any matter within the
jurisdiction of any
[[Page 7877]]
department or agency of the United States.
(n) Any witness may be examined or cross-examined by the Presiding
Officer, the parties, or their representatives.
(o) Hearings shall be reported verbatim. Copies of transcripts of
proceedings may be purchased by the applicant from the reporter.
(p) All written statements, charts, tabulations, and similar data
offered in evidence at the hearings shall, upon a showing satisfactory
to the Presiding Officer of their authenticity, relevancy, and
materiality, be received in evidence and shall constitute a part of the
record.
(q) Oral argument may be permitted at the discretion of the
Presiding Officer and shall be reported as part of the record unless
otherwise ordered by the Presiding Officer.
(r) The Presiding Officer shall make an initial decision which
shall include written findings and conclusions and the reasons or basis
regarding all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented
on the record. The findings, conclusions, and written decision shall be
provided to the parties and made a part of the record. The initial
decision shall become the decision of the Administrator without further
proceedings, unless there is an appeal to the Administrator or motion
for review by the Administrator within 20 days of the date the initial
decision was filed.
(s) On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the
Administrator or her or his designated representative shall have all
the powers which he or she would have in making the initial decision,
including the discretion to require or allow briefs, oral argument, the
taking of additional evidence, or the remanding to the Presiding
Officer for additional proceedings. The decision by the Administrator
or her or his representative designate shall include written findings
and conclusions and the reasons or basis therefore on all the material
issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the appeal or
considered in the review.
11. Appendix B to subpart F is revised to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart F--Performance of Refrigerant Recovery,
Recycling, and/or Reclaim Equipment
This appendix is based on Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute Standard 740-1995.
Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment
Section 1. Purpose
1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish
methods of testing for rating and evaluating the performance of
refrigerant recovery, and/or recycling equipment and general
equipment requirements (herein referred to as ``equipment'') for
contaminant or purity levels, capacity, speed and purge loss to
minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated refrigerants.
Section 2. Scope
2.1 Scope. This standard applies to equipment for recovering
and/or recycling single refrigerants, azeotropics, zeotropic blends,
and their normal contaminants from refrigerant systems. This
standard defines the test apparatus, test gas mixtures, sampling
procedures and analytical techniques that will be used to determine
the performance of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment
(hereinafter, ``equipment'').
2.1.2 Refrigerants used to evaluate equipment shall be pure
halogenated hydrocarbons, azeotropes and blends containing
halogenated hydrocarbons.
Section 3. Definitions
Definitions. All terms in this Appendix will follow the
definitions in Sec. 82.152 unless otherwise defined in this
Appendix.
Clearing Refrigerant. Procedures used to remove trapped
refrigerant from equipment before switching from one refrigerant to
another.
High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. For equipment having at
least one designated refrigerant (see 11.2) with a boiling point in
the range of -50 to +10 deg.C, the rate will be measured for R-22,
or the lowest boiling point refrigerant if R-22 is not a designated
refrigerant.
Published Ratings. A statement of the assigned values of those
performance characteristics, under stated rating conditions, by
which a unit may be chosen to fit its application. These values
apply to all units of like nominal size and type (identification)
produced by the same manufacturer. As used herein, the term
``published rating'' includes the rating of all performance
characteristics shown on the unit or published in specifications,
advertising or other literature controlled by the manufacturer, at
stated rating conditions.
Push/Pull Method. The push/pull refrigerant recovery method is
defined as the process of transferring liquid refrigerant from a
refrigeration system to a receiving vessel by lowering the pressure
in the vessel and raising the pressure in the system, and by
connecting a separate line between the system liquid port and the
receiving vessel.
Recycle Flow Rate. The amount of refrigerant processed divided
by the time elapsed in the recycling mode. For equipment which uses
a separate recycling sequence, the recycle rate does not include the
recovery rate (or elapsed time). For equipment which does not use a
separate recycling sequence, the recycle rate is a rate based soley
on the higher of the liquid or vapor recovery rate, by which the
contaminant levels were measured.
Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Refrigerant remaining in equipment
after clearing.
``Shall,'' ``Should,'' ``Recommended'' or ``It is Recommended.''
``Shall,'' ``should,'' ``recommended'' or ``it is recommended''
shall be interpreted as follows:
Shall. Where ``shall'' or ``shall not'' is used for a provision
specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with the
standard is claimed.
Should, Recommended or It is Recommended. ``Should,''
``recommended'' or ``it is recommended'' is used to indicate
provisions which are not mandatory but which are desirable as good
practice.
Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample. A mixture of new or
reclaimed refrigerant and specified quantities of identified
contaminants which constitute the mixture to be processed by the
equipment under test. These contaminant levels are expected only
from severe service conditions.
Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of refrigerant remaining in the
equipment after the recovery or recovery/recycling operation but
before clearing.
Vapor Recovery Rate. The average rate that refrigerant is
withdrawn from the mixing chamber between two pressures as vapor
recovery rate is changing pressure and temperature starting at
saturated conditions either 24 deg.C or at the boiling point 100
kPa (abs), whichever is higher. The final pressure condition is 10%
of the initial pressure, but not lower than the equipment final
recovery vacuum and not higher than 100 kPa (abs).
Section 4. General Equipment Requirements
4.1 Equipment Information. The equipment manufacturer shall
provide operating instructions, necessary maintenance procedures and
source information for replacement parts and repair.
4.2 Filter Replacement. The equipment shall indicate when any
filter/drier(s) needs replacement. This requirement can be met by
use of a moisture transducer and indicator light, by use of a sight
glass/moisture indicator or by some measurement of the amount of
refrigerant processed such as a flow meter or hour meter. Written
instructions such as ``to change the filter every 181 kg, or every
30 days'' shall not be acceptable except for equipment in large
systems where the liquid recovery rate is greater than 11.3 kg/min
where the filter/drier(s) would be changed for every job.
4.3 Purge of Non-Condensable. If non-condensables are purged,
the equipment shall either automatically purge non-condensables or
provide indicating means to guide the purge process.
4.4 Purge Loss. The total refrigerant loss due to purging non-
condensables, draining oil and clearing refrigerant (see 9.5) shall
be less than 3% (by weight) of total processed refrigerant.
4.5 Permeation Rate. High pressure hose assemblies 5/8 in. [16
mm] nomimal and smaller shall not exceed a permeation rate of 3.9 g/
cm2/yr (internal surface) at a temperature of 48.8 deg.C. Hose
assemblies UL recognized as having passed ANSI/UL 1963 requirements
shall be accepted without testing. See 7.1.4.
4.6 Clearing Trapped Refrigerant. For equipment rated for more
than one refrigerant, the manufacturer shall provide a method and
instructions which will accomplish connections and clearing within
15 minutes. Special equipment, other than a vacuum pump or manifold
gauge set shall be furnished. The clearing procedure shall not rely
upon the storage cylinder below
[[Page 7878]]
saturated pressure conditions at ambient temperature.
4.7 Temperature. The equipment shall be evaluated at 24 deg.C
with additional limited evaluation at 40 deg.C. Normal operating
conditions range from 10 deg.C to 40 deg.C.
4.8 Exemptions. Equipment intended for recovery only shall be
exempt from 4.2 and 4.3.
Section 5. Contaminated Refrigerants
5.1 Sample Characteristics. The standard contaminated
refrigerant sample shall have the characteristics specified in Table
1, except as provided in 5.2.
5.2 Recovery-Only Testing. Recovery equipment not rated for any
specific contaminant shall be tested with new or reclaimed
refrigerant.
Section 6. Test Apparatus
6.1 General Recommendations. The recommended test apparatus is
described in the following paragraphs. If alternate test apparatus
are employed, the user shall be able to demonstrate that they
produce results equivalent to the specified referee apparatus.
6.2 Self-Contained Equipment Test Apparatus. The apparatus,
shown in Figure 1, shall consist of:
6.2.1 Mixing Chamber. A mixing chamber consisting of a tank
with a conical-shaped bottom, a bottom port and piping for
delivering refrigerant to the equipment, various ports and valves
for adding refrigerant to the chamber and stirring means for mixing.
6.2.2 Filling Storage Cylinder. The storage cylinder to be
filled by the refrigerant transferred shall be cleaned and at the
pressure of the recovered refrigerant at the beginning of the test.
It will not be filled over 80%, by volume.
6.2.3 Vapor Feed. Vapor refrigerant feed consisting of
evaporator, control valves and piping to create a 3.0 deg.C
superheat condition at an evaporating temperature of 21
deg.C2K.
6.2.4 Alternative Vapor Feed. An alternative method for vapor
feed shall be to pass the refrigerant through a boiler and then
through an automatic pressure regulating valve set at different
saturation pressures, moving from saturated pressure at 24 deg.C to
final pressure of recovery.
6.2.5 Liquid Feed. Liquid refrigerant feed consisting of
control valves, sampling port and piping.
6.2.6 Instrumentation. Instrumentation capable of measuring
weight, temperature, pressure and refrigerant loss, as required.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 7879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.000
[[Page 7880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.001
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 7881]]
6.3 Size. The size of the mixing chamber shall be a minimum of
.09 m\3\. The bottom port and the refrigerant feed shall depend on
the size of the equipment. Typically, the mixing valves and piping
shall be 9.5 mm. For large equipment to be used on chillers, the
minimum inside diameter of ports, valves and pipings shall be the
smaller of the manufacturer's recommendation or 37 mm.
6.4 System Dependent Equipment Test Apparatus. This test
apparatus is to be used for final recovery vacuum rating of all
system dependent equipment.
6.4.1 Test Setup. The test apparatus shown in Figure 2 consists
of a complete refrigeration system. The manufacturer shall identify
the refrigerants to be tested. The test apparatus can be modified to
facilitate operation or testing of the system dependent equipment if
the modifications to the apparatus are specifically described within
the manufacturer's literature. (See Figure 2.) A 6.3 mm balance line
shall be connected across the test apparatus between the high and
low pressure sides, with an isolation valve located at the
connection to the compressor high side. A 6.3 mm access port with a
valve core shall be located in the balance line for the purpose of
measuring final recovery vacuum at the conclusion of the test.
Section 7. Performance Testing
7.1 General Testing.
7.1.1 Temperatures. Testing shall be conducted at an ambient
temperature of 24EC 1K except high temperature vapor
recovery shall be at 40EC 1K. The evaporator conditions
of 6.2.3 shall be maintained as long as liquid refrigerant remains
in the mixing chamber.
7.1.2 Refrigerants. The equipment shall be tested for all
designated refrigerants (see 11.2). All tests in Section 7 shall be
completed for each refrigerant before starting tests with the next
refrigerant.
7.1.3 Selected Tests. Tests shall be as appropriate for the
equipment type and ratings parameters selected (see 9.9, 11.1 and
11.2).
7.1.4 Hose Assemblies. For the purpose of limiting refrigerant
emissions to the atmosphere, hose assemblies shall be tested for
permeation according to ANSI/UL Standard 1963, Section 40.10.
7.2 Equipment Preparation and Operation. The equipment shall be
prepared and operated per the operating instructions.
7.3 Test Batch. The test batch consisting of refrigerant sample
(see Section 5) of the test refrigerant shall be prepared and
thoroughly mixed. Continued mixing or stirring shall be required
during the test while liquid refrigerant remains in the mixing
chamber. The mixing chamber shall be filled to 80% level by volume.
7.3.1 Control Test Batch. Prior to starting the test for the
first batch for each refrigerant, a liquid sample will be drawn from
the mixing chamber and analyzed per Section 8 to assure that
contaminant levels match Table 1 within 10 ppm for
moisture, 20 ppm for particulate, 20 ppm for
oleic acid and 0.5% for oil.
7.4 Recovery Tests (Recovery and Recovery/Recycle Equipment).
7.4.1 Determining Recovery Rates. The liquid and vapor
refrigerant recovery rates shall be measured during the first test
batch for each refrigerant (see 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4). Equipment
preparation and recovery cylinder changeover shall not be included
in elapsed time measurements for determining vapor recovery rate and
liquid refrigerant recovery rate. Operations such as subcooling the
recovery cylinder shall be included. Recovery cylinder shall be the
same size as normally furnished by the equipment manufacturer.
Oversized tanks shall not be permitted.
7.4.1.1 Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the
recovery rate using the liquid refrigerant feed means (see 6.2.5)
shall be determined. After the equipment reaches stabilized
conditions of condensing temperature and/or recovery cylinder
pressure, the recovery process shall be stopped and an initial
weight shall be taken of the mixing chamber (see 9.2). The recovery
process shall be continued for a period of time sufficient to
achieve the accuracy in 9.4. The recovery process shall be stopped
and a final weight shall be taken of the mixing chamber.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 7882]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 7883]]
7.4.1.2 Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate. If elected, the
average vapor flow rate shall be measured to accuracy requirements
in clause 9.4 under conditions with no liquid refrigerant in the
mixing chamber. The liquid recovery feed means shall be used. At
initial conditions of saturated vapor at the higher of 24EC or the
boiling temperature (100 kPa absolute pressure), the weight of the
mixing chamber and the pressure shall be recorded. At final
conditions representing pressure in the mixing chamber of 10% of the
initial condition, but not less than the final recovery vacuum (see
9.6) nor more than 100 kPa, measure the weight of the mixing chamber
and the elapsed time.
7.4.1.3 High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate. Applicable for
equipment having at least one designated refrigerant (see 11.2) with
a boiling point between -50EC and +10EC. Measure the rate for R-22,
or the refrigerant with the lowest boiling point if R-22 is not a
designated refrigerant. Repeat the test in 7.4.1.2 at saturated
conditions at 40EC and continue to operate equipment to assure it
will achieve the final recovery vacuum (see 7.4.3).
7.4.2 Recovery Operation. This test is for determining the
final recovery vacuum and the ability to remove contaminants as
appropriate. If equipment is rated for liquid recovery (see
7.4.1.3), liquid recovery feed means described in 6.2.5 shall be
used. If not, vapor recovery means described in 6.2.3 or 6.2.4 shall
be used. Continue recovery operation until all liquid is removed
from the test apparatus and vapor is removed to the point where
equipment shuts down by automatic means or is manually shut off per
operating instructions.
7.4.2.1 Oil Draining. Capture oil from the equipment at
intervals as required in the instructions. Record the weight of the
container. Completely remove refrigerant from oil by evacuation or
other appropriate means. The weight difference shall be used in
9.5.2.
7.4.3 Final Recovery Vacuum. At the end of the first test batch
for each refrigerant, the liquid valve and vapor valve of the
apparatus shall be closed. After waiting 1 minute, the mixing
chamber pressure shall be recorded (see 9.6).
7.4.4 Residual Refrigerant. This test will measure the mass of
remaining refrigerant in the equipment after clearing and therefore
the potential for mixing refrigerants (see 4.6).
7.4.4.1 Initial Conditions. At the end of the last test for
each batch for each refrigerant, the equipment shall be disconnected
from the test apparatus (Figure 1). Recycle per 7.5, if appropriate.
Perform refrigerant clearing operations as called for in the
instruction manual. Capture and record the weight of any refrigerant
which would have been emitted to the atmosphere during the clearing
process for use in 9.5. If two loops are used for recycling, trapped
refrigerant shall be measured for both.
7.4.4.2 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. Evacuate an empty test
cylinder to 1.0 kPa absolute. Record the empty weight of the test
cylinder. Open all valves to the equipment so as to provide access
to all trapped refrigerant. Connect the equipment to the test
cylinder and operate valves to recover the residual refrigerant.
Record the weight of the test cylinder using a recovery cylinder
pressure no less than specified in 6.2.2. Place the test cylinder in
liquid nitrogen for a period of 30 minutes or until a vacuum of 1000
microns is reached, whichever occurs first.
7.5 Recycling Tests (Recovery/Recycle Equipment).
7.5.1 Recycling Operation. As each recovery cylinder is filled
in 7.4.2, recycle according to operating instructions. There will
not necessarily be a separate recycling sequence. Note non-
condensable purge measurement in 9.5.
7.5.1.1 Recycle Flow Rate. While recycling the first recovery
cylinder for each refrigerant, determine the recycling flow rate by
appropriate means (see 9.3) to achieve the accuracy required in 9.4.
7.5.2 Non-Condensable Sample. After completing 7.4.3, prepare a
second test batch (7.3). Recover per 7.4.2 until the current
recovery cylinder is filled to 80% level by volume. Recycle per
7.5.1. Mark this cylinder and set aside for taking the vapor sample.
For equipment having both an internal tank of at least 3 kg
refrigerant capacity and an external recovery cylinder, two recovery
cylinders shall be marked and set aside. The first is the cylinder
described above. The second cylinder is the final recovery cylinder
after filling it to 80% level by volume and recycling.
7.5.3 Liquid Sample for Analysis. Repeat steps 7.3, 7.4.2 and
7.5.1 with further test batches until indication means in 4.2 show
the filter/drier(s) need replacing.
7.5.3.1 Multiple Pass. For equipment with a separate recycling
circuit (multiple pass), set aside the current cylinder and draw the
liquid sample (see 7.4) from the previous cylinder.
7.5.3.2 Single Pass. For equipment with the single pass
recycling circuit, draw the liquid sample (see 7.4) from the current
cylinder.
7.6 Measuring Refrigerant Loss. Refrigerant loss due to non-
condensables shall be determined by appropriate means (see 9.5.1).
The loss could occur in 7.4.1, 7.4.2 and 7.5.1.
Section 8. Sampling and Chemical Analysis Methods
8.1 Chemical Analysis. Chemical analysis methods shall be
specified in appropriate standards such as ARI 700-93 and Appendix-
93 to ARI Standard 700. If alternate test methods are employed, the
laboratory must be able to demonstrate that they produce results
equivalent to the specified referee method.
8.2 Refrigerant Sampling.
8.2.1 Water Content. The water content in refrigerant shall be
measured by the Karl Fischer Analytical Method or by the Karl
Fischer Coulometric techniques. Report the moisture level in parts
per million by weight.
8.2.2 Chloride Ions. Chloride ions shall be measured by
turbidity tests. At this time, quantitative results have not been
defined. Report chloride content as ``pass'' or ``fail.'' In the
future, when quantitative results are possible, report chloride
content as parts per million by weight.
8.2.3 Acidity. The acidity test uses the titration principle.
Report the acidity in parts per million by weight (mg KOH/kg) of
sample.
8.2.4 High Boiling Residue. High boiling residues shall use
measurement of the volume of residue after evaporating a standard
volume of refrigerant. Using weight measurement and converting to
volumetric units is acceptable. Report high boiling residues as
percent by volume.
8.2.5 Particulates/Solids. The particulates/solids measurement
employs visual examination. Report results as ``pass'' or ``fail.''
8.2.6 Non-condensables. The level of contamination by non-
condensable gases in the base refrigerant being recycled shall be
determined by gas chromatography. Report results as percent by
volume.
Section 9. Performance Calculation and Rating
9.1 Vapor Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be
measured by weight change of the mixing chamber divided by elapsed
time (see 7.4.1.2). The units shall be kg/min and the accuracy shall
be per 9.4.
9.1.1 High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate.
9.2 Liquid Refrigerant Recovery Rate. This rate shall be
measured by weight change of the mixing chamber divided by elapsed
time (see 7.4.1.3). The units shall be kg/min and the accuracy shall
be per 9.4.
9.3 Recycle Flow Rate. The recycle flow rate shall be as
defined in 3.10, expressed in kg/min, and the accuracy shall be per
9.4.
9.3.1 For equipment using multi-pass recycling or a separate
sequence, the recycle rate shall be determined by dividing the net
weight W of the refrigerant to be recycled by the actual time T
required to recycle. Any set-up or operator interruptions shall not
be included in the time T.
9.3.2 If no separate recycling sequence is used, the recycle
rate shall be the higher of the vapor refrigerant recovery rate or
the liquid refrigerant recovery rate. The recycle rate shall match a
process which leads to contaminant levels in 9.9. Specifically, a
recovery rate determined from bypassing a contaminant removal device
cannot be used as a recycle rate when the contaminant levels in 9.9
are determined by passing the refrigerant through the contaminant
removal device.
9.4 Accuracy of Flow Rates. The accuracy of test measurements
in 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 shall be .008 kg/min or flow rates
up to .42 kg/min and 2.0% for flow rates larger than .42
kg/min. Ratings shall be expressed to the nearest .02 kg/min.
9.5 Refrigerant Loss. This calculation will be based upon the
net loss of refrigerant which would have been eliminated in the non-
condensable purge process (see 7.5.1), the oil draining process (see
7.4.2.1) and the refrigerant clearing process (see 7.4.4.1), all
divided by the net refrigerant content of the test batches. The
refrigerant loss shall not exceed 3% by weight.
9.5.1 Non-Condensable Purge. Evacuate an empty container to 2
kPa absolute. Record the empty weight of the container. Place the
container in a dry ice bath. Connect the equipment purge connection
to the container and operate purge according to operating
instructions so as to capture the non-
[[Page 7884]]
condensables and lost refrigerant. Weigh the cylinder after the
recycling is complete. Equivalent means are permissible.
9.5.2 Oil Draining. Refrigerant removed from the oil after
draining shall be collected and measured in accordance with 7.4.2.1.
9.5.3 Clearing Unit. Refrigerant captured during the clearing
process shall be measured in accordance with 7.4.4.1.
9.6 Final Recovery Vacuum. The final recovery vacuum shall be
the mixing chamber pressure in 7.4.3 expressed in kPa. The accuracy
of the measurement shall be within 0.33 kPa.
9.7 Residual Trapped Refrigerant. The amount of residual
trapped refrigerant shall be the final weight minus the initial
weight of the test cylinder in 7.4.4.2, expressed in kg. The
accuracy shall be plus-minus0.02 kg and reported to the nearest
0.05 kg.
9.8 Quantity Recycled. The amount of refrigerant processed
before changing filters (see 7.5.3) shall be expressed in kg to an
accuracy of plus-minus1%.
9.9 Contaminant Levels. The contaminant levels remaining after
testing shall be published as follows:
Moisture content, ppm by weight Chloride ions, pass/fail Acidity,
ppm by weight High boiling residue, % (by volume) Particulates-
solid, pass/fail (visual examination) Non-condensables, % (by
volume)
9.10 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings. Published
ratings shall include all of the parameters as shown in Tables 2 and
3 for each refrigerant designated by the manufacturer.
Section 10. Tolerances
10.1 Tolerances. Performance related parameters shall not be
less favorable than the published ratings.
Section 11. Marking and Nameplate Data
11.1 Marking and Nameplate Data. The nameplate shall display
the manufacturer's name, model designation, type of equipment,
designated refrigerants, capacities and electrical characteristics
where applicable.
Recommended nameplate voltages for 60 Hertz systems shall
include one or more of the utilization voltages shown in Table 1 of
ARI Standard 110-90. Recommended nameplate voltages for 50 Hertz
systems shall include one or more of the utilization voltages shown
in Table 1 of IEC Standard Publication 38, IEC Standard Voltages.
11.2 Data for Designated Refrigerants. For each refrigerant
designated, the manufacturer shall include all the following that
are applicable per Table 2:
a. Liquid Recovery Rate
b. Vapor Recovery Rate
c. High Temperature Vapor Recovery Rate
d. Final Recovery Vacuum
e. Recycle Flow Rate
f. Residual Trapped Refrigerant
g. Quantity Recycled
Section 12. Voluntary Conformance
12.1 Conformance. While conformance with this standard is
voluntary, conformance shall not be claimed or implied for products
or equipment within its Purpose (Section 1) and Scope (Section 2)
unless such claims meet all of the requirements of the standards.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 7885]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.003
[[Page 7886]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29FE96.004
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 7887]]
Attachment 1 to Appendix B References
Listed here are all Standards, handbooks, and other publications
essential to the formation and implementation of the standard. All
references in this appendix are considered as part of this standard.
ANSI/ULStandard 1963, Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling
Equipment, First Edition, 1989, American National Standards Institute/
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
ARI Standard 110-90, Air-Conditioning and Refrigerating
Equipment Nameplate Voltages, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute
ARI Standard 700-93, Specifications for Fluorocarbon and
Other Refrigerants, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
ASHRAE Terminology of Heating, Ventilation, Air
Conditioning, Refrigeration, & Refrigeration, American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1991
IEC Standard Publication 38, IEC Standard Voltages,
International Electrotechnical Commission, 1983
Attachment 2 to Appendix B. Particulate Used in Standard Contaminated
Refrigerant Sample
B1 Particulate Specification.
B1.1 The particulate material (pm) will be a blend of 50% coarse
air cleaner dust as received, and 50% retained on a 200-mesh screen.
The coarse air cleaner dust is available from: AC Spark Plug Division,
General Motors Corporation, Flint, Michigan.
B1.2 Preparation of Particulate Materials. To prepare the blend of
contaminant, first wet screen a quantity of coarse air cleaner dust on
a 200-mesh screen (particle retention 74 pm).
This is done by placing a portion of the dust on a 200-mesh screen
and running water through the screen while stirring the dust with the
fingers. The fine contaminant particles passing through the screen are
discarded. The +200-mesh particles collected on the screen are removed
and dried for one hour at 110EC. The blend of standard contaminant is
prepared by mixing 50% by weight of coarse air cleaner dust as received
(after drying for one hour at 110EC) with 50% by weight of the +200-
mesh screened dust.
B1.3 Particle Size Analysis. The coarse air cleaner dust as
received and the blend used as the standard contaminant have the
following approximate particle size analysis:
Wt. % in Various Size Ranges, pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As
Size range received Blend
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-5............................................. 12 6
5-10............................................ 12 6
10-20........................................... 14 7
20-40........................................... 23 11
40-80........................................... 30 32
80-200.......................................... 9 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Appendix D to Subpart F is amended by revising section g to
read as follows:
Appendix D to Subpart F--Standards for Becoming a Certifying Program
for Technician
* * * * *
g. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Certifying programs must maintain records for at least three
years which include, but are not limited to, the names and addresses
of all individuals taking the tests, the scores of all certification
tests administered, and the dates and locations of all testing
administered.
EPA must receive an activity report from all approved certifying
programs by every January 30 and June 30, the first to be submitted
following the first full six-month period for which the program has
been approved by EPA. This report will include the pass/fail rate
and testing schedules, This will allow the Agency to determine the
relative progress and success of these programs. If the certifying
program believes a test bank question needs to be modified,
information about that question should also be included.
Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval
from EPA. Each testing center must display a copy of that letter.
Approved technician certification programs that intend to stop
providing the certification test must forward all records required
by this Appendix, Sec. 82.161 and Sec. 82.166 to a program currently
approved by EPA in accordance with this Appendix and with
Sec. 82.161.
Approved Technician Certification Programs that receive records
of certified technicians from a program that no longer offers the
certification test must inform EPA in writing at the address listed
in Sec. 82.160 within 30 of receiving these records.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-4041 Filed 2-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P