Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to

amend the rule on refrigerant recycling promulgated under section 608

of the Clean Air Act to clarify how the requirements of section 608

extend to refrigerants that are used as substitutes for

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)

refrigerants. This proposed rule would supplement a self-effectuating

prohibition on venting substitute refrigerants to the atmosphere that

became effective on November 15, 1995. It would also exempt certain

substitute refrigerants from the prohibition on the basis of current

evidence that their release does not pose a threat to the environment.

In addition, EPA is proposing to change the current requirements for

CFC and HCFC refrigerants to accommodate the proliferation of new

refrigerants on the market and to strengthen and clarify the existing

leak repair requirements for equipment containing CFC and HCFC

refrigerants. This proposed rule will significantly reduce emissions of

environmentally harmful refrigerants in a cost-effective manner.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by August

10, 1998, unless a hearing is requested by June 18, 1998. If a hearing

is requested, written comments must be received by August 31, 1998. If

requested, a public hearing will be held at 10:00 am, July 1, 1998, at

501 3rd St. NW, Washington, DC in the 1st Floor Conference Room.

Individuals wishing to request a hearing must contact the Stratospheric

Ozone Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 by June 18, 1998. To find

out whether a hearing will take place, contact the Stratospheric Ozone

Information Hotline between June 22, 1998 and July 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in duplicate to the attention

of Air Docket No. A-92-01 VIII.H at: Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Additional information may be

found at Air Docket No. A-91-42, which is incorporated by reference for

purposes of this rulemaking. (Please do not submit comments on this

proposed rule to A-91-42.) The Air and Radiation Docket and Information

Center is located in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460. Dockets may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debbie Ottinger, Program

Implementation Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of

Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation (6205-J), 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 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. Regulated Entities

II. Background

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Proposal

C. Public Participation

III. Scope of Statutory and Proposed Regulatory Requirements

A. Overview of Proposed Requirements

1. HFCs and PFCs

2. Chemically Active Common Gases

3. Hydrocarbons

4. Proposed Changes to Requirements for CFCs and HCFCs

B. Determination of Whether Release or Disposal Poses a Threat

to the Environment

1. Methodology

2. HFCs and PFCs

3. Chemically Active Common Gases

4. Hydrocarbons

5. Inert Atmospheric Constituents

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Appliance

a. Inclusion of Heat Transfer Devices in the Term ``Appliance''

b. Coverage of One-Time Expansion Devices

c. Secondary Loops

2. Full Charge

3. High-pressure Appliance

4. Higher-pressure Appliance

5. Leak Rate

6. Low-pressure Appliance

7. Opening

8. Reclaim

9. Refrigerant

10. Substitute

11. Technician

12. Very-high-pressure Appliance

B. Required Practices

1. Evacuation of Appliances

a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances Other Than Small

Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances

b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances

c. Evacuation Levels for Disposed MVACs, MVAC-like Appliances,

and Small Appliances

d. Request for Comment on Establishing Special Evacuation

Requirements for Heat Transfer Appliances

e. Proposed Clarifications of Evacuation Requirements

2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant

a. Background

b. Extending Purity Requirements to HFC and PFC Refrigerants

c. Updating the Purity Standard

d. Generic Standard of Purity

e. Possible Application of Standard of Purity to New

Refrigerants

3. Leak Repair

a. Comfort Cooling Chillers

b. Commercial Refrigeration

c. Industrial Process Refrigeration

d. Cross-sector Issues

e. Coverage of HFC and PFC Appliances

f. Clarification of Current Requirements

4. Proposed Changes for Servicing of MVAC-like Appliances

a. Background

b. Recent Amendments to Subpart B

c. Today's Proposal

C. Equipment Certification

1. Certification of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended

for Use with Appliances Except Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-

like Appliances

a. Background

b. Certification of Recovery/recycling Equipment Used with HFCs

and PFCs

c. Use of Representative Refrigerants in Equipment Testing

d. Additional Refrigerants

e. Materials Compatibility

f. Fractionation

g. Flammability

2. Certification of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended

for Use with Small Appliances

3. Approval of Equipment Testing Organizations to Test Recovery

Equipment with HFC and PFC Refrigerants

4. Use of Existing CFC/HCFC Recovery Equipment with HFC and PFC

Refrigerants

D. Technician Certification

E. Sales Restriction

F. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

Appliances

1. Coverage of HFCs and PFCs

2. Possible Clarifications

G. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment

H. Servicing Apertures

I. Prohibition on Manufacture of One-Time Expansion Devices that

Contain Other than Exempted Refrigerants

J. Recordkeeping Requirements

V. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

F. Children's Health Protection

[[Page 32045]]

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include those who

manufacture, own, maintain, service, repair, or dispose of all types of

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment; those who sell or reclaim

refrigerants; and manufacturers of refrigerant recycling and recovery

equipment. Regulated categories and entities include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Industry.................... Manufacturers of air-conditioning or

refrigeration equipment.

Technicians who service, maintain, repair,

or dispose of air-conditioning and

refrigeration equipment.

Owners of air-conditioning and

refrigeration equipment, including

building owners and operators, grocery

stores, chemical, pharmaceutical, and

petrochemical manufacturers, ice machine

operators, utilities.

Manufacturers of recycling and recovery

equipment.

Refrigerant reclaimers.

Scrap yards and auto dismantlers.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware

could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities

not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether

your company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine

the applicability criteria contained in section 608 of the Clean Air

Amendments of 1990; discussed in regulations published on December 30,

1993 (58 FR 69638); and discussed below. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,

consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

II. Background

Effective November 15, 1995, section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act

prohibits the knowing release of substitutes for CFC and HCFC

refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, unless EPA determines

that such release does not pose a threat to the environment. Although

EPA is proposing to determine that releases of some substitute

refrigerants do not pose a threat to the environment, there are other

substitutes, specifically HFCs and PFCs, for which EPA is not proposing

to make such a determination. Thus, EPA is proposing a regulation that

will clarify how the venting prohibition of section 608(c)(2) must be

implemented for HFC and PFC refrigerants, as well as any other

refrigerants whose release EPA does not find does not pose a threat to

the environment. EPA is also proposing to strengthen the existing leak

repair requirements for some types of appliances containing CFCs and

HCFCs, in recognition of design changes that have lowered achievable

leak rates.

By establishing requirements regarding the maintenance, service,

repair, and disposal of appliances containing HFC and PFC refrigerants,

EPA believes that this proposed rule would help to minimize any

environmental harm that might result from the transition away from

ozone-depleting chemicals. In this respect, this proposed rule is

similar to regulations being implemented under sections 609 and 612 of

the Act. This rule would directly limit emissions of gases that result

in global warming, whose possible consequences are discussed at length

in section III.B.2 below. In addition, the proposed rule would reduce

emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants by establishing a consistent

regulatory framework for all halocarbon refrigerants and by lowering

leak rates for appliances containing ozone-depleting refrigerants. The

environmental and human health consequences of ozone depletion include

increased rates of skin cancer and cataracts, suppression of the immune

system, increased formation of ground-level ozone, damage to crops and

other plants, and damage to marine microorganisms at the base of the

aquatic food chain. The establishment of a consistent regulatory

framework would also facilitate compliance with the Section 608

National Recycling and Emissions Reduction Program by simplifying and

clarifying regulatory requirements.

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides the

legal basis for this rulemaking. It requires EPA to establish a

comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting

refrigerants, and prohibits the release of these refrigerants, and

eventually their substitutes, during the servicing and disposal of air-

conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief, the first,

section 608(a), requires regulations to reduce the use and emission of

class I substances (CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl

chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs) to the lowest achievable

level, and to maximize the recycling of such substances. Section 608(b)

requires that the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a)

contain requirements concerning the safe disposal of class I and class

II substances. Finally, section 608(c) establishes self-effectuating

prohibitions on the venting into the environment of class I or class II

substances, and eventually their substitutes, during servicing and

disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment.

Specifically, subsection 608(c) provides in paragraph (1) that,

effective July 1, 1992, it is ``unlawful for any person, in the course

of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or

industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise

knowingly release or dispose of any class I or class II substance used

as a refrigerant'' in a manner that ``permits such substance to enter

the environment.'' The statute exempts from this self-effectuating

prohibition ``de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts

to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of a substance. EPA

considers releases to meet the criteria for exempted de minimis

releases when they occur while the recycling and recovery requirements

of the section 608 and 609 regulations are followed (40 CFR 82.154(a)).

Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition on venting to substances that

are substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants, effective

November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that such

venting or release does not pose a threat to the environment.

On May 14, 1993, EPA published final regulations implementing

subsections (a), (b), and (c)(1) (58 FR 28660). These regulations

include evacuation requirements for appliances being serviced or

disposed of, standards and testing requirements for recycling and

recovery equipment, certification requirements for technicians, purity

[[Page 32046]]

standards and testing requirements for used refrigerant sold to a new

owner, certification requirements for refrigerant reclaimers, leak

repair requirements, and requirements for the safe disposal of

appliances that enter the waste stream with the charge intact.

EPA is today proposing regulations to implement and clarify the

requirements of section 608(c)(2), which extends the prohibition on

venting to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants. EPA believes that

these regulations are also important to the Agency's efforts to

continue to carry out its mandate under section 608(a) to minimize

emissions of ozone-depleting substances. In addition to sections 608

(a) and (c), EPA is relying on its authority under section 301(a) of

the Act to promulgate these requirements.

While section 608(c) is self-effectuating, EPA regulations are

necessary to define ``(d)e minimis releases associated with good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of such

substances and to effectively implement and enforce the venting

prohibition. EPA believes that these regulations will help to implement

the prohibition by providing: (1) Clear guidance to technicians working

with substitute refrigerants on what releases do and do not constitute

violations of the prohibition, (2) information on the performance of

recycling and recovery equipment intended for use with substitute

refrigerants through the equipment certification program, and (3)

information on how to recycle effectively and efficiently through the

technician certification program. Section 301(a) authorizes EPA to

``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out (its)

functions under this Act.'' Section 608(c) provides EPA authority to

promulgate regulations to interpret, implement and enforce the venting

prohibition. Section 301(a) supplements EPA's authority under section

608(c) to promulgate regulations to carry out EPA's functions under

section 608(c).

Section 608(a) provides EPA additional authority to promulgate many

of the requirements proposed today. Section 608(a) requires EPA to

promulgate regulations regarding use and disposal of class I and II

substances that ``reduce the use and emission of such substances to the

lowest achievable level'' and ``maximize the recapture and recycling of

such substances.'' Section 608(a) further provides that ``(s)uch

regulations may include requirements to use alternative substances

(including substances which are not class I or class II substances) * *

* or to promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section 612 or

any combination of the foregoing.'' As discussed further below,

improper handling of substitute substances is likely to produce

contamination (and therefore reduction in recycling) and release of

class I and class II substances. EPA's authority to promulgate

regulations regarding use of class I and II substances, including

requirements to use alternatives, is sufficiently broad to include

requirements on how to use alternatives, where this is needed to reduce

emissions and maximize recycling of class I and II substances.

In particular, certification requirements for technicians who

perform work that could release substitute refrigerants to the

atmosphere, as enforced through a sales restriction on substitutes, are

critical to fulfill the statutory goals for class I and II substances.

Technician certification and a sales restriction are necessary to

ensure that persons lacking the expertise tested through certification

do not release or contaminate class I and II substances in the course

of using substitutes to recharge or perform other work on systems

containing class I and II substances. In addition, applying one

consistent set of requirements to all relevant refrigerants will

promote compliance with and enforcement of those requirements for both

ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes by reducing

complexity and minimizing loopholes.

As discussed below, EPA is proposing requirements very similar to

those for CFCs and HCFCs for some alternative refrigerants, while EPA

is proposing to exempt other refrigerants from the prohibition on

venting because their release or disposal does not pose a threat to the

environment.

B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Proposal

In developing these proposed regulations, EPA has considered a

number of factors. First, EPA has considered which non-ozone-depleting

refrigerants should be classified as ``substitute'' refrigerants. EPA

is proposing to adopt a definition that is similar to that adopted by

EPA in its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, except

the proposed definition omits the proviso of the SNAP definition that a

substitute be ``intended for use as a replacement for a class I or

class II substance.'' For the purposes of section 608, therefore, EPA

proposes to consider a refrigerant a substitute in a certain end-use if

the substance is used as a substitute for CFCs or HCFCs in that end-use

by any user. That is, EPA would consider a refrigerant a ``substitute''

for CFCs or HCFCs under section 608 if any of the following were the

case: (1) The substitute refrigerant immediately replaced a CFC or HCFC

in a specific instance, (2) the substitute refrigerant replaced another

substitute that replaced a CFC or HCFC in a specific instance (was a

second- or later-generation substitute), or (3) the substitute

refrigerant had always been used in a particular instance, but other

users in that end-use had used it to replace a CFC or HCFC.

EPA does not believe that it is appropriate under section 608 to

consider the intent or history of an individual user in determining

whether a refrigerant is a ``substitute'' for CFCs or HCFCs in a given

instance. First, it is reasonable to interpret ``substitute'' to

include second- or later as well as first-generation substitutes for

CFCs and HCFCs. As discussed earlier, the goal of these regulations is

to minimize any environmental harm that might be associated with the

transition away from CFC and HCFC refrigerants. In many cases, the

transition away from CFCs and HCFCs is a multi-step process, with

substitutes supplanting each other as they are tested and developed. In

the absence of the phaseout of CFCs and HCFCs, the later-generation

substitutes would probably never have been used. Thus, even if a

substance is not being used as a direct substitute for CFCs or HCFCs in

a particular instance, its use is the result of the transition away

from CFCs and HCFCs and the substance serves as a substitute for these

chemicals. (Of course, the environmental impact of the release of the

chemical is the same regardless of what it replaces.)

Second, it is also reasonable to interpret ``substitute'' to mean a

refrigerant that is occasionally used as a substitute for CFC or HCFC

refrigerants in a given end-use (e.g., cold storage warehouses), even

if the refrigerant has always been used by a particular user or in a

particular end-use. EPA has broad authority to promulgate and implement

clear, enforceable regulations, and exercise of this authority would be

impeded if the Agency had to attempt to trace the individual histories

of specific appliances in implementing and enforcing the requirements.

As an example of how this definition would work under these

regulations, ammonia used in cold storage warehouses would be

considered a ``substitute,'' and would therefore be subject to section

608(c)(2),1

[[Page 32047]]

because at least some cold storage warehouses have substituted ammonia

for CFCs. This would be true even if the ammonia in a given cold

storage warehouse were the original refrigerant at that particular

site, or if another substitute had first replaced the original CFC

refrigerant and ammonia in turn had replaced that substitute.

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

\1\ As discussed below, ammonia may nevertheless be exempted

from these regulations because EPA is proposing to determine that it

is adequately controlled under other authorities.

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

Using this criterion, EPA has identified five classes of substitute

refrigerants in the sectors covered by the SNAP rule:

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrocarbons (HCs),

chemically active common gases, including ammonia and chlorine, and

inert atmospheric constituents, including carbon dioxide and water. EPA

has divided substitutes into these classes on the basis of the varying

environmental impacts of each class and the varying regulatory

structures already in place for each class.

As the second factor in this proposed rulemaking, EPA has made a

proposed determination regarding whether or not the release or disposal

of a substitute refrigerant during the service or disposal of an

appliance poses a threat to the environment. This determination

consists of two findings. In the first finding, EPA determines whether

release or disposal of a substitute refrigerant could pose a threat to

the environment due to the toxicity or other inherent characteristic of

the refrigerant. In the second finding, EPA determines whether and to

what extent such release or disposal actually takes place during the

servicing and disposal of appliances. The release and disposal of many

substitute refrigerants are limited and/or controlled by other

authorities, such as OSHA regulations and building codes. To the extent

that release during the servicing and disposal of appliances is

adequately controlled by other authorities, EPA proposes to defer to

these authorities rather than set up a second regulatory regime.

As is discussed in more detail below, EPA recognizes that release

of HFCs and PFCs during the servicing and disposal of appliances could

pose a threat to the environment due to the global warming potential

(GWP) of these refrigerants, that release of hydrocarbons during the

servicing and disposal of appliances could pose a threat due to the

flammability and smog-forming capability of these refrigerants, and

that release of chemically active common gases during the servicing and

disposal of appliances could pose a threat due to the toxicity and

flammability of these refrigerants. However, EPA is proposing to

determine that the release of hydrocarbons and chemically active common

gases during the servicing and disposal of appliances is adequately

controlled by other authorities, and therefore does not actually pose a

threat. EPA is also proposing to determine that the release of inert

atmospheric constituents during the servicing and disposal of

appliances does not pose a threat to the environment.

As the third factor in this proposed rulemaking, EPA has considered

the availability of technology to control releases, the environmental

benefits of controlling releases, and the costs of controlling releases

for each class of substitutes. (In proposing new permissible leak rates

for certain CFC and HCFC appliances, EPA has considered these factors

for CFCs and HCFCs.) In addition, as much as possible, EPA has sought

to maintain consistency between the proposed requirements for HFCs and

those for CFCs and HCFCs. The Agency considers such consistency

important for two reasons. First, it will reduce confusion, simplify

the regulatory scheme, and ease compliance both with the requirements

applying to substitutes and with those applying to CFCs and HCFCs.

Second and more important, the Agency believes that much of the

rationale for the recycling program developed for ozone-depleting

refrigerants applies to any recycling program for environmentally

harmful refrigerants.

C. Public Participation

In developing this proposed rule, EPA has also considered comments

received during meetings with industry, government, and environmental

representatives. On March 10, 1995, EPA convened a meeting with 20

representatives of appliance manufacturers, servicers, and users,

recycling and recovery equipment manufacturers, equipment testers, and

refrigerant reclaimers and wholesalers, soliciting comment on a range

of regulatory options. A summary of this meeting is available in the

public docket for this rulemaking. EPA has also met with industry and

government representatives to gather data on refrigerant emissions, to

better understand current industry practices, and to determine when and

how existing regulatory authorities control emissions of substitute

refrigerants. Finally, EPA has worked with the air-conditioning and

refrigeration industry's primary standards-setting organizations, the

Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American

Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

(ASHRAE), in developing its proposal. Wherever appropriate, EPA has

incorporated standards and guidelines from these organizations into the

proposed rule.

III. Scope of Statutory and Proposed Regulatory Requirements

A. Overview of Proposed Requirements

1. HFCs and PFCs

EPA is proposing to extend the regulatory framework for CFCs and

HCFCs to HFCs and PFCs, making appropriate adjustments for the varying

physical properties and environmental impacts of these refrigerants.

Thus, appliances containing HFC or PFC refrigerants would have to be

evacuated to established levels; recycling and recovery equipment used

with HFCs or PFCs would have to be certified (although existing

recovery equipment that met certain minimum standards would be

grandfathered); technicians who work with HFCs or PFCs would have to be

certified (although technicians who have been certified to work with

CFCs and HCFCs would be grandfathered); sales of HFC and PFC

refrigerants would be restricted to certified technicians; used HFC and

PFC refrigerants sold to a new owner would have to be tested to verify

that they meet industry purity standards; refrigerant reclaimers who

purify HFCs or PFCs would have to be certified; owners of HFC and PFC

appliances above a certain size would have to repair leaks above a

certain size; final disposers of small appliances and motor vehicle air

conditioners (MVACs) containing HFCs or PFCs would have to ensure that

refrigerant was recovered from this equipment before it was disposed

of; and manufacturers of HFC and PFC appliances would have to provide a

servicing aperture or a ``process stub'' on their equipment in order to

facilitate recovery of the refrigerant.

2. Chemically Active Common Gases

EPA is proposing to find that for the purposes of section 608, the

release and disposal of chlorine and ammonia do not pose a threat to

the environment because the release and disposal of these refrigerants

during the servicing and disposal of appliances are adequately

controlled by other authorities in the air-conditioning and

refrigeration applications where these refrigerants are currently used.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the venting prohibition does

not apply to these substances and the Agency is not proposing recycling

requirements for these refrigerants at this time.

[[Page 32048]]

However, these proposed findings apply to currently SNAP-identified end

uses only. If ammonia and chlorine are proposed for use in other

applications, EPA will evaluate whether the venting prohibition and

recycling requirements should apply in those applications.

3. Hydrocarbons

EPA is proposing to find that for the purposes of section 608, the

release and disposal of hydrocarbons during the servicing and disposal

of appliances do not pose a threat to the environment, because they are

adequately controlled by other authorities in the industrial process

refrigeration applications in which these refrigerants are currently

used. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the venting prohibition

does not apply to these substances and the Agency is not proposing

recycling requirements for these refrigerants at this time. However,

these proposed findings apply to currently SNAP-identified end uses

only. If hydrocarbons are proposed for use in other applications, EPA

will evaluate whether the venting prohibition and recycling

requirements should apply in those applications.

4. Proposed Changes to Requirements for CFCs and HCFCs

In today's document, EPA is also proposing a number of changes to

the regulations covering CFC and HCFC refrigerants. Several of these

proposed changes are intended to accommodate the growing number of

refrigerants (both HFCs and HCFCs) that either are or will be subject

to the regulations. Such changes include the adoption of evacuation

requirements based solely on the saturation pressures of refrigerants,

the use of representative refrigerants from saturation pressure

categories for certifying recycling and recovery equipment, and the

adoption of the most recent industry purity and analytical standard for

refrigerants, ARI 700-1995, which includes a number of refrigerants

omitted from its predecessor, ARI 700-1993.

Based on improvements in equipment design and maintenance that have

reduced leak rates over the last five years, EPA is also proposing to

reduce the maximum allowable leak rates for appliances containing more

than 50 pounds of refrigerant. At the same time, EPA is proposing to

make several changes to the leak repair requirements promulgated at

Sec. 82.156(i), the associated recordkeeping provisions at

Sec. 82.166(n) and (o), and the definition of ``full charge'' at

Sec. 82.152. EPA is also proposing to add a definition for ``leak

rate'' under Sec. 82.152 for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i). The need

for most of these proposed changes was brought to EPA's attention by

industry stakeholders. EPA is also responding to inquiries concerning

whether or not leaks that occur after repairs have been completed and

all applicable verification tests have been successfully performed are

considered new leaks. In addition, the stakeholders suggested several

clarifying changes to the recordkeeping provisions.

B. Determination of Whether Release or Disposal Poses a Threat to the

Environment

1. Methodology

In determining whether the release or disposal of a substitute

refrigerant during the servicing and disposal of appliances poses a

threat to the environment, EPA has examined the potential effects of

the refrigerant from the moment of release to its breakdown in the

environment, considering possible impacts on workers, building

occupants, and the environment as a whole. As noted above, these

effects vary among the different classes of refrigerant. EPA has also

examined the extent to which the release or disposal of a substitute is

already controlled by other authorities. In some cases, such

authorities tightly limit the quantity of the substitute emitted or

disposed of; in others, they ensure that the substitute is disposed of

in a way that will limit its impact on human health and the

environment. In still others, existing authorities address some threats

(e.g., occupational exposures) but not others (e.g., long-term

environmental impacts). The analysis below discusses the potential

environmental impacts of and existing controls on each class of

refrigerants.

2. HFCs and PFCs

a. Potential Environmental Impacts

i. Toxicity and Flammability

Most HFCs and PFCs have been classified as A1 refrigerants under

ASHRAE Standard 34, indicating that they have low toxicity and no

ability to propagate flame under the test conditions of the Standard.

(The exception is HFC 152a, which has been classified as an A2

refrigerant. This indicates that it may propagate flame under the test

conditions, but only at relatively high concentrations and with

relatively low heat of combustion.) However, like CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs

can have central nervous system depressant and cardiotoxic effects at

high concentrations (several thousand ppm) and can displace oxygen at

very high concentrations.

ii. Long-term Environmental Impacts

Once released into the atmosphere, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and

perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have the ability to trap heat that would

otherwise be re-radiated from the Earth back to space. This ability,

along with the relatively long atmospheric lifetime of these gases

(particularly the PFCs), gives both HFCs and PFCs relatively high

global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a gas is a measure of the

ability of a kilogram of that gas to contribute to global warming

compared to the ability of a kilogram of carbon dioxide to contribute

to global warming over a given span of time. The 100-year GWPs of HFCs

under consideration for use as refrigerants range from 140 (for HFC-

152a) to 11,700 (for HFC-23), and the GWPs of PFCs under consideration

for use as refrigerants range from 8,700 (perfluorocyclo-butane) to

9,200 (perfluoroethane). HFC 134a, the most common individual HFC used

in air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, has a global warming

potential of 1,300. Thus, the global warming impact of releasing a

kilogram of an HFC or PFC ranges from 140 to 11,700 times the impact of

releasing a kilogram of CO2.2 (Factoring in the

35% uncertainty associated with individual GWPs, this range becomes 90

to 15,800.)

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

\2\ The CFCs and HCFCs being replaced by the HFCs are also

greenhouse gases, though their direct warming effect is counteracted

somewhat by the indirect cooling effect caused by their destruction

of stratospheric ozone, which is itself a greenhouse gas. The IPCC

Second Assessment noted that ``The net GWPs for the ozone-depleting

gases, which include the direct ``warming'' and indirect ``cooling''

effects, have now been estimated.* * * The indirect effect reduces

their net GWPs: those of the chlorofluorocarbons tend to be

positive, while those of the halons tend to be negative'' (IPCC

Second Assessment, Working Group I report, p. 73).

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

EPA recognizes that the release of refrigerants with high global

warming potentials could pose a threat to the environment.

Internationally accepted science indicates that increasing

concentrations of greenhouse gases, including HFCs and PFCs, will

ultimately raise atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. Although the

precise timing and extent of likely warming are uncertain, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 3 concluded

in a 1995

[[Page 32049]]

Report that the global mean temperature would probably rise between 1

and 3.5 deg.C by 2100. Such a temperature rise would probably be

associated with a number of adverse environmental impacts, including

increased drought at middle latitudes, increased flood frequency and

inundation due to sea level rise, and forest and species loss due to

the rapid poleward migration of ideal ranges.

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

\3\ The IPCC was jointly established by the World Meteorological

Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to

assess the scientific information that is related to the various

components of the climate change issue, and to formulate realistic

response strategies for the management of the climate change issue.

The first IPCC report was developed by 170 scientists from 25

countries and was peer-reviewed by an additional 200 scientists.

Since that time, the number of scientists developing and reviewing

the report has grown. This group comprises most of the active

scientists working in the field in the world today, and therefore

the report is an authoritative statement of the views of the

international scientific community at this time.

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

It is already well established that naturally occurring greenhouse

gases keep the Earth 33 deg.C warmer than it otherwise would be. Since

1800, human activities have released additional greenhouse gases to the

atmosphere at an exponentially increasing rate. Atmospheric

concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen by approximately 30

percent; methane concentrations have risen by 145 percent; and nitrous

oxide concentrations have risen by 15 percent. In addition,

concentrations of man-made fluorocarbons, which have no natural source,

have risen quickly over the past 50 years.

These trends may have already had an influence on global climate.

The draft of the most recent report of the IPCC stated that ``emerging

evidence points towards a detectable human influence on climate.'' In

support of this statement, the draft report notes that the global mean

surface temperature has increased by between about 0.3 and 0.6 deg.C

since the late 19th century, that the 20th century global mean

temperature is at least as high as that of any other century since 1400

A.D. (before which data are too sparse to allow reliable estimates),

that the years since 1990 have been some of the warmest in the

instrumental record (the nine warmest years this century have all

occurred since 1980), and that sea levels around the world have risen

by between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past 100 years. Moreover,

several other events consistent with global warming have been observed,

including a decrease in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, a simultaneous

decrease in Arctic sea ice, and continued melting of alpine glaciers.

The report concludes:

Observed global warming over the past 100 years is larger than

our best estimates of the magnitude of natural climate variability

over at least the last 600 years. More importantly, there is

evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response in the observed

climate record to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate

aerosols. The evidence comes from the geographical, seasonal and

vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken together, these

results point towards a detectable human influence on global

climate.

Because of the large thermal inertia of Earth's climate system

(including the atmosphere and the oceans), the full effects of added

greenhouse gases are not likely to be felt until many decades after

their release into the atmosphere. Once these effects are felt,

reversing them will take centuries. Thus, policy decisions in the near

term have long-term consequences.

Global warming is expected to have far-reaching effects both

domestically and internationally. Changes in precipitation and

increased evaporation from higher temperatures could affect water

supplies and water quality, posing threats to hydropower, irrigation,

fisheries, and drinking water. In the U.S., floods and droughts will

probably occur more often because of an intensification of the

hydrologic cycle.

The IPCC report projects that sea level will rise by about 50 cm by

2100, using a mid-range emissions scenario and best-estimate values of

climate sensitivity and ice-melt sensitivity to warming. Such a rise

could inundate more than 5,000 square miles of land in the U.S. if no

protective actions are taken. Low-lying areas on the U.S. Atlantic and

Gulf coasts are especially at risk. Internationally, parts of many low-

lying areas such as parts of the Maldives, Egypt, and Bangladesh could

be completely inundated and made uninhabitable by a similar sea level

rise.

Climate change could also have direct impacts on human health.

Global warming may shift the range of infectious diseases, increasing

the risks of malaria and dengue fever in the United States. Changing

temperatures and precipitation patterns may produce new breeding sites

for pests and pathogens. In addition, climate change is likely to

increase deaths from heat stress.

Agriculture would also be affected, as large areas of the eastern

and central U.S. are expected to become drier as the earth warms.

Although changes in management practices and technological advances

might reduce many of the potentially negative effects of climate change

in agriculture, such changes would be expensive. Agricultural

production in developing countries is likely to be more vulnerable to

climate change, given that they have fewer economic resources.

Finally, climate change could profoundly affect natural habitats

and wildlife. Temperature changes of the magnitude expected from the

enhanced greenhouse effect have occurred in the past, but the previous

changes took place over centuries or millennia, whereas those expected

from increased greenhouse gases will take place over decades. For

example, the ideal range for some North American forest species may

shift as much as 300 miles to the north over the next several decades.

Rates of natural migration and adaptation of species and communities

appear to be much slower than the predicted rate of climate change. As

a result, populations of many species and inhabited ranges could change

as the climate to which they are adapted effectively shifts northward

or to higher elevations.

b. Current Practices and Controls

Under the SNAP program, HFCs (either pure or in blends) have been

approved for use in almost every major air-conditioning and

refrigeration end-use, including household refrigerators, motor vehicle

air conditioners, retail food refrigeration, comfort cooling chillers,

industrial process refrigeration, and refrigerated transport. HFC 134a

in particular has claimed a large share of the market for non-ozone-

depleting substitutes in these applications. Given this range of

applications, HFCs have the potential to come into contact with

consumers, workers, the general population, and the environment.

EPA has approved PFCs for use in relatively few end-uses because of

their large global warming potentials and long atmospheric lifetimes.

These end-uses include uranium isotope separation, for which no other

substitute refrigerant has been found, and some heat-transfer

applications. In these applications, PFCs may come into contact with

workers, the general population, and the environment.

Analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rule indicate

that existing regulatory requirements and industry practices are likely

to keep the exposure of consumers, workers, and the general population

to HFCs and PFCs below levels of concern (although recycling

requirements would reduce still further the probability of significant

exposure) (U.S. EPA. 1994. Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for

Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning,

Office of Air and Radiation, March 15, 1994. Office of Air and

Radiation, March 15,1994, and Regulatory Impact Analysis for the

Substitutes Recycling Rule, Office of Air and Radiation, 1998).

However, these requirements and practices do not

[[Page 32050]]

address release of HFCs or PFCs to the wider environment.

For example, ASHRAE Standard 15 4 requirements for

equipment with large charge sizes are likely to limit the exposure of

building occupants and workers to HFC and PFC refrigerants, but will

not necessarily reduce releases to the outdoors. Under ASHRAE 15,

equipment containing large charges of HFCs or PFCs (or HCFCs or CFCs)

must be located in a machinery room that meets certain requirements.

These include requirements for tight-fitting, outward-opening doors,

refrigerant detectors that actuate alarms when refrigerant levels rise

above recommended long-term exposure levels, and mechanical ventilation

that discharges to the outdoors. However, ASHRAE 15 does not include

requirements for refrigerant recycling.5 In general, ASHRAE

15 addresses design specifications rather than service and disposal

practices such as recycling, and ASHRAE 15 requirements are codified

and enforced by state or local building code agencies rather than by

contractor or technician licensing boards.

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

\4\ ASHRAE 15, Safety Code for Mechanical Refrigeration, is an

industry standard developed by the American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE 15 forms the

basis for state and local building codes throughout the U.S.

\5\ ASHRAE Guideline 3 recommends recycling of all fluorocarbon

refrigerants, but is not codified or enforced by any governmental

agency.

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

Similarly, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has

developed exposure limits for HFCs. These may be referenced by OSHA

under its general duty clause to compel employers to protect employees

from identified health hazards. However, local exhaust ventilation

rather than recycling may be used to minimize exposures during service

and disposal operations that involve significant releases of

refrigerant. This will reduce worker exposure to the refrigerant, but

will not reduce the exposure of the general environment.

Finally, many of the statutory and regulatory mechanisms that limit

release of other substitutes such as ammonia do not apply to HFCs or

PFCs. HFCs and PFCs are not listed chemicals for SARA Title III or

CERCLA reporting requirements; nor are they listed as EPA section

112(r) hazardous air pollutants.

c. Conclusion

Given the high global warming potentials of HFCs and PFCs and the

fact that no authority other than section 608(c)(2) currently controls

their release from appliances into the environment, EPA is not

proposing to find that the release of HFCs and PFCs does not pose a

threat to the environment. 6

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

\6\ In 1995, a modeling study indicated that trifluoroacetic

acid (TFA), a breakdown product of HFC 134a, might accumulate and

concentrate in urban wetlands with high evaporation rates. EPA is

monitoring the research in this area. To the extent that TFA

formation and concentration pose a threat to the environment,

recycling requirements for HFC 134a will address this threat as well

as the threat from global warming related to HFC 134a.

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

EPA's consideration of global warming potential in determining

whether to exempt refrigerants from the venting prohibition of

608(c)(2) is supported by precedent under the Title VI regulatory

program, Presidential directive, and the legislative history of section

608. First, EPA has specifically considered the global warming

potential of substitutes in determining whether they are acceptable for

various end uses under the Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP)

that implements section 612.7 As stated in the final SNAP

rule (59 FR 13049, March 18, 1994), EPA believes that ``overall risk''

includes global warming potential. Second, in October 1993, the

President directed EPA through the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) to

work with manufacturers, sellers, and users of PFCs and HFCs to

minimize emissions of these substances.

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

\7\ Note that a finding under section 612 that a substitute is

acceptable for use in a closed refrigeration system is different

from a finding under section 608(c)(2) that the release of that

substitute does not pose a threat to the environment. Thus,

substances that have been approved under SNAP for use as

refrigerants may nevertheless be subject to the venting prohibition

of 608(c)(2).

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

Third, the legislative history of section 608(c)(2) indicates that

Congress specifically intended that EPA consider the global warming

potential of substitute refrigerants in determining whether to exempt

them from the venting prohibition. In a statement read into the record

shortly before passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,

Senators Chafee and Baucus, the Senate managers of the bill, stated

that ``(section 608(c)(2)) is an important provision because many of

the substitutes being developed * * * are `greenhouse gases' and have

radiative properties that are expected to exacerbate the problem of

global climate change.'' The Senators specifically directed that

``(t)he Administrator shall consider long term threats, such as global

warming, as well as acute threats (in making the determination under

608(c)(2))'' (Cong. Rec. S 16948 (Oct. 27, 1990)). EPA believes that in

light of this legislative history, the precedents cited above, and the

expected effects of global warming, it would be very difficult to

justify exempting HFCs or PFCs from the venting prohibition of

paragraph 608(c)(2) on the basis that their release does not pose a

threat to the environment.

3. Chemically Active Common Gases

The two chemically active common gases used as refrigerants are

ammonia and chlorine.

a. Potential Environmental Impacts

i. Toxicity and Flammability

Ammonia can pose a human health hazard through either inhalation or

ingestion. It is irritating at relatively low concentrations, and

disabling (and possibly deadly) at higher concentrations. Ammonia can

also pose a hazard to aquatic organisms if it is discharged to surface

waters at high concentrations.

Ammonia is classified as a B2 refrigerant under ASHRAE 34,

indicating that it is toxic at relatively low concentrations and

flammable at relatively high concentrations. Toxicity reference values

that have been established for ammonia include a Permissible Exposure

Limit (PEL) of 50 ppm, a Threshold-Limit Value (TLV) and a Recommended

Exposure Limit (REL) of 25 ppm, a Short-term Exposure Limit (STEL) of

35 ppm, and an Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) value of

500 ppm.8

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

\8\ PELs are established by OSHA, TLVs and STELs by the American

Congress of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and RELs and IDLHs

by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

PELs and TLVs are 8=hour time-weighted averages (TWAs).

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

Chlorine gas is highly toxic. Inhalation of chlorine gas at high

concentrations can cause pulmonary edema, cardiac arrest, and

inflammation of the larynx. Exposure to concentrations of chlorine

below 5 ppm can irritate mucous membranes, the respiratory tract, and

skin, and can cause headaches, nausea, blister formation, vomiting and

reduced pulmonary function. Toxicity Reference Values that have been

established for chlorine gas include a PEL of 1 ppm, a TLV of 0.5 ppm,

a STEL of 1 ppm, and an IDLH of 30 ppm. ASHRAE 34 has not classified

chlorine.

Chlorine is non-combustible in air, but most combustible materials

will burn in chlorine as they do in oxygen.

ii. Long-Term Environmental Impacts

Ammonia is a naturally occurring compound, and is a central

compound in the environmental cycling of nitrogen. In surface water,

groundwater, or sediment, ammonia will undergo sequential

transformation by two

[[Page 32051]]

processes in the nitrogen cycle, nitrification and denitrification,

eventually leading to the production of elemental nitrogen.

Ammonia can also undergo volatilization or ionization. If released

to surface water, ammonia may volatilize to the atmosphere. The rate of

volatilization decreases as pH and temperature decrease. The toxicity

of ammonia to aquatic organisms (fish are especially vulnerable) also

decreases with pH. In addition to its direct effects, ammonia can

indirectly cause in-stream toxicity through its contribution to

eutrophication and its effect on biological oxygen demand.

Because chlorine used as a refrigerant is typically recaptured or

chemically transformed rather than released, its environmental fate

will not be discussed here.

Ammonia and chlorine have GWPs of 0.

b. Current Practices and Controls

When refrigeration technology was first developed, ammonia was one

of the first refrigerants to gain acceptance. It is now used almost

exclusively in industrial process refrigeration systems in the meat

packing, dairy, frozen juice, brewery, cold storage, and other food

industries. In these applications, ammonia may come into contact with

workers, the general population, and the environment. (Ammonia is also

used with water in small absorption refrigeration units. However, while

ammonia could conceivably come into contact with consumers in this

application, these exposures are likely to be of little concern because

the charge is small and is mixed with water, limiting release to the

air.) Additional exposures to ammonia may occur from its use in non-

refrigerant applications, such as fertilizer and common household

cleaner, but these exposures will not be discussed here except as a

context for refrigerant-related exposures.

Due to its high toxicity, chlorine has not been submitted or

approved for use as a refrigerant except in industrial processes

involved in chlorine manufacture. In this application, chlorine could

come into contact with workers, the general population, and the

environment.

Analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rule (RIA and

Risk Screen) indicate that regulatory requirements and industry

practices are likely to keep the exposure of workers, the general

population, and the environment to ammonia and chlorine below levels of

concern.

Occupational exposure to ammonia is primarily controlled by OSHA

requirements and national and local building and fire codes. As

mentioned above, OSHA has established a PEL for ammonia of 50 ppm. This

is an enforceable standard that can be met through containment, safe

disposal, ventilation, and/or use of personal protective equipment.

OSHA also has requirements in place to prevent catastrophic releases,

including the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

Standard (HAZWOPER), the Hazard Communication Standard, and Process

Safety Management (PSM) regulations. (PSM regulations cover systems

containing more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia.) These standards require

employee training, emergency response plans, and written standard

operating procedures.

ASHRAE 15 (and state and local codes based on it) imposes strict

quantity limits for direct-type ammonia refrigeration systems (which

possess no secondary, heat transfer fluid), and prohibits the use of

ammonia altogether in direct-type comfort cooling systems. Indirect

type ammonia refrigeration and air-conditioning systems (which possess

a secondary, heat transfer fluid) must be housed in a separate

mechanical equipment room. This equipment room must meet the

requirements listed above for HFC equipment rooms and must also meet

several fire-proofing requirements.

Releases of ammonia to the wider environment are addressed by

several authorities. CERCLA and SARA require reporting of accidental

and intentional releases of ammonia to the atmosphere. (Under CERCLA

section 103 and SARA Title III Section 304, releases of more than 100

pounds of ammonia must be reported immediately, unless they are

``Federally permitted'' such as through National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), etc. In

that case, however, they are controlled under the permitting authority.

The more common method of ammonia disposal is to mix the ammonia

into water, which absorbs about a pound of ammonia per gallon of water,

and then to dispose of the water/ammonia solution. Releases of ammonia

to surface waters are governed by permits issued by states (or, in some

cases, by EPA Regional Offices) to publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs) under NPDES. NPDES permits must include conditions necessary to

meet applicable technology-based standards and water quality standards.

Water quality standards established by states consist of a designated

use for the waters in question, water quality criteria specifying the

amount of various pollutants that may be present in those waters and

still allow the waters to meet the designated use, and anti-degradation

policies.

Entities that discharge to a POTW (usually through a municipally-

owned sewer system) must themselves comply with Clean Water Act pre-

treatment requirements, which may include categorical pretreatment

standards on an industry-by-industry basis as well as local limits

designed to prevent interference with the biological processes of the

treatment plant (or pass through of pollutants). Notification and

approval requirements enable POTWs to manage the treatment process, to

avoid ammonia overloading, and to protect the treatment processes,

collection systems, and facility workers. The POTW typically considers

a number of factors before granting discharge approval for ammonia,

including the POTW plant's treatment capacity, existing industry

discharge patterns, the impact on the POTW's biological treatment

processes, the effect on the sewage collection systems (i.e., sewer

lines), and the possible hazards to workers at the plant or in the

field. The POTW also considers the possibility that ammonia disposed

from refrigeration systems may largely be converted to other forms of

nitrogen (e.g., nitrates) before arriving at the POTW facility. In

general, ammonia from refrigerant uses makes up a small percentage of

the ammonia treated by the POTW.

Ammonia is also listed as a regulated substance for accidental

release prevention in the List of Substances and Thresholds rule (59 FR

4478, January 31, 1994) promulgated under section 112(r) of the Act.

This rule states that if a stationary source handles more than 10,000

pounds of anhydrous ammonia (or 20,000 pounds of 20% or greater aqueous

ammonia) in a process, it is subject to chemical accident prevention

regulations promulgated under section 112(r). These regulations, which

were published on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668), require stationary

sources to develop and implement a risk management program that

includes a hazard assessment, an accident prevention program (including

training and the development of standard operating procedures), and an

emergency response program. In addition, section 112(r)(1) of the Act

states that companies have a general duty to prevent accidental

releases of extremely hazardous substances, including ammonia and

chlorine.

Exposures to chlorine are controlled through many of the same

regulatory mechanisms that control exposures to ammonia, except

enforceable

[[Page 32052]]

concentration and release limits are lower for chlorine than for

ammonia. For instance, the OSHA PEL for chlorine is 1 ppm, compared to

50 ppm for ammonia. Similarly, the reporting threshold under CERCLA

section 103 and SARA Title III for chlorine releases is ten pounds,

compared to 100 pounds for ammonia; and the quantity of chlorine that

triggers requirements under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act is

2,500 pounds per process.

In addition to these requirements, chlorine is also subject to

restrictions under section 112(b) and 113 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Chlorine is listed as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) under section

112(b) of the CAA, and under section 113 of the CAA, criminal penalties

can be assessed for negligently releasing HAPs into the atmosphere.

EPA is currently investigating whether there are any chlorine

sources that are ``major sources'' under CAA section 112(a). A

``major'' source is one that releases more than 10 tons per year of any

given HAP, or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. Such

sources would be regulated under a National Emissions Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Because chlorine emissions are

currently well controlled during chlorine manufacture, no manufacturer

emits more than 10 tons per year of chlorine.

Current industry practices and engineering controls in chlorine

manufacture will be applied to the use of chlorine as a refrigerant,

minimizing potential releases and exposures. These practices and

controls include use of system alarms that activate at chlorine

concentrations of 1 ppm, use of self-contained breathing apparatus

during servicing, isolation of liquid chlorine in receivers during

servicing, and use of a caustic scrubber to neutralize gaseous chlorine

during servicing. The anticipated charge sizes in the refrigeration

system are several hundred times smaller than the quantity of chlorine

in the process stream and bulk storage, and chlorine emissions from the

refrigeration system are likely to be significantly smaller than those

emanating from the process and storage systems, which are already well

controlled for safety and health reasons.

c. Conclusion

Because releases of ammonia and chlorine from their currently

approved refrigeration applications are adequately addressed by other

authorities, EPA is proposing to find that the release of ammonia and

chlorine refrigerants during the servicing and disposal of appliances

in these applications does not pose a threat to the environment under

section 608. EPA requests comment on this proposed finding and on the

rationale behind it.

4. Hydrocarbons

a. Potential Environmental Impacts

i. Toxicity and Flammability

Hydrocarbons, including propane, propylene, and butane, are

classified as A3 refrigerants by ASHRAE Standard 34, indicating that

they have low toxicity and high flammability. Like CFCs, HCFCs, and

HFCs, they can displace oxygen at high concentrations and cause

asphyxiation. Toxicity reference values that have been established for

hydrocarbons include a PEL for propane of 1,000 ppm, and IDLHs of

20,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for propane and butane respectively.

ii. Long-Term Environmental Impacts

Hydrocarbons are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and therefore

contribute to ground-level ozone (smog) formation. Because ozone is a

greenhouse gas, hydrocarbons contribute slightly and indirectly to

global warming. They do not deplete stratospheric ozone.

b. Current Practices and Controls

EPA has approved hydrocarbons under the SNAP program only for use

in industrial process refrigeration systems used for hydrocarbon

manufacture. In this application, hydrocarbons have the potential to

come into contact with workers, the general population, and the

environment. However, analyses performed for both this rule and the

SNAP rule indicate that existing regulatory requirements and industry

practices adequately protect workers, the general population, and the

environment from exposure to hydrocarbon refrigerants.

As is the case for ammonia and chlorine, occupational exposures to

hydrocarbons are primarily controlled by OSHA requirements and national

and local building and fire codes. As noted above, OSHA has established

a PEL for propane of 1,000 ppm, and NIOSH has established IDLHs of

20,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for propane and butane respectively. The PEL

is an enforceable standard, and the IDLHs trigger OSHA personal

protective equipment requirements. OSHA's Process Safety Management,

confined space entry, and HAZWOPER requirements apply to all

hydrocarbon refrigerants. These requirements include employee training,

emergency response plans, air monitoring, and written standard

operating procedures.

ASHRAE 15 prohibits the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants except in

laboratory and industrial process refrigeration applications.

Refrigeration machinery must be contained in a separate mechanical

equipment room that complies with the requirements for HFC equipment

rooms and also complies with several fire-proofing requirements.

As is the case for ammonia and chlorine, certain hydrocarbons

(including butane, cyclopropane, ethane, isobutane, methane, and

propane) are listed as regulated substances for accidental release

prevention under regulations promulgated under section 112(r) of the

Clean Air Act. In addition, hydrocarbons are considered VOCs, and are

therefore subject to state VOC regulations implemented in accordance

with the Clean Air Act. The regulatory status of new VOC sources is

based on area ground-level ozone classifications. Although states and

industry have various options regarding the permitting of new VOC

sources, industry typically must implement technologies that provide

lowest achievable emissions rates, and must offset new VOC

contributions through reductions in existing sources.

According to industry and OSHA representatives, current industry

service practices for hydrocarbon refrigeration equipment include

monitoring efforts, engineering controls, and operating procedures.

System alarms, flame detectors, and fire sprinklers are used to protect

process and storage areas. Fugitive emissions monitoring is routinely

conducted. If a leak is found, repairs are attempted within five days.

If initial repair attempts are unsuccessful, the system is shut down,

unless releases from a shutdown are predicted to be greater than

allowing a continued leak. During servicing, OSHA confined space

requirements are followed, including continuous monitoring of explosive

gas concentrations and oxygen levels. Hydrocarbon refrigerants may be

returned to the product stream or can be released through a flare

during servicing. Due to fire and explosion risks and the economic

value of the hydrocarbon, direct venting is not a widely used

procedure. In general, hydrocarbon emissions from refrigeration systems

are likely to be significantly smaller than those emanating from the

process and storage systems, which are already well-controlled for

safety reasons.

[[Page 32053]]

c. Conclusion

Because the release of hydrocarbons from industrial process

refrigeration systems appears to be adequately addressed by other

authorities, EPA is proposing to find that the release of hydrocarbon

refrigerants during the servicing and disposal of such systems does not

pose a threat to the environment under section 608. EPA requests

comment on this proposed finding and on the rationale behind it.

5. Inert Atmospheric Constituents

EPA has approved CO2 under SNAP as a replacement for

CFC-13, R-13B1 and R-503 in very low temperature and industrial process

refrigeration applications, and as a substitute for CFC-113, CFC-114,

and CFC-115 in non-mechanical heat transfer applications.

CO2 is a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. Its GWP is

defined as 1, and all other GWPs are indexed to it. EPA's understanding

is that CO2 is readily available as a waste gas, and

therefore no additional quantity of the chemical needs to be produced

for refrigeration applications. Thus, the use of such commercially

available CO2 as a refrigerant does not contribute to global

warming, and release of such CO2 from appliances has no net

contribution to global warming. On this basis, EPA proposes to find

that release and disposal of CO2 refrigerant during the

servicing and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the

environment under section 608. EPA requests comment on the factual

basis for this proposal.

EPA has approved direct nitrogen expansion as an alternative

technology for many CFCs and HCFCs used in vapor compression systems.

Nitrogen is a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable gas that makes up 78%

of Earth's atmosphere. Nitrogen contributes neither to global warming

nor to ozone-depletion. EPA therefore proposes to find that the release

and disposal of elemental nitrogen during the servicing and disposal of

appliances does not pose a threat to the environment.

EPA has approved evaporative cooling as an alternative technology

to motor vehicle air conditioners using CFC-12. Evaporative cooling

operates simply through the evaporation of water to the atmosphere.

Water released from evaporative cooling is nontoxic and contributes

neither to ozone depletion nor to global warming. EPA therefore

proposes to find that the release and disposal of water during the

servicing and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the

environment.

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Appliance

EPA is proposing to amend the current definition of ``appliance''

to include air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contains

substitutes for class I and class II substances, as well as equipment

that contains class I and class II substances. This amendment is

consistent with the definition of ``appliance'' in section 608(c)(2),

which states, ``[f]or purposes of this paragraph, the term 'appliance'

includes any device which contains and uses as a refrigerant a

substitute substance and which is used for household or commercial

purposes, including any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or

freezer.'' EPA proposes to continue to interpret ``appliance'' to

include all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment except that

designed and used exclusively for military applications. Thus, the term

``appliance'' would include household refrigerators and freezers (which

may be used outside the home), other refrigeration appliances,

residential and light commercial air conditioning, motor vehicle air

conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under section

609, and industrial process refrigeration.

a. Inclusion of Heat Transfer Devices in the Term ``Appliance''. A

manufacturer of PFCs has submitted comments requesting that EPA exclude

non-mechanical heat transfer applications from the definition of

appliance. The manufacturer maintained that ``heat transfer does not

involve the use of a refrigerant under the accepted technical

definitions of this term,'' and cited the technical definition of

refrigerant in the ASHRAE handbook as ``the working fluid in a

refrigeration cycle, absorbing heat from a reservoir at low temperature

and rejecting heat at a higher temperature.'' In addition, the

manufacturer stated that heat transfer applications are such a small

segment of the ODS replacement market that they should be exempt from

regulation on de minimis grounds. Citing the Alabama Power Co. v.

Costle decision (636 F.2d 323, DC Cir 1979), the commenter argued that

EPA may make such exemptions ``if it finds (1) that Congress was not

extraordinarily rigid in drafting section 608, and (2) that the burdens

associated with regulating the de minimis categories yield trivial

benefits.'' Finally, the manufacturer requested that if EPA does decide

to continue to consider heat transfer applications appliances, EPA

adopt a unique approach to these systems, as they differ physically

from ``traditional'' air-conditioning and refrigeration systems.

(``Issues Associated with Extending Regulations Under Section 608 to

ODS Substitutes Used in Heat Transfer Applications,'' Michael I.

Dougherty and Larry G. Headrick, 3M Specialty Chemicals Division,

September 5, 1995).

In the past, EPA has considered non-mechanical heat transfer

applications that use the heat transfer fluid as the primary

refrigerant to be appliances. In an applicability determination issued

on June 6, 1993, EPA determined that electrical transformers containing

CFC-113 were appliances because the 113 ``acts to transport heat out of

the transformer.'' The determination stated further that ``(t)he fact

that the transport of heat is accomplished without the use of

compressors or expansion valves does not alter the role of the CFC-113

which acts as a coolant.'' Moreover, under the Significant New

Alternatives Program, EPA has classified non-mechanical heat transfer

applications as part of the refrigeration and air-conditioning major

industrial use sector.

EPA does not see any legal, technical, or environmental

justification for reversing these findings, although EPA is requesting

comment on the option of adopting unique requirements under section 608

for non-mechanical heat transfer applications. As noted above, the

fundamental cooling function of the heat transfer fluid is not changed

because a compressor is not involved. While one technical definition of

``refrigerant'' may refer only to moving heat from low-to high-

temperature regions, commonly accepted dictionary definitions of

``refrigerant'' and ``refrigerate'' refer generally to making or

keeping things cool.9 Neither the statute nor its

legislative history indicate that Congress intended the term to be more

restrictive in the statute than it is in common use.

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

\9\ The Random House College Dictionary defines ``refrigerate''

as ``to make or keep cold or cool, as for preservation,'' and

``refrigerant'' as ``a substance used as an agent in cooling or

refrigeration.'' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines

``refrigerate'' as ``to make or keep cold or cool,'' and

``refrigerant'' as ``a substance used in refrigeration.''

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

Given that heat transfer applications are appliances, EPA does not

believe that it would be appropriate to exempt some or all of these

applications from recycling requirements because they consume a small

quantity of refrigerant relative to other appliance types. The

commenter states that de minimis exemptions are permissible where

Congress has not been ``extraordinarily

[[Page 32054]]

rigid,'' and maintains that section 608 gives the Agency flexibility to

exercise its discretion in this area. In support of this argument, the

commenter cites the explicit exemptions in section 608(c) for (1) de

minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recover and

recycle, and (2) releases of ODS substitutes that do not pose a threat

to the environment.

However, the legislative history of section 608 indicates that

Congress intended both of these exemptions to be interpreted narrowly.

As noted above, the Senate managers of the CAA bill specifically

identified releases of substitutes with high global warming potential

as a ``threat to the environment,'' and PFCs have among the highest

global warming potentials of any refrigerants. The Senate managers also

read the following statement into the record regarding the explicit

exemption for de minimis releases:

Exceptions to this provision are included for certain de minimis

releases. As used in this context, de minimis refers to extremely

small amounts. The fact that de minimis, in other contexts under

this Act, may be as much as several tons is not relevant nor

controlling in this context. Most appliances contain only a few

ounces of class I or class II refrigerant. Interpreting de minimis

to mean anything other than an extremely small amount would render

this provision a nullity. The exception is included to account for

the fact that in the course of properly using recapture and

recycling equipment, it may not be possible to prevent some small

amount of leakage (Cong. Rec. S 16948 (Oct. 27, 1990)).

Thus, both the statute and the legislative history clearly limit the

applicability of the de minimis exemption to those releases that

unavoidably occur during the course of recycling. The de minimis

exemption is not intended to exempt any sector from recycling

requirements; indeed, the Senate managers specifically proscribe a

broad interpretation of de minimis, noting that it would ``render

(section 608(c)) a nullity.''

Furthermore, Congress' explicit provision of a sharply limited

exemption from section 608(c) for de minimis releases associated with

good faith efforts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of a

substitute undermines the argument that EPA has an understood authority

to grant a much broader de minimis exemption under Alabama Power Co. v.

Costle. Congress has specifically addressed the scope of possible

exemptions from section 608(c) and declared this scope quite limited.

Consequently, EPA has included both small appliances (which

individually have very small charge sizes) and very high-pressure

appliances (which collectively consume only a small percentage of

refrigerants) in the scope of the section 608 recycling requirements.

Moreover, EPA does not believe that the regulation of releases of

PFCs used as heat transfer fluids meets either of the criteria

established by the court in Alabama Power for finding an implied

authority to allow a de minimis exemption. De minimis authority may be

implied where ``the burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no

value.'' Alabama Power at 360-61. First, EPA does not consider the

benefits of this proposed regulation to be ``trivial.'' The commenter

estimates potential annual consumption of PFC heat transfer fluids to

be 580,000 pounds, or 264 metric tons. If this consumption is weighted

by the average 100-year GWP of the PFCs and compared to the consumption

of all other refrigerants weighted by the 100-year GWP of HFC-134a, it

makes up 1.5 percent of total refrigerant consumption in the

U.S.10 If the PFC consumption and other refrigerant

consumption are weighted by their 500-year GWPs, the PFCs make up 7.2

percent of total U.S. refrigerant consumption.

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

\10\ This figure is based on the commenter's projection of PFC

heat transfer fluid consumption and EPA's estimate of U.S.

consumption of CFC and HCFC refrigerants in 1992.

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

Second, the commenter does not demonstrate that recycling PFC heat

transfer fluids would impose significant burdens. While the unique

characteristics and applications of heat transfer appliances may

warrant specialized recycling requirements, they do not render

recycling impracticable or even extraordinarily difficult. Indeed, the

commenter notes that PFC heat transfer fluids are already subject to

use restrictions under the SNAP program that require recycling during

the servicing and disposal of equipment, and observes that total losses

from heat transfer equipment are currently less than 10 percent per

year. Moreover, heat transfer applications using CFCs and HCFCs have

clearly been subject to section 608 requirements since the

applicability determination on electrical transformers was issued in

June, 1993. Since EPA has not received any information indicating that

users of these applications have been unable to comply, and since PFCs

were selected as substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs in these applications

precisely because they have similar physical characteristics, there is

no reason to believe that recycling PFCs in these applications will be

difficult. Thus, EPA is not proposing to exempt heat transfer

applications from the requirements of this proposed rule.

b. Coverage of One-Time Expansion Devices. Similarly, EPA believes

that one-time expansion devices are appliances, and that the release of

refrigerants from one-time expansion devices is prohibited by section

608(c)(2), unless EPA finds that the release of these refrigerants does

not pose a threat to the environment. One-time expansion devices, which

include ``self-chilling cans,'' rely on the release and associated

expansion of a compressed refrigerant to cool the contents (e.g., a

beverage) of a container.

EPA considers refrigerant release from such devices to be

prohibited by section 608(c). First, the refrigerant in these devices

acts as a not-in-kind substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in household and

commercial refrigerators. Although the refrigerant in a one-time

expansion device is not being used in the same system as CFC-12 in a

household or commercial refrigerator, it is providing the same effect

of cooling the container. EPA has previously considered not-in-kind

technologies, such as evaporative cooling, to be substitutes under

SNAP. The SNAP regulation defines ``substitute or alternative'' as

``any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing

process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for

a class I or II compound.'' This approach is consistent with the

language of section 612 of the Clean Air Act, in which Congress

repeatedly identified ``product substitutes'' as substitutes for class

I and class II substances. Section 612(a) states the policy of the

section: ``To the maximum extent practicable, class I and class II

substances shall be replaced by chemicals, product substitutes, or

alternative manufacturing processes that reduce overall risks to human

health and the environment'' (emphasis added). 11 As stated

in the SNAP regulation, EPA has interpreted the phrase ``substitute

substances'' in 612(c) to incorporate the general definition of

substitute in 612(a) and 612(b) (3) and (4) (59 FR 13050). As noted

above, the proposed definition of ``substitute'' in today's document is

very similar to that in the SNAP regulations, except the proposed

definition omits the proviso that the substitute be intended for use as

[[Page 32055]]

a replacement for a class I or class II substance. Thus, under the

proposed definition in today's document, and consistent with the

definition in the SNAP regulations and section 612 of the Act, EPA

would consider the refrigerant in a one-time expansion device to be a

``substitute substance'' under section 608(c)(2).

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

\11\ Section 612(b)(3) directs EPA to ``specify initiatives * *

* to promote the development and use of safe substitutes for class I

and class II substances, including alternative chemicals, product

substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes'' (emphasis

added). Similarly, section 612(b)(4) requires EPA to ``maintain a

public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes,

and alternative manufacturing processes'' (emphasis added).

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

Second, one-time expansion devices, which rely on the release of

compressed gases to cool the contents of containers, are encompassed by

the term ``appliance.'' A one-time expansion device is a device that

holds and uses a substitute substance to make the contents of the

container cool for individual consumption. Thus, it is a ``device which

contains or uses'' a ``refrigerant'' ``for household or commercial

purposes.'' The operating principle of a one-time expansion device,

vapor compression and expansion, is the same as that of a traditional

refrigerator. The only technological differences between a one-time

expansion device and a traditional refrigerator are that, with a one-

time expansion device, the compression part of the vapor-compression/

expansion cycle takes place at the factory, and the refrigerant escapes

during expansion instead of being cycled back to a compressor to be

recompressed.

Third, EPA believes that the opening of a one-time expansion device

constitutes disposal of the device. This interpretation is consistent

with the definition of ``disposal'' included in the recycling

regulations for CFCs and HCFCs at Sec. 82.152. ``Disposal'' is the

process leading to and including:

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded

appliance into or on any land or water;

(2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit,

dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or on any land

or water; or

(3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component

parts.

The act of opening a one-time expansion device meets this

definition of disposal. Opening the device irreversibly discharges the

refrigerant and thereby ends the useful life of the cooling device.

Cooling the container is a one-time action that occurs immediately

prior to consuming or using its contents, after which the remaining

component parts of the appliance will be discarded. In addition, with

the irreversible discharge of the critical portion of the cooling

device, the appliance has been partially disassembled and one of its

component parts has been discharged. Thus, the act of opening the

device and cooling the container is a process that leads quickly and

inevitably to the final disposal of the appliance, and the act itself

includes the permanent disassembly of the appliance and discharge of

one of the component parts. Finally, the act of opening the device is a

``knowing'' release of refrigerant, as a person opening the device

could not fail to be aware that his or her action is causing release of

a gas to the atmosphere.

Thus, the release occurs in the course of ``maintaining, servicing,

repairing, or disposing of an appliance'' and is subject to the venting

prohibition. While EPA is proposing to exempt some substitute

refrigerants in one-time expansion applications from the section 608

requirements because their release does not pose a threat to the

environment (see the discussion of CO2 above), EPA does not

believe that it can make this finding for the HFC refrigerants that

have been suggested for use in one-time expansion devices due to global

warming concerns. EPA recognizes that this has the effect of

prohibiting the use of HFCs (or other refrigerants whose release EPA

does not find does not pose a threat to the environment) in this

application. As discussed below, EPA is proposing to use its authority

under section 608(c)(2) and section 301(a) to prohibit the manufacture

of one-time expansion devices using refrigerants that EPA has not

exempted from the venting prohibition.

c. Secondary Loops. Rather than cooling things or people directly,

many refrigeration and air-conditioning systems operate by cooling an

intermediate fluid, which is then circulated to the things or people to

be cooled. This intermediate fluid (and the structure for transporting

it) is referred to as a secondary loop. Secondary loops are commonly

used in air conditioners in large buildings,12 in industrial

process refrigeration systems, and in some specialty and commercial

refrigeration systems.

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

\12\ Large building air conditioners are commonly called

``chillers,'' which is short for ``water chillers.'' Most building

air conditioners cool water or brine that is then circulated

throughout the building.

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

There are different types of secondary loops. Interpreted in the

broadest sense, secondary loops include, on the one hand, the lower

temperature loops of cascade systems, and on the other, the ventilation

systems that circulate air that is cooled by an air-conditioner, since

both of these types of loops circulate a fluid that is cooled by a

primary refrigerant loop. However, these loops differ from each other

in a number of ways. The former move heat from cooler to warmer areas,

and there is a change of state in the secondary fluid. The latter move

heat from warmer to cooler areas (because they return air that is

warmed by the inhabitants and equipment in the building), and there is

no change of state in the secondary fluid. The type of loop that is

most commonly considered a secondary loop falls between these two

types, but somewhat closer to air circulation systems: it is a closed

loop that circulates a liquid that is cooled by a primary refrigerant

loop and that is used to move heat from warmer to cooler areas with no

change of state.13

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

\13\ The 1997 ASHRAE Handbook, Fundamentals, defines ``secondary

coolant'' as ``any liquid cooled by the refrigerant and used to

transfer heat without changing state'' (p. 20.1).

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

EPA is requesting comment regarding what types of secondary loops

should be considered to be part of an ``appliance.'' The definition of

``appliance'' with respect to secondary loops is somewhat ambiguous

under Act. Given this ambiguity, Congress has delegated to EPA the

authority to interpret ``appliance'' consistent with the language and

purpose of section 608. The purpose of section 608 is to reduce

emissions of ozone-depleting substances and to ensure that the phaseout

of ozone-depleting refrigerants does not result in new environmental

problems from emissions of their replacements.

In defining the boundaries of an appliance, EPA believes that it is

appropriate to consider both the proximity of the loop to the primary

cooling mechanism and the mode of functioning of the loop (including

the direction of heat transfer and whether or not a change of state is

involved); otherwise, it may be difficult to draw a clear line between

the appliance and its surroundings. For example, a common-sense

definition of appliance would probably not include the ventilation

system used to circulate cooled air, but, as noted above, such a

ventilation system could be considered a secondary loop. In fact,

because the transfer of heat from warmer to cooler objects occurs

spontaneously, any fluid between the primary loop of an appliance and

the things or people cooled could be considered a secondary (or

tertiary, etc.) loop. In order to avoid an overly expansive

interpretation of ``appliance,'' EPA is proposing to interpret as part

of an ``appliance'' refrigerant loops that (1) are primary or (2) move

heat from cooler to warmer areas or (3) involve a change of state of

the fluid. Under this interpretation, secondary loops that used water,

brine, or other materials to transport heat from warmer to cooler areas

without a change of state would

[[Page 32056]]

not be considered to be part of an ``appliance.'' On the other hand,

cascade system secondary loops that used fluids to transport heat from

cooler to warmer areas with a change of state would be considered to be

part of an ``appliance.'' EPA believes that this interpretation would

cover those secondary loops that are traditionally considered to be

part of the air conditioner or refrigerator, while excluding those that

are not. In addition, the Agency believes that this interpretation

would capture the majority of air-conditioning and refrigerating

components that have used ozone-depleting substances in the past.

This interpretation is also consistent with EPA's decision not to

list secondary fluids under SNAP. In that decision, published on March

10, 1997, EPA expressed concern that listing secondary fluids could

discourage their use and could be very burdensome to the Agency and the

regulated community, as the number of secondary fluids is quite large.

In addition, the Agency noted that there was little information or data

suggesting that the use of these fluids in secondary loops posed an

environmental or safety risk (52 FR 10700).

The Agency requests comment on its interpretation of ``appliance''

as it applies to secondary loops. Specifically, EPA requests comment on

whether there are human health or environmental risks that could be

significantly reduced by subjecting to the venting prohibition

secondary loops that transport heat from warmer to cooler areas without

a change of state. Based on information received to date, the Agency

believes that most secondary fluids are either environmentally benign

or controlled under other authorities. However, if some secondary

fluids were neither benign nor adequately controlled under other

authorities, EPA could interpret ``appliance'' to include secondary

loops and individually exempt fluids whose release did not pose a

threat to the environment. In this way, EPA could subject to the

venting prohibition only those secondary fluids whose release posed a

threat. Given the large number of secondary fluids, however, the Agency

is concerned that it would be difficult to identify and list all of the

secondary fluids whose release does not pose a threat.

EPA also requests comment on the extent to which ozone depleting

substances such as HCFC-123 are used in secondary loops that transport

heat from warmer to cooler areas. EPA believes that such ozone-

depleting substances should be recovered, given their environmental

impact and the availability of equipment and expertise to recover and

recycle them. However, to require such recovery, EPA would not

necessarily need to define secondary loops as part of an appliance and

thereby subject them to the section 608(c) venting prohibition.

Instead, the Agency could use its broad authority to minimize emissions

and maximize recycling of class I and class II substances under section

608(a). EPA requests comment on this approach.

2. Full Charge

Compliance with the leak repair requirements requires calculating

both the full charge of the appliance and the leak rate. EPA has

previously defined full charge at Sec. 82.152 as the amount of

refrigerant required for normal operating characteristics and

conditions of the appliance as determined by using one or a combination

of the four methods specified at Sec. 82.152. Through this action, EPA

is proposing to eliminate the phrase ``for the purposes of

Sec. 156(i)'' and the word ``all'' from paragraph (2) in the definition

of full charge at Sec. 82.152. The definition refers to ``other

relevant considerations.'' The term ``all'' is implicit in that

language. EPA believes this change will improve the readability of the

provision by eliminating redundancy.

3. High-pressure Appliance

As discussed below in section IV.B.1.a, EPA is proposing to base

evacuation requirements for CFC, HCFC, HFC, and PFC appliances on the

saturation pressure of the refrigerant. As part of this approach, EPA

is proposing two changes to its definition of high-pressure appliances.

One of the changes would modify the system for classifying refrigerants

by their saturation pressures. Rather than classifying the refrigerants

according to their boiling points at atmospheric pressure, EPA would

classify them according to their saturation pressures at 104 degrees F.

The other change would split what are currently defined as high-

pressure appliances into two groups. One group would remain subject to

the current requirements for high-pressure CFC and HCFC (except HCFC-

22) appliances and would continue to be called ``high-pressure

appliances.'' The other group would be subject to the current

requirements for HCFC-22 appliances and would be called ``higher-

pressure appliances,'' as described below.

The proposed revised definition of ``high-pressure appliances''

reads as follows:

High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant

with a liquid phase 14 saturation pressure between 45 psia

and 220 psia at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is

not limited to appliances using R114, R12, R134a, R500, and R401A, B,

and C.

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

\14\ Zeotropic blends exert different pressures at the same

temperature, depending upon the percentage of vapor vs. liquid in

the container. For reasons discussed below in section IV.B.1.a., EPA

is proposing to classify refrigerants according to their liquid

phase saturation pressures at 104 degrees F.

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

4. Higher-Pressure Appliance

As described above, EPA is proposing to create a new category of

``higher-pressure appliances'' whose refrigerants have saturation

pressures between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104 degrees F. Appliances in

this category would be subject to the current requirements for HCFC-22

appliances. The proposed definition of ``higher pressure appliances''

reads as follows:

Higher-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a

refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 220 psia

and 305 psia at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is

not limited to appliances using R22, R502, R402A and B, and R407A, B,

and C.

5. Leak Rate

EPA has not previously promulgated a formal definition for leak

rate. Through today's action, EPA is proposing to add a definition for

leak rate for the purposes of applying leak repair requirements

contained in Sec. 82.156(i). Currently, Sec. 82.156(i) refers to

applicable allowable annual leak rates for different appliances. While

EPA believes that there is a general understanding on how to calculate

leak rates, EPA is proposing to add a specific definition in the

regulations for clarity. EPA believes this definition will address some

of the issues raised by the Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA).

EPA and CMA jointly issued a compliance guide for leak repair in

October 1995. That guide, known as the Compliance Guidance For

Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section

608 of the Clean Air Act (Compliance Guidance), includes a section on

calculating leak rates. The Compliance Guidance states that each time

the owner or operator adds refrigerant to an appliance normally

containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant, the owner or operator

should promptly calculate the leak rate to ensure that the appliance is

not leaking at a rate that exceeds the applicable allowable leak rate.

If the amount of refrigerant added indicates

[[Page 32057]]

that the leak rate for the appliance is above the applicable allowable

leak rate, the owner or operator must perform corrective action by

repairing leaks, retrofitting the appliance, or retiring the appliance

in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 82.156(i). As noted below,

the applicable allowable leak rate for commercial refrigeration and

industrial process refrigeration equipment normally containing 50

pounds or more of refrigerant is currently 35 percent, but EPA is

proposing to lower this for some types of equipment. The applicable

allowable annual leak rate for all other appliances normally containing

50 pounds or more of refrigerant is currently 15 percent, but again,

EPA is proposing to lower this.

The Compliance Guidance specifically mentions two methods for

calculating leak rates. One method for calculating the leak rate is

described in the Compliance Guidance as follows:

(1) Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance

to return it to a full charge and divide it by the number of pounds of

refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge;

(2) Take the number of days that have passed since the last day

refrigerant was added and divide by 365 days;

(3) Take the number calculated in step (1) and divide it by the

number calculated in step (2); and

(4) Multiply the number calculated in step (3) by 100 to calculate

a percentage.

This method is summarized in the following formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN98.000

Because this method takes the quantity of refrigerant (percentage

of charge) lost between charges and scales it up or down to calculate

the quantity that would be lost over a year-long period, it will be

referred to as the ``annualizing method.''

The second method mentioned in the Compliance Guidance is to

calculate the ``rolling average.'' The term ``rolling average'' is not

defined in the Compliance Guidance, but EPA believes it is commonly

calculated by:

(1) Summing up the quantity of refrigerant (e.g., pounds) added to

the appliance over the previous 365-day period (or over the period that

has passed since leaks in the appliance were last repaired, if that

period is less than one year),

(2) Dividing the result of step one by the quantity (e.g., pounds)

of refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge, and

(3) Multiplying the result of step two by 100 to obtain a

percentage.

This method is summarized in the following formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN98.001

EPA is considering four options for its formal definition of ``leak

rate.'' The first option is to require appliance owners to calculate

leak rates using only the ``annualizing'' method. The second option is

to require owners to calculate leak rates using only the ``rolling

average'' method. The third option is to require owners to calculate

leak rates using whichever of the two methods yields the higher

calculated leak rate, and the fourth option is to permit owners to

calculate leak rates using either method, so long as the same method is

always used for the same appliance, facility, or firm.

EPA believes that there are advantages and disadvantages to each

approach. The annualizing method is relatively simple, catches some

kinds of leaks more quickly than the rolling average

method.15 and does not penalize owners whose appliances leak

slowly but show no signs of leakage until a relatively large percentage

of the charge has been lost. On the other hand, the annualizing method

permits owners whose appliances spring a fast leak after a long period

of slow leakage to delay repair, because it permits them to ``dilute''

the true leak rate by averaging the refrigerant loss over more than one

year.

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

\15\ Suppose a previously leak-tight appliance springs a leak.

If the appliance owner is adding less than the applicable allowable

percentage of charge and the time since the last recharge is less

than one year, the annualizing method will force the owner to repair

the leaks before the rolling average method will. If an appliance

owner is adding more than the applicable allowable percentage of

charge and the time since the last recharge is more than one year,

the reverse holds true.

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

The rolling average method is relatively simple and catches some

kinds of leaks (such as the sudden fast leak described in the previous

paragraph) more quickly than the annualizing method. On the other hand,

the rolling average method permits owners to delay repair of certain

types of leaks longer than the annualizing method, and it may force

owners whose appliances actually leak below the applicable leak rate to

undertake repair, especially if these owners have no way of recognizing

that they have a leak until a relatively large percentage of the charge

has been lost.

Requiring the use of whichever method yields the highest calculated

leak rate is a more complicated approach (both for compliance and

enforcement) than requiring the use of either method alone, but ensures

that leaks are caught as quickly as possible. However, because this

approach incorporates the rolling average method, it shares that

method's potential to penalize appliance owners whose appliances leak

below the applicable leak rate but do not show signs of leakage until

they have lost a relatively large percentage of charge.

Permitting appliance owners to use the method of their choice to

calculate leak rates is somewhat more complicated to enforce than

requiring either method alone, but could be easier for owners to comply

with if they have more experience with one method than the other. It

might permit owners to select the method that permits them to perform

leak repair less frequently, but both the annualizing and rolling

average methods eventually catch all leaks above the maximum allowable

rate. Because appliance owners using the rolling average method would

be doing so at their discretion, this approach neutralizes any equity

concerns associated with that method. However, to implement this

approach, EPA would have to resolve two issues. First, the Agency would

have to implement some

[[Page 32058]]

type of recordkeeping requirement (1) to ensure that once appliance

owners chose a method for calculating leak rates, they used the same

method consistently, and (2) to permit EPA inspectors to understand and

audit leak repair records. Second, EPA would have to determine whether

the same method for calculating leak rates should be used for

individual appliances, whole facilities, or entire firms. EPA believes

that using different methods for different appliances within the same

facility would be excessively confusing and difficult to enforce; the

Agency would prefer the same method to be used on a facility or firm

basis.

EPA is proposing the third option, requiring use of whichever

method yields the higher calculated leak rate, as its lead option.

Specifically, EPA is proposing to define ``leak rate,'' as follows:

Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing

refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges or over 12 months,

whichever is shorter. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the

percentage of the appliance's full charge that would be lost over a 12-

month period if the current rate of loss were to continue over that

period. The rate is calculated using the following method:

(1) Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance

to return it to a full charge and divide it by the number of pounds of

refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge;

(2) Take the shorter of (a) 365 days and (b) the number of days

that have passed since the last day refrigerant was added and divide

that number by 365 days;

(3) Take the number calculated in step (1) and divide it by the

number calculated in step (2); and

(4) Multiply the number calculated in step (3) by 100 to calculate

a percentage.

This method is summarized in the following formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN98.002

Note that using this formula is equivalent to using whichever of

the two formulas above yields the higher calculated leak rate, since it

reduces to the formula for the annualizing method if less than one year

has passed since refrigerant was last added, while it reduces to the

formula for the rolling average method if more than one year has passed

since refrigerant was last added.

The Agency believes that this approach would require owners to

repair leaks quickly without being unduly burdensome. EPA requests

comment on this approach and on the other options presented here.

6. Low-pressure Appliance

EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``low-pressure

appliance'' to refer to saturation pressures at 104 degrees F rather

than boiling points. The proposed revised definition reads: Low

pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a

liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 degrees

Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances

using R11, R123, and R113.

7. Opening

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of ``opening'' to include

service, maintenance, or repair on an appliance that would release

class I, class II, or substitute refrigerants unless the refrigerant

were recovered previously from the appliance.

EPA is also requesting comment on adding disposal to the definition

of ``opening;'' see section IV.F. for a discussion of this option.

8. Reclaim

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of ``reclaim'' to reflect

the proposed update of the refrigerant purity standards at appendix A

from standards based on ARI 700-1993 to standards based on ARI 700-

1995. In addition, EPA is proposing to slightly reword the definition

of ``reclaim'' to remove the reference to a ``purity'' standard and

thereby make the definition more consistent with the full range of

requirements provided in appendix A. EPA has always interpreted

Sec. 82.154(g) and Sec. 82.164 to require that persons who ``reclaim''

refrigerant must reprocess the refrigerant to all of the specifications

of appendix A that are applicable to that refrigerant and to verify

that the refrigerant meets these specifications using the analytical

methodology prescribed in appendix A.

9. Refrigerant

Although the regulations currently use the term ``refrigerant'' in

several places, EPA has not previously defined this term. EPA is

proposing to add a definition of ``refrigerant'' that would include any

class I or class II substance used for heat transfer purposes, or any

substance used as a substitute for such a class I or class II substance

by any user in a given end-use, except for the following substitutes in

the following end-uses:

Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in

absorption units

Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of

hydrocarbons)

Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of chlorine

and chlorine compounds)

Carbon dioxide in any application

Nitrogen in any application

Water in any application

EPA is proposing this definition primarily to simplify the rule.

The proposed definition would permit EPA to refer to covered class I,

class II, and substitute refrigerants without having to reiterate a

list of either included or excepted refrigerants each time. At the same

time, EPA believes that the proposed definition would appropriately

define ``refrigerant'' for purposes of section 608. The Agency does not

intend the definition either to expand or diminish the scope of the

section 608 requirements, and believes that the definition is

consistent with EPA's past interpretations of the term ``refrigerant.''

In the past, EPA has interpreted ``refrigerants'' to include the fluids

in traditional vapor-compression systems, such as refrigerators, air-

conditioners, and heat pumps, as well as the fluids in heat transfer

systems that lack compressors, such as electrical transformers. EPA has

adopted this interpretation based on both technical and common

definitions of ``refrigerant.'' The Agency believes that the proposed

definition would cover the fluids covered by the technical and common

definitions. The rationale for the proposed exceptions is discussed

above in section III.B.

As discussed above, EPA is proposing to interpret ``appliance'' to

exclude secondary loops that move heat from warmer to cooler areas

using a fluid that does not change state. If EPA retains its proposed

interpretation of ``appliance,''

[[Page 32059]]

the Agency could add a restriction to the definition of ``refrigerant''

to the same effect, ensuring consistency between the interpretation of

``appliance'' and the definition of ``refrigerant.'' EPA requests

comment on this option, and on the proposed definition.

10. Substitute

EPA is proposing to define ``substitute'' as any chemical or

product substitute, whether existing or new, that is used by any person

as a replacement for a class I or II compound in a given end-use. As

discussed in section I.B. above, this definition is similar to the

definition of ``substitute'' used in the SNAP rule, but it omits the

proviso that a substitute be ``intended for use as a replacement for a

class I or class II substance.'' Thus, it includes substances that may

not have been used to replace class I or class II substances in a given

instance, but are used to replace class I or class II substances in

other instances of that end-use.

11. Technician

EPA is amending the definition of technician to include persons who

perform maintenance, service, repair, or disposal that could be

reasonably expected to release class I, class II, or substitute

refrigerants from appliances into the atmosphere.

12. Very-High-Pressure Appliance

EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``very-high-pressure

appliance'' to refer to saturation pressures at 104 degrees Fahrenheit

rather than boiling points. Because 104 degrees F is above the critical

temperatures of many very-high-pressure refrigerants, meaning that

there is no ``saturation pressure'' in the usual sense for those

refrigerants at that temperature, EPA is also adding the phrase ``or

with a critical temperature below 104 degrees Fahrenheit'' to the

definition. The proposed revised definition reads as follows:

Very-high-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a

refrigerant with a critical temperature below 104 degrees Fahrenheit or

with a liquid phase saturation pressure above 305 psia at 104 degrees

Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances

using R410A and B, R13, R23, and R503.

B. Required Practices

EPA is proposing to require persons servicing or disposing of air-

conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contains HFCs and PFCs to

observe certain service practices that minimize emissions of these

refrigerants. As noted above, these service practices are very similar

to those required for the servicing or disposal of CFC and HCFC

equipment. The most fundamental of these practices is the requirement

to recover HFC and PFC refrigerants rather than vent them to the

atmosphere. As noted above, the knowing venting of substitutes for

class I and class II refrigerants (except those exempted by the

Administrator) during maintenance, service, repair or disposal is

expressly prohibited by section 608(c)(1) and (2) of the Act, as of

November 15, 1995. Section 608(c)(1) exempts from the prohibition de

minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and

recycle or safely dispose of these refrigerants.

The statutory language of section 608(c)(2) simply extends to

substitute refrigerants the section 608(c)(1) prohibition on venting of

class I and II substances and its exemption for de minimis releases

associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely

dispose of refrigerant. For releases of class I and II substances, EPA

has interpreted as ``de minimis releases associated with good faith

attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of refrigerants,

releases that occur despite compliance with EPA's required practices

for recycling and recovery under 40 CFR 82.156, including use of

recovery or recycling equipment certified under 40 CFR 82.158.

Compliance with the regulations represents ``good faith attempts to

recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of refrigerant, and

consequently releases that occur despite such compliance should be

considered de minimis releases under section 608(c).16 EPA

proposes to interpret the phrase ``good faith attempts to recapture and

recycle or safely dispose'' similarly when it applies to section

608(c)(2). Thus, ``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or

safely dispose'' of substitute refrigerants are defined by the proposed

provisions concerning evacuation of equipment, recycling and recovery,

use of certified equipment, and technician certification. EPA believes

that these provisions appropriately define good faith attempts to

recapture and recycle or safely dispose of substitute refrigerants for

the reasons discussed in EPA's justification of each provision. Under

this approach, emissions that take place during servicing or disposal

when these provisions are not followed would not be de minimis

emissions.

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

\16\ EPA believes that both the statute and its legislative

history support this interpretation of ``de minimis releases

associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or

safely dispose of any such substance.'' Given the lack of

specificity in the statute, Congress clearly intended to give EPA

discretion to interpret the meaning of the phrase. Moreover, EPA's

interpretation is consistent with the legislative history on the

provision. As noted above, the Senate managers explained in their

report that the exception for de minimis releases was ``included to

account for the fact that in the course of properly using recapture

and recycling equipment, it may not be possible to prevent some

small amount of leakage'' (Congressional Record S16948, October 26,

1990). The Senate managers clearly equated ``properly using

recapture and recycling equipment'' with ``good faith attempts to

recapture'' refrigerant. EPA believes that the Senate managers' term

``properly using'' implies at least compliance with the requirements

to evacuate appliances to certain levels, to use certified recovery

equipment, and to become certified as a technician.

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

To implement section 608(c)(2) more effectively, EPA proposes not

only to define ``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely

dispose'' according to the proposed provisions, but also more directly

to require compliance with the proposed provisions for substitute

refrigerants regarding evacuation of equipment, use of certified

equipment, and technician certification in any instance where a person

is opening (or otherwise violating the refrigerant circuit) or

disposing of an appliance, as defined in 40 CFR 82.152. It is

physically impossible to open appliances (or otherwise violate the

refrigerant circuit) or dispose of appliances without emitting at least

some refrigerant, even if some effort is made to recapture the

refrigerant. Even after the appliance has been evacuated, some

refrigerant remains, which is released to the environment when the

appliance is opened or disposed of. Other activities that fall short of

opening but that involve violation of the refrigerant circuit also

release refrigerant, albeit very small quantities, because connectors

(e.g., between hoses or gauges and the appliance) never join together

with no intervening space. Even in the best case in which a good seal

is made between a hose and an appliance before the valve between them

is opened, some refrigerant will remain in the space between the valve

and the outer seal after the former is closed. This refrigerant will be

released when the outer seal is broken. Thus, whenever a person opens

an appliance (or otherwise violates the refrigerant circuit) or

disposes of an appliance, he or she will necessarily violate the

venting prohibition unless the exception for de minimis releases

applies. Because EPA is proposing to define the exception such that it

only applies when the person complies with the proposed provisions

related to recapture, recycling and disposal, compliance with the

section 608(c)(2)

[[Page 32060]]

venting prohibition would require compliance with the proposed

provisions. EPA believes that given this factual context, it has

sufficient authority under sections 608(c)(2) and 301(a) to implement

section 608(c)(2) by simply requiring compliance with the proposed

provisions, as a matter of law, without in each instance first

requiring a demonstration that the person's activities have actually

released refrigerant.

1. Evacuation of Appliances

EPA is proposing that before HFC and PFC appliances are opened for

maintenance, service, or repair, the refrigerant in either the entire

appliance or the part to be serviced (if the latter can be isolated)

must be transferred to a system receiver or to a certified recycling or

recovery machine. (As discussed below in the equipment certification

discussion, EPA is proposing to permit technicians to recover HFCs or

PFCs using equipment certified for use with multiple CFC or HCFC

refrigerants of similar saturation pressures.) The same requirements

would apply to equipment that is to be disposed of, except for small

appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, whose disposal is covered

under section c. below. EPA is proposing that HFC and PFC appliances be

evacuated to established levels that are the same as those for CFCs and

HCFCs with similar saturation pressures. At the same time, in order to

implement an approach based solely on saturation pressures, EPA is

proposing minor changes to the current system for classifying CFC and

HCFC appliances. As for CFCs and HCFCs, evacuation levels for HFCs and

PFCs would also depend upon the size of the appliance and the date of

manufacture of the recycling and recovery equipment.

Technicians repairing MVAC-like appliances are not subject to the

evacuation requirements below, but are subject to a requirement to

``properly use'' (as defined at 40 CFR 82.32(e)) recycling and recovery

equipment approved pursuant to Sec. 82.36(a).

a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances Other Than Small

Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances. Table I lists the proposed

levels of evacuation for air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment

other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. These

levels would apply to equipment containing CFCs and HCFCs as well as

HFCs and PFCs. The Agency has considered a number of factors in

developing these levels, including the technical capabilities, ease of

use, and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the thermodynamic

characteristics of the HFC and PFC refrigerants, the need for a

relatively simple and consistent regulatory scheme for all

refrigerants, the servicing times that would be necessary to achieve

different vacuums, and the amounts of refrigerant that would be

released under different evacuation requirements and their impact on

the environment.

Table 1.--Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances

[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]

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

Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard atmospheric

pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)

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

Type of appliance Using recovery or recycling Using recovery or recycling

equipment manufactured or equipment manufactured or

imported before Nov. 15, imported on or after Nov.

1993 15, 1993

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

Very high-pressure appliance........................ 0........................... 0.

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of 0........................... 0.

such appliance, normally containing less than 200

pounds of refrigerant.

Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of 4........................... 10.

such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or

more of refrigerant.

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of 4........................... 10.

such appliance, normally containing less than 200

pounds of refrigerant.

High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of 4........................... 15.

such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or

more of refrigerant.

Low-pressure appliance.............................. 25.......................... 25 mm Hg absolute.

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

As noted above, the evacuation requirements in Table 1 are very

similar to those currently in place for CFC and HCFC appliances. The

current evacuation requirements for CFC and HCFC appliances are based

largely, but not entirely, on their saturation pressures. (Refrigerants

are actually classified according to their boiling points at

atmospheric pressure, which are generally inversely related to their

saturation pressures at higher temperatures.) The current regulation

has three saturation pressure categories for appliances: low pressure,

high-pressure, and very-high-pressure. Successively deeper vacuums are

required for lower pressure appliances.

EPA adopted this approach because the saturation pressure of a

refrigerant is directly related both to the percentage of refrigerant

that is recovered at a given vacuum level and to the compression ratio

that is necessary to achieve that vacuum.17 A comparison

between R502, which has a saturation pressure of 245 psia at 104 deg.F,

and R11, which has a saturation pressure of 25.3 psia at 104 deg.F,

makes this clear. At an evacuation level of 10 inches of mercury vacuum

and an ambient temperature of 104 deg.F, 96

[[Page 32061]]

percent of R502 refrigerant vapor has been recovered, but only 61

percent of R11 refrigerant vapor has been recovered. For R502, the

compression ratio necessary to achieve this vacuum is about 25 to 1,

but for R11 the compression ratio necessary is only about one tenth of

that, 2.6 to 1. Most recovery compressors have a compression ratio

limit of between 20 and 30 to 1, meaning that it is difficult to

achieve an evacuation level much lower than 10 inches of vacuum for

R502, but that it is easy to achieve a lower evacuation level for R11.

Thus, a refrigerant's saturation pressure directly affects both the

technical feasibility and the environmental impact of a given

evacuation level.

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

\17\ The saturation pressure of a refrigerant is the same as its

vapor pressure, that is, the characteristic pressure of the vapor in

a vapor/liquid mixture of that refrigerant at equilibrium at a given

temperature. A compression ratio `is the ratio of the pressures of a

gas on the discharge and suction sides of the compressor.

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

However, saturation pressure is not the only factor affecting the

feasibility and cost-effectiveness of various evacuation levels for

appliances. Other considerations include the discharge temperature of

the refrigerant (the temperature of the refrigerant as it emerges from

the compressor) and the social value of the refrigerant (which includes

both its price and the environmental damage avoided by containing it).

Due to these considerations, EPA established a special set of

evacuation requirements for R-22 appliances, which would otherwise have

been treated as high-pressure appliances. EPA established somewhat less

stringent requirements for R22 appliances because (1) R-22 has both a

relatively high saturation pressure and a relatively high discharge

temperature among high-pressure refrigerants, making it relatively

difficult to evacuate deeply, and (2) R-22 has a low ODP compared to

R12, R500, and R502, all of which contain CFCs (58 FR 28674).

When EPA began its evaluation of possible evacuation levels for HFC

appliances, the Agency believed that it might be appropriate to

establish less stringent levels for these refrigerants than for CFCs of

similar saturation pressure, following the precedent established with

R22. On a pound-for-pound basis, EPA estimates that HFCs generally

cause less environmental harm than the CFCs they replace. However, when

EPA performed its analysis of the costs and benefits of attaining

various vacuum levels, it found that the social cost of releasing the

HFCs and PFCs (which, again, is a combination of the lost private value

of the refrigerant and the environmental damage that results from its

release) justified reaching vacuum levels only slightly less deep than

those for the CFCs being replaced. For instance, EPA found that the

socially optimal level of evacuation for R12 appliances containing 50

pounds of refrigerant was 15 to 22 inches of vacuum 18,

while the socially optimal level of evacuation for R134a appliances

containing the same quantity was 8 to 17 inches of vacuum.19

Based on these results, the most important factor in determining

appropriate evacuation levels for any particular charge size appears to

be the saturation pressure of the refrigerant.

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

\18\ EPA established a 10-inch vacuum level for equipment

containing less than 200 lbs of high-pressure refrigerant in

consideration of the fact that this evacuation requirement would

apply not only to large R12 appliances, but to smaller R12

appliances and to appliances containing somewhat higher pressure

refrigerants (e.g., R502). Very deep evacuation requirements were

not justified for the last two. In addition, many appliances are

likely serviced at higher temperatures than the 70 deg. used in

EPA's model, making attainment of deep vacuums more difficult.

\19\ Calculated optimal vacuums depend upon labor costs, the

estimated social cost of releasing the refrigerant, the displacement

of the recovery device compressor, and the clearance of the recovery

device compressor. The 8-inch optimal vacuum is based on relatively

low compressor displacement, relatively high compressor clearance,

and the assumption that the release of one kilogram of R134a would

cause about 60 cents worth of environmental damage; the 17-inch

optimal vacuum is based upon relatively high compressor

displacement, relatively low compressor clearance, and the

assumption that the release of one kilogram of R134a would cause

about six dollars worth of environmental damage. If the R134a is

assumed to cause no damage (which, for the reasons discussed in

section III.B.2, is an extremely unlikely assumption), the lower-

bound optimal vacuum rounds to seven inches.

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

Moreover, standards set by saturation pressure would be easier for

technicians to remember and implement than standards that varied both

by saturation pressure and type of refrigerant. The current CFC and

HCFC regulations contain 12 categories of evacuation requirements, a

number that could conceivably be doubled if EPA established new

categories for HFCs. EPA believes that the limited benefit that might

be gained by such ``fine-tuning'' is outweighed by the confusion and

non-compliance that could result from the proliferation of different

requirements. Many participants at the March 10, 1995, industry meeting

on substitutes recycling expressed a belief that establishing

consistent requirements for CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and PFCs would enhance

compliance with the recovery requirements for all of these

refrigerants.

EPA is proposing two changes to the current system for classifying

appliances in order to implement an approach based solely upon

saturation pressure. The first proposed change is to classify

refrigerants according to their saturation pressures at 104 degrees F

rather than their boiling points. The second proposed change is to

eliminate the special category for R22 and to replace it with a new

saturation pressure category that includes the ``high-pressure''

refrigerants with the highest saturation pressures.

EPA is proposing to classify refrigerants according to their

saturation pressures at 104 degrees F 20 because many of the

refrigerants that have entered the market over the past few years pose

two difficulties for the existing system based on boiling points.

First, many of the new HFC and HCFC blends do not have precise boiling

points. Instead, these refrigerants exhibit ``glide,'' boiling and

condensing over a range of temperatures at a given pressure. Second,

refrigerants' boiling points have served as a surrogate for their

saturation pressures at higher temperatures, but the relationship

between boiling point and saturation pressure is not as consistent for

the new refrigerants as it is for traditional CFCs and HCFCs. For

instance, a lower boiling point has generally indicated a higher

saturation pressure at a given temperature. However, R402B, with a

boiling point of -53.2 degrees F, actually has a lower saturation

pressure at 104 degrees F than R407A, with a boiling point of-49.9

degrees. The new approach avoids these difficulties because it links

evacuation requirements directly to the refrigerant saturation pressure

at a temperature similar to those where recovery typically takes place.

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

\20\ Zeotropic blends exert different pressures at the same

temperature, depending upon the percentage of vapor vs. liquid in

the container. For instance, a container of R407C vapor has a

saturation pressure of 223.8 psia at 104 degrees, while a container

of R407C liquid has a saturation pressure of 254.5 psia at 104

degrees. EPA is proposing to classify refrigerants according to

their liquid saturation pressures at 104 degrees F. This is because

the vacuum that can be drawn on an appliance is determined by the

discharge pressure against which the recovery compressor must pump

near the conclusion of the recovery process, and this discharge

pressure is that of a recovery tank that is likely to be nearly

filled with liquid.

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

EPA has attempted to select bracketing saturation pressures for

appliance categories so as to maintain as much consistency as possible

with the current categories based on boiling points. For instance,

because the current definition of ``high-pressure appliances'' includes

R114 appliances at the low-pressure end, and the saturation pressure of

R114 at 104 degrees F is slightly above 45 psia, EPA is proposing to

use a saturation pressure of 45 psia as the lower-bound saturation

pressure for high-pressure appliances.

One issue raised by the proposed approach is how to classify

appliances using very high pressure refrigerants such as R13, R23, and

R503. These

[[Page 32062]]

refrigerants do not have a saturation pressure in the traditional sense

at 104 degrees F because this temperature is above their critical

temperatures. (As noted above, the saturation pressure of a refrigerant

is the pressure of the vapor in a vapor/liquid mixture, but

refrigerants above their critical temperatures cannot exist in a liquid

state regardless of the pressure.) To address this concern, EPA is

proposing to modify the definition of very high pressure appliances to

add the phrase ``or whose critical temperatures fall below 104 degrees

F.''

EPA requests comment on its proposed use of refrigerants'

saturation pressures at 104 degrees F rather than boiling points to

classify them. An alternative might be to retain the current system

based on boiling points, making allowances for temperature glide. For

example, in cases where glide caused a refrigerant to straddle the line

between two pressure categories, EPA could place the ``straddling''

refrigerant into the category suggested by the lower end of the boiling

range (the ``bubble point''). This point is the one typically listed in

pressure-temperature charts, and EPA believes that it is the point that

would determine the maximum evacuation level (minimum pressure) that is

physically possible for the refrigerant.

Some custom refrigerant blends exhibit very large glides (e.g.,

over 60 degrees Celsius). For such refrigerants, the appropriate

evacuation level may be difficult to predict based on either saturation

pressure or a single ``bubble'' or ``dew'' point. EPA has worked and

will continue to work with the manufacturers of these refrigerants to

determine appropriate evacuation levels on a case-by-case basis.

The second change that EPA is proposing to the current

classification scheme is to eliminate the special category for R22 and

to replace it with a new saturation pressure category that includes the

``high-pressure'' refrigerants with the highest saturation pressures

(those with boiling points approximately between -40 and -50 degrees C

and saturation pressures between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104 degrees

F). EPA would designate this as the ``higher-pressure'' refrigerants

category. This would enable EPA to tailor requirements to refrigerants

with relatively high saturation pressures without increasing the

overall number of categories. The new category would include appliances

containing R22, R502, R404C, and R407 A, B, and C, and would be subject

to the same requirements as R22 appliances. For several of these

refrigerants, the combination of a relatively high saturation pressure

and high discharge temperature makes recovery into a deep vacuum

difficult. On the other hand, these refrigerants have significantly

lower saturation pressures than still higher pressure refrigerants,

such as R410A and B (with saturation pressures near 350 psia) and R13

and R503 (whose critical temperatures fall below 104 degrees F).

EPA requests comment on the establishment of the ``higher-

pressure'' saturation pressure category. EPA specifically requests

comment on the proposed use of 305 psia as the upper bound saturation

pressure for this category. The pressures to which R22 appliances must

be evacuated (and therefore to which ``higher-pressure'' appliances

would have to be evacuated) are 0 inches of vacuum, or atmospheric

pressure, for appliances containing less than 200 pounds of

refrigerant, and 10 inches of vacuum, or 9.8 psia, for appliances

containing more than 200 pounds of refrigerant. Drawing a 10-inch

vacuum on an appliance containing a refrigerant with a saturation

pressure of 305 psia would require recovery equipment to attain a

compression ratio of 30 to 1. EPA's current understanding is that this

is very close to the maximum achievable compression ratio for most

recovery compressors, and may even be beyond the abilities of some

models. (However, the compression ratio necessary to achieve this

vacuum may be lowered by cooling the condenser of the recovery

equipment.) Thus, it may be appropriate to establish a different upper-

bound saturation pressure for this category, such as 265 psia.

EPA also requests comment on whether it is appropriate to include

R502 (which has a relatively low discharge temperature) in this

category, or whether the possibility of drawing a deeper vacuum on this

refrigerant merits its inclusion in a lower-pressure category despite

the confusion that might result.

One concern raised at the March 10, 1995, meeting was whether the

energy consumption associated with lengthy operation of recovery

equipment might result in the emission of more global warming gases

(CO2) than would be contained through continuing the

refrigerant recovery process, removing the justification for deep

recovery. To investigate this concern, EPA and a laboratory that tests

recovery and recycling equipment compared the rates of power

consumption (and resultant emissions of CO2) and refrigerant

recovery for both high- and low-pressure recovery equipment. Both the

CO2 emissions rate and the refrigerant recovery rate were

weighted by the GWPs of the gases being emitted or captured. (Both the

EPA and laboratory analyses are included in the docket for this

rulemaking.) The conclusion of both EPA and the laboratory was that the

rate of CO2 emission resulting from use of recovery

equipment was dwarfed by the rate of refrigerant recovery even at the

latest (and therefore slowest) stages of recovery. Specifically, the

minimum rate of refrigerant recovery for high-pressure recovery

equipment was greater than the maximum rate of CO2 emissions

attributable to recovery by more than a factor of 2000, and the minimum

rate of recovery for low-pressure equipment out paced the rate of

CO2 emissions by a factor of over 1000. These large

differences are in part attributable to the high global warming

potential of most HFC refrigerants compared to CO2.

b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances. EPA is proposing to

establish the same evacuation requirements for servicing small

appliances charged with HFCs as it has for small appliances charged

with CFCs and HCFCs. Technicians opening small appliances for service,

maintenance, or repair would be required to use equipment certified

either under Appendix B, ARI 740-1993, or under Appendix C, Method for

Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances, to recover the

refrigerant.

Technicians using equipment certified under Appendix C would have

to capture 90 percent of the refrigerant in the appliance if the

compressor were operating, and 80 percent of the refrigerant if the

compressor were not operating. Because the percentage of refrigerant

mass recovered is very difficult to measure on any given job,

technicians would have to adhere to the servicing procedure certified

for that recovery system under Appendix C to ensure that they achieve

the required recovery efficiencies.

Technicians using equipment certified under Appendix B would have

to pull a four-inch vacuum on the small appliance being evacuated.

c. Evacuation Levels for Disposed MVACs, MVAC-like Appliances, and

Small Appliances. EPA is proposing to establish the same evacuation

requirements for disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like

appliances that are charged with HFCs as it has for these types of

appliances charged with CFCs and HCFCs. MVACs and MVAC-like appliances

would have to be evacuated to 102 mm (approximately four inches) of

mercury vacuum, and small appliances would have to have 80 or 90

percent of the

[[Page 32063]]

refrigerant in them recovered (depending on whether or not the

compressor was operating) or be evacuated to four inches of mercury

vacuum.

d. Request for Comment on Establishing Special Evacuation

Requirements for Heat Transfer Appliances. As noted in section

IV.A.1.a. above, EPA received comments from a manufacturer of PFCs that

stated that special evacuation requirements may be appropriate for

certain types of heat transfer appliances containing PFCs, such as some

types of electrical transformers. The commenter specifically noted that

evacuating some types of heat transfer systems may result in damage to

those systems, that in many cases, parts to be repaired may be isolated

from the refrigerant charge, and that many repairs may be performed

quickly, releasing little refrigerant even if the system is not

evacuated.

EPA does not currently believe that special evacuation requirements

for heat transfer appliances are necessary, for two reasons. First, EPA

has not heard from users or servicers of heat transfer appliances that

the current requirements regarding the recovery of CFCs and HCFCs from

such appliances (which are the same as those for similarly sized

appliances containing refrigerants of similar pressure) are difficult

to implement. Because PFCs have physical characteristics similar to

those of the CFCs that they replace in heat transfer appliances, EPA

believes that any potential problems associated with implementing the

proposed evacuation requirements for PFCs would have already surfaced

with CFCs and HCFCs. Second, the current evacuation provisions appear

to adequately address most of the situations that the commenter has

identified. Specifically, the current regulations establish an

exception to the evacuation requirements for non-major repairs and

permit isolation of parts to be repaired. Before non-major repairs,

technicians need only evacuate (or pressurize, in the case of low-

pressure appliances) appliances to atmospheric pressure. If a part can

be isolated from the refrigerant charge, technicians may repair the

part without recovering the refrigerant into an external container.

EPA requests comment on the need for special evacuation

requirements for heat transfer appliances in light of the arguments

presented here.

e. Proposed Clarifications of Evacuation Requirements. EPA has

received a request for two clarifications of the evacuation

requirements for appliances. The first request for clarification

concerns whether a part of the appliance that is not a separate tank

may be considered a ``system receiver,'' in which the system charge may

be isolated while another, isolated part of the appliance is opened for

repairs. The second request for clarification concerns whether an

isolated portion of an appliance that already meets the required level

of evacuation due to normal operating characteristics may be opened for

repairs without further evacuation. In addition to proposing a minor

change to the regulatory language to respond to the first request, EPA

is proposing to add language to Sec. 82.156(a) to clarify that, except

in the case of non-major repairs to low-pressure appliances, liquid

refrigerant must be removed from appliances (or from the isolated parts

to be serviced) before they are opened to the atmosphere.

Regarding the first request for clarification, EPA is today

clarifying that, for purposes of complying with Sec. 82.156(a), EPA

interprets the term ``system receiver'' to include a part of the

appliance that is not a separate tank, if that portion of the appliance

can be isolated from the portion of the appliance that is opened for

repairs. From an environmental perspective, EPA believes that the

critical consideration is whether the part of the appliance to be

opened to the atmosphere for repair has had the refrigerant removed and

isolated from it, not the configuration of the remaining appliance

parts within which the refrigerant is isolated. To clarify this point,

EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 82.156(a) by adding the following

examples after the term ``system receiver'': ``(e.g., the remaining

portions of the appliance, or a specific vessel within the

appliance)''. EPA requests comment on this proposed change.

In addition to clarifying its interpretation of ``system

receiver,'' EPA is proposing to add language to Sec. 82.156(a) to

ensure that the regulations clearly preclude a possible

misinterpretation of these requirements. EPA has always interpreted

Sec. 82.156(a) to require that, except in the case of non-major repairs

to low-pressure appliances, liquid refrigerant must be removed from

appliances (or from the isolated parts to be serviced) before they are

opened to the atmosphere. Currently, Sec. 82.156(a) reads (in part)

``all persons disposing of appliances * * * must evacuate the

refrigerant in the entire unit to a recovery or recycling machine

certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158. All persons opening appliances * * *

must evacuate the refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part to

be serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver or a

recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158.''

Sections 82.156(a)(1) through (5) specify pressures to which the

appliances must be evacuated.

It has come to EPA's attention that it may be possible in some

cases to briefly attain the required evacuation levels specified in

Secs. 82.156(a)(1) through (5) while there is still liquid refrigerant

in the appliance or in the isolated part to be serviced. In general, if

vapor is removed from a mixture of liquid and vapor refrigerant at

equilibrium, reducing the vapor pressure, the liquid will boil until

the equilibrium between the vapor and liquid states is restored,

returning the vapor pressure to the saturation pressure of the

refrigerant. However, heat must flow into the system from the

environment for this to occur, and such heat flow takes time. Thus, if

an individual quickly recovers vapor from an appliance, permitting no

time for the liquid to boil to return the vapor pressure to the

equilibrium value, the pressure specified in Sec. 82.156(a) may be

attained, albeit only temporarily. If the individual opens the

appliance at this point, a great deal of refrigerant will be released

to the environment. This is because the density of liquid refrigerant

is typically one to two orders of magnitude greater than that of vapor

refrigerant, meaning that a large mass of refrigerant may be

concentrated in a relatively small volume of liquid, and the liquid

will continue to boil off into the atmosphere as long as the appliance

is opened.

EPA believes that the use of the phrase ``evacuate the

refrigerant'' in Sec. 82.156(a), as well as the language in

Sec. 82.154(a) (the prohibition on venting) already clearly indicate

that liquid refrigerant must be removed from the appliance or isolated

part before it is opened for servicing. Otherwise, a significant

portion of the refrigerant will not be evacuated to a recovery device,

a good faith effort to recover and recycle refrigerant will not be

made, and releases to the environment will be considerably more than de

minimis. Nevertheless, to eliminate any possible ambiguity on this

point, the Agency is proposing to add the phrase, ``including all

liquid refrigerant,'' after the phrase, ``the refrigerant,'' in both

places where it occurs in Sec. 82.156(a). To ensure that the modified

language does not implicitly override Sec. 82.156(a)(2)(i)(B), which

provides that recovery of liquid is not required in cases of non-major

repairs to low-pressure appliances, EPA is proposing to add the

parenthetical phrase ``(except as provided at

Sec. 82.156(a)(2)(i)(B))'' to the second occurrence of ``including all

liquid

[[Page 32064]]

refrigerant.'' EPA requests comment on this proposed change.

In response to the second request for clarification, EPA believes

that if a part of an appliance already meets the required level of

evacuation due to normal operating characteristics, it may be isolated

and opened for repairs without further evacuation, so long as liquid

refrigerant is not present in the isolated part. Again, the purpose of

the requirement to evacuate under Sec. 82.156(a) is to minimize

refrigerant emissions from the part. If the required level of

evacuation has been met, and no liquid is present in the isolated part,

only de minimis quantities of refrigerant will be released when the

part is opened to the atmosphere. Therefore, this situation meets the

requirements to evacuate under Sec. 82.156(a).

2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant

EPA is proposing to establish purity requirements for HFCs and PFCs

very similar to those for CFCs and HCFCs. In addition, the Agency is

proposing to update its purity requirements for all refrigerants to

reflect the most recent industry standard, ARI 700-1995, Specifications

for Fluorocarbon and Other Refrigerants, and is requesting comment on

adopting a generic standard of purity for those refrigerants that are

not covered by ARI 700-1995.

a. Background. Currently, before being sold for use as a

refrigerant, used CFCs and HCFCs must be reclaimed by a certified

reclaimer to the ARI 700-1993 Standard of purity, which is codified as

Appendix A to subpart F. In a separate rulemaking, EPA has proposed to

add more flexibility to the purity standards for CFC and HCFC

refrigerants, permitting contractors to transfer refrigerant from one

customer's to another customer's equipment, so long as (1) the

refrigerant remains within the contractor's constant custody and

control, (2) the refrigerant is returned to the ARI 700 Standard of

purity, and (3) this purity is verified through submission of a

representative sample to an analytical laboratory certified by an EPA-

approved laboratory certification program. That proposal would also

require third party certification of reclaimers. See 61 FR 7858

(February 29, 1996).

b. Extending Purity Requirements to HFC and PFC Refrigerants. EPA

is not today soliciting comment on which refrigerant purity regime is

preferable for all refrigerants. Instead, EPA requests comment on

whether the purity of HFCs and PFCs should be maintained through a

different regulatory approach than the purity of CFCs and HCFCs, and if

so, why.

EPA believes that the rationale for promulgating purity standards

for CFCs and HCFCs also applies to HFCs and PFCs 21. EPA

discussed the rationale for covering CFCs and HCFCs at length in the

May 14, 1993 final rule (58 FR 28678-28679), the March 17, 1995, and

February 29, 1996 direct final rules, and the December 27, 1996 final

rule extending the reclamation requirement (60 FR 14608, 61 FR 7724,

and 61 FR 68506). In summary, the purity requirements are intended to

prevent refrigerant releases that would result from refrigerant

contamination, particularly releases linked to damage to equipment

caused by use of contaminated refrigerant. This damage, including

sludging of high-viscosity oils in low temperature systems, freezing of

moisture in capillary tubes, corrosion from acids, and high head-

pressures from noncondensables and refrigerant mixtures, could be

caused by contaminated HFCs and PFCs (and their lubricants) as well as

by contaminated CFCs and HCFCs. Equipment damage from contaminated

refrigerant would result in costs to equipment owners and releases of

refrigerant from damaged equipment though increased leakage, servicing,

and replacement. In addition, such damage would ultimately lead to a

reduction in consumer confidence in the quality of used refrigerant.

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

\21\ In finalizing the purity requirements for HFCs and PFCs,

EPA will consider comments received on both on the February 29,

1996, document (and on any subsequent document related to purity

standards for refrigerant) and on this document.

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

Given these potential effects, EPA believes that promulgating

purity requirements for HFCs and PFCs is vital to implementation and

enforcement of section 608(c)(2). Any reduction in consumer confidence

in the quality of used refrigerant would undermine a fundamental

incentive to comply with the section 608(c)(2) prohibition on venting

substitute refrigerants. Without a market for the used refrigerant,

there is no economic incentive to recover it; indeed, the costs of

recovery and destruction create a significant economic incentive simply

to release the substance, in violation of the venting prohibition.

Moreover, the removal of economic incentives to comply with the

prohibition is particularly deleterious to compliance because direct

enforcement of the prohibition is difficult. The prohibition applies to

numerous small entities, including over one million technicians, and

EPA lacks the resources to monitor their refrigerant-related activities

on an individual basis. Under these circumstances, establishing

economic incentives for compliance, or at least neutralizing economic

disincentives to compliance, is particularly critical to implementing

the statutory prohibition on venting.

The proliferation of refrigerants and lubricants on the market has

made efforts to protect refrigerant purity more important than ever.

The increasing number of refrigerants increases the probability of

refrigerant mixture, particularly if equipment that has been

retrofitted with new refrigerant is not properly identified, leading to

mixture of a CFC with the HCFC or HFC that replaced it. Requirements to

analyze refrigerant before sale to a new owner can prevent mixed

refrigerants from being placed into equipment or from contaminating a

larger batch of refrigerant.

Moreover, EPA believes that purity standards must apply to all

refrigerants in similar applications in order to ensure purity for any

subset of these refrigerants. As noted above, several persons attending

the March 10, 1995 public meeting stated that failure to apply

standards to HFCs could erode compliance with the standards for CFCs

and HCFCs, because technicians would become either confused or

skeptical regarding standards that were applied inconsistently. Such

standards would also be difficult to enforce. For instance, without

purity standards, contractors could sell dirty HFCs on the open market,

and it would be relatively easy to hide commerce in dirty CFCs or HCFCs

within commerce in dirty HFCs (e.g., through deliberate mislabelling, a

tactic that has been used to import CFCs illegally). Thus, purity

standards for HFCs are important to prevent damage to CFC and HCFC

equipment and subsequent emissions of these refrigerants as well. As a

consequence, EPA believes that purity standards for HFCs and PFCs are

important to implement the section 608(a)(2) requirement to reduce

emissions of CFCs and HCFCs to the lowest achievable level.

EPA is proposing to extend the purity requirements to HFCs and PFCs

by revising prohibitions 82.154(g) and (h) to refer simply to

``refrigerant'' rather than to ``class I and class II substances.'' In

addition, EPA is proposing to include purity standards and analytical

protocols for HFC refrigerants in Appendix A.

c. Updating the Purity Standard. EPA is proposing to adopt the most

recent version of the industry purity standard and analytical protocol

for refrigerants, ARI 700-1995. ARI 700-1995 includes standards for a

number of refrigerants that are not addressed by the currently

[[Page 32065]]

codified standard, ARI 700-1993. These refrigerants include R404A,

R405A, R406A, R407A, B, and C, R408A, R409A, R410A and B, R411A and B,

R412A, R507, R508 and R509. In addition, the Appendix C to ARI Standard

700-95 has updated some of the procedures for the analysis of

refrigerants in Appendix 93 to ARI 700-1993, which is incorporated by

reference into subpart F. First, methods have been added for

determining the composition of the zeotropic refrigerant blend families

R404, R407, R408, R409, and R410, and of the azeotropic refrigerant

blends R507 and R508. These methods will enable laboratories to verify

that the blends contain the appropriate percentages of their component

materials. Second, a gravimetric test has been added as an alternate

method for determining high-boiling residues. The gravimetric test is

actually considered to be more accurate than the current volumetric

method, and its addition will permit laboratories with the appropriate

facilities and expertise to perform more precise measurements of high-

boiling residues than are permitted by the volumetric method. (The

volumetric method is retained as an alternate in ARI 700-95 because it

is adequately precise for most applications, and is less expensive to

perform than the gravimetric method.) Finally, several typographic and

wording changes have been made to improve the clarity of the standard.

EPA believes that these changes will make the reclamation requirements

more enforceable while decreasing the burden of industry to prove

conformance.

ARI is currently revising ARI Standard 700-95 to reflect further

advances in refrigerant analysis and changes in the refrigerant market.

Because the next version of the Standard may be completed between the

publication of this proposed rule and the final rule, and because EPA

believes it is appropriate to adopt the most recent version of the

Standard possible, EPA is requesting comment on the changes to the

Standard that EPA understands are being considered. These changes

include (1) the adoption of a single analysis (for each blend) for

d

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