# Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-15003

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** June 11, 1998
- **Citation:** 63 FR 32044

## Text

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 Smal

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-15003. Public record. Not legal advice.