Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule Regarding a Recycling Standard Under Section 608 (Proposed) of the Clean Air Act

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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.