IXth European
Conference
on
Technological Innovations
in
Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and in the Food Industry
Politecnico di
Milano, June 29-30, 2001
REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING
WHAT’S NEW AT REGULATORY LEVEL?
François Billiard
Director of the International Institute of
Refrigeration
Environmental
regulations lead to profound changes in the field of refrigeration, air conditioning
and heat pumps. Over the last 10 years changes were certainly more significant
than during the 40 previous years. It is likely that changes over the next
10 years will also be very important.
The paper presents new topics in recent or draft
regulations dealing with ozone-depleting substances or global warming.
1.1 The various regulations
The Montreal Protocol was one of the first international
regulations dealing with environment. It is mentioned as an example because
it proves that most countries in the world can find a common agreement in
order to protect the environment. Unfortunately this wonderful common position
has been shattered, with each region and each country wanting to have its
own regulations. Consequently, the provisions of the Montreal Protocol are
now practically uninplemented in Europe since far more stringent rules were
enforced. It shows that states are not yet in favour of worldwide governance
in the environmental field. We can regret this since the adoption of a multitude
of regulations makes production of equipment and international trade far more
difficult.
Accordingly, we have to deal with four regulatory
levels:
1.2 Montreal Protocol – Non-Article-5
countries
Developed countries which are directly
applying the Montreal Protocol may use HCFCs until 2030 according to a very
simple time frame in which production, placing on the market and use have
the same timetable. It may be surprising to see that developed countries which
comply with the Montreal Protocol are allowed to buy CFCs for maintenance
and servicing purposes. In these countries advertisements for CFCs were still
being displayed recently. The number of CFC-liquid chillers still in use in
January 2001 was 100 000 systems worldwide with 44 000 in theUS out of a total
of 80 000 chillers (Koldfax, 2001). We can not claim that implementation
of the Montreal Protocol has been achieved. We still have a long way to go
before achieving complete phase-out of CFCs at end-user level.
1.3 Montreal Protocol – Article-5
countries
It is important to note that developing countries agreed to
phase out CFCs according to a timetable ending in 2010. At the outset, the
Montreal Protocol dealt only with developed countries. Thanks to dialogue
during a number of Conferences of the Parties and to the implementation of
technical mechanisms (technology transfer) and financial mechanisms (Multilateral
Fund) developing countries agreed on the implementation of binding commitments
on CFCs and HCFCs in their own countries. It is worthwhile to note that today
developing countries are fiercely opposed to binding commitments on greenhouse
gases emission reduction in their countries. However the example of the Montreal
Protocol shows that it is not impossible to achieve provided that negotiators
are committed to success and determined, and time and funding are available.
1.4
The European Regulation 2037/2000
This regulation comprises five key
measures:
In order to combat illegal imports
and to promote harmonization of numerous widely differing national regulations,
the European Union decided to ban the use of CFCs and to classify these refrigerants
as waste as of January 1st, 2001. This is a radical measure: plants
using CFCs were still widespread when this regulation was published (European
Parliament, 2000). Of the 500 000 small European stores (bakeries, butcheries,
convenience stores, etc.) equipped with refrigerated display cabinets and/or
cold rooms, how many were using equipment running on CFCs when this regulation
came into force? Certainly lots. The same is true for liquid chillers used
in air conditioning: this equipment is expensive and has a long lifespan (30
- 40 years).
In 1999, the IIR emphasized that banning CFCs too soon could
lead to illegal release of these refrigerants into the atmosphere during plant
servicing operations (IIR, 1999). We still think that this measure was introduced
too soon: member states have not had enough time to implement measures vital
to the promotion of recovery and destruction of CFCs in Europe. For instance,
in France, the 15 FRF/kg subsidy paid for recovery of CFCs has been abolished,
leading to a recovery rate that has no doubt worsened now that this financial
incentive is no longer available.
As of January 1st, 2001,
about 50 000 tonnes of CFCs were still being used in European refrigerating
and air-conditioning equipment. If we calculate that 50% of these CFCs, i.e.
25 000 tonnes, is neither recovered nor destroyed, and this could unfortunately
be a fairly realistic estimation, this would be the equivalent of an ODP of
around 350 000 tonnes of HCFC22 and the equivalent of around 200 Mtonnes
of CO2 that would be released into the atmosphere. Such an emission
level would represent 5 times the 1995 level of emissions of HFCs in terms
of global warming (Billiard, 2001). It is therefore vital to inform all refrigeration
stakeholders, particularly users and companies performing maintenance, concerning
measures to be taken; it is also vital to implement these environmentally
protective measures.
1.4.2 HCFCs
At first glance, this regulation is
very complex for the unspecialized end user, given that there are 3 time frames
covering production, placing on the market and various uses. Here is an example
showing how complex it is: the regulation stipulates that HCFCs are banned
as of January 1st 2000 in equipment with a "shaft input" of over
150 kW; a few lines later, the regulation mentions that HCFCs are authorized
up until June 30, 2002 for fixed air-conditioning equipment with a “cooling
capacity” of less than 100 kW. Was it really necessary to produce such a complicated
regulation when in reality most users probably don’t know the difference between
shaft input and cooling capacity?
It is up to the authorities, their
agencies, and trade federations and associations to translate this regulation
into simple terms enabling it to be readily understood and better known, particularly
at the level of users who do not have expertise in the field of refrigeration.
1.4.3 Maintenance
The regulation states in general terms
that all precautionary measures practicable shall be taken to prevent and
minimize leakages of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and more precisely that
fixed equipment with a fluid charge of more than 3 kg shall be checked for
leakage annually. This is certainly a good measure; however, this general
European legal provision has to be translated into detailed national by-laws
or recommendations: who is going to check? Shall we ask certified bodies to
check equipment? What will be the cost? Shall we set up specific European
standards and harmonized codes of practice on how to proceed for this control?
Who is going to control if the checking has been done? The Dutch STEK system,
which applies the Dutch regulations on leak-free refrigeration equipment (1995),
is often cited as a successful example .
1.4.4 Qualification
The regulation states that:
We can only approve such measures which
will provide recognition for qualified refrigeration technicians. However,
here again a great deal of preparatory work remains to be done at European
and national levels. Who is going to qualify the personnel? Which qualification
standard is going to be used ? What will be the cost ? Which public or private
body is going to check that technicians are qualified?
The CEN TC 182 “Refrigerating Systems
and Heat Pumps Safety and Environmental Requirements” on the Competence of
personnel (CEN, 2001) has already prepared a draft standard which defines
3 categories of competent persons:
·
maintenance personnel
·
installation and repair personnel
·
designers, commissioning
personnel and inspectors.
We hope that a common standard will
be defined and adopted by all European countries and that there will be common
recognition of certified people at European level.
1.4.5 Standards
The regulation states that the Commission shall promote the
preparation of European standards relating to the control of leakage, to the
recovery of substances leaking from refrigeration equipment and to technical
requirements with respect to leakproofness of refrigeration systems. All these
measures are very positive.
1.4.6 Reporting
Reporting is compulsory at the level
of producers, importers and exporters. Users should also fill in sheets during
each servicing operation even if it is not strictly written in the regulation.
1.5 National regulations
In addition to the European regulation
several Member States have developed their own regulations leaving aside the
European principle of a common European position regarding environmental matters.
For instance, HCFCs will be banned in Sweden and in Denmark
by the end of 2001 for maintenance of refrigerating systems. Are the environmental
issues in these countries so different from those of other countries, making
it worthwhile to develop separate regulations?
2.1 Key figures
When we discuss the global warming
issue we should bear in mind the key figures shown in Tables 1 and
2.
Table 1. Emissions of CO2
and greenhouse gases (GHGs) worldwide in 1990 and 1998 (Mt eq. CO2)
|
|
CO2 1990 |
CO2 1998 |
All GHGs 1990
|
All GHGs 1998 |
|
World |
|
22 981** |
|
|
|
Annex I (1) |
14 494* |
13 643* |
18 147* |
16 982* |
|
Annex II (2) |
10 215* |
11 027* |
12 686* |
13 553* |
|
Europe 15 |
3 324 |
3 332 |
3 690 |
3 580 |
(1) Annex I of the Framework Convention on Climate Change:
24 developed countries including the European Economic Community + 16 countries
with economies in transition (EITs)
(2) Annex II: 24 developed countries
including the European Economic Community
*Revised Press Kit Table: GHG emissions
from developed countries 1990-1998 (UNFCCCb, 2000)
**IEA, CO2 emissions from
fuel combustion 1971-1997, Paris, 1999
Table 2. Annex I Countries’ emissions
of HFCs in 1990, 1995 and 1998 (Mt. eq. CO2)
|
|
HFCs 1990 |
HFCs 1995 |
HFCs 1998 |
|
Annex I |
70.7* |
98.7* |
152.7* |
*UNFCCCa, 2000
In Annex I countries there is an overall
decrease of 13% in GHG emissions in 1998 below the 1990 level, but an increase
of 7% in Annex II countries.
HFC emissions in 1998 represent 0.9%
of all GHG emissions in 1998.
CFC and HCFC emissions which are not
included in the Kyoto Protocol represented 10.2% of total GHG emissions in
1992 (IIR, 1997).
2.2 The Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is not yet in force
because the number of countries which have ratified it, is not sufficient.
Countries are putting off ratification because the content of the Protocol
has not been accurately defined. The Conference in The Hague was adjourned
because major issues did not obtain a consensus. It is easy to understand
that before ratifying this treaty a country must know what the main rules
are likely to be, particularly about supplementarity, governance, carbon sinks
and flexible mechanisms (emissions trading, joint implementation or clean
development mechanism). The recent decision of President Bush comes as no
surprise. The US has to reduce its emissions by 6% in the commitment period
2008-2012 in comparison with 1990. In 1998, US emissions had already risen
by 11% in comparison with 1990 (UNFCCC, 2000). Therefore, at that date the
US should already have reduced its emissions by approximately 17%. If the
US is allowed to buy only a limited part of emissions reductions from other
countries through emissions trading, joint implementation or clean development
mechanism, this amount will not offset the increase in emissions. It is clear
that the US will not ratify a treaty that it cannot comply with.
It is out of the scope of this paper
to discuss whether the US will re-enter the Kyoto-Protocol process. This is
not a technical issue but principally a political issue.
A new trend at industry level should
be underlined: since COP-5 and COP-6, the industry has adopted new strategies.
Instead of resisting the Kyoto Protocol, the industry is working hand-in-hand
with the authorities so as to prepare the future and mitigate GHG emissions
at their level. The industry is preparing to use trading mechanisms, making
simulations on the price of a tonne of CO2 and trying to define
which policy it should apply: either buying emission permits or selling them.
The spirit of Kyoto is certainly gaining impetus and whether the Kyoto Protocol
is ratified or not, something will be achieved at industry level.
2.3 European level
At European level, several activities
should be mentioned:
European
professional organizations are active at lobbying level: EUCRAR (The European
Consortium for the Responsible Application of Refrigerants) and EPEE (European
Partnership for Energy and the Environment) for instance. Their policy consists
in defending all refrigerants primarily HFCs.
The Fluorinated Gases Sub-Group of
the Industry Working Group 5 of the ECCP (European Climate Change Programme)
has been particularly active. Cross-reflexion of main stakeholders in refrigeration
and air conditioning sectors with European Commission representatives took
place.
If the Kyoto Protocol is not ratified
by enough countries, it is likely that a European Directive will be enforced.
A lot has already been done, for instance the so-called European bubble defining
the differentiated objectives of the 15 Member States (CEE, 1998). We have
to define what should be the essential content of this Directive applying
to the fields of refrigeration and air conditioning. An uniform EU approach
defining policies and measures is certainly better than several different
regulations at country levels.
Here are 2 preliminary comments:
The least life
cycle global warming impact of the refrigerating system should be the driving
force for a global policy, not the refrigerant which actually is a small part
of the system. This is the principal message of the IIR statement presented
at The Hague Conference of Parties No. 6 – COP-6 (IIR, 2000). Every refrigeration
technician knows that the best overall life cycle impact can be obtained with
HFCs, hydrocarbons or ammonia, depending on the application, the temperature
level, the design and the architecture of the system, the quality of maintenance
and many other factors. The calculation of the global warming impact includes
all GHG emissions during the whole lifespan of the system both direct and
indirect emissions.
2. Quality of
refrigeration
It is important
to recall that the first goal of refrigerating equipment and systems is to
produce high-quality refrigeration ; the right temperature level in the food
chain in order to produce and sell safe and wholesome foodstuffs; good air
indoor quality, etc. High-efficiency systems are certainly an important issue;
however raised efficiency must not be to the detriment of the quality of the
cold chain.
2.4 Set of actions
There are two
types of actions (Dupont, 2001):
2.4.1
Actions
at the level of emissions of HFC refrigerants
Direct
emissions of refrigerants account for approximately 20% of the overall global
warming impact (IIR, 2000). In Europe, according to the March Consulting Group
(1998), the level of direct emissions in the fields of refrigeration and air
conditioning is 16%. It is the responsibility of refrigeration stakeholders
to reduce these emissions as far as possible.
The main actions are:
b) Commissioning:
·
Commissioning operations to check that components are installed
correctly according to a code of procedure.
c) Installation, maintenance, service:
·
Regular controls of leakage;
·
Raising the awareness of
users. Examples of successful actions;
·
Maintenance records (amounts of refrigerant used in servicing
of systems, dates of servicing...).
d) Personnel:
e) Decommissioning
operations.
f) Regulatory
controls.
2.4.2 Actions
at the level of energy efficiency.
Indirect emissions of CO2 account for
approximately 80% of the overall global warming impact of refrigerating systems
(IIR, 2000). In Europe, according to March Consulting Group (1998) the level
of indirect emissions in the field of refrigeration and air conditioning is
84%.
The main actions are:
a)
Improved design of components,
equipment and systems;
b)
Good practices at user level
in order to reduce energy consumption (periodical cleaning of heat exchangers,
floating condensation..);
c)
Standards on measurement
of energy efficiency;
d)
Accredited test laboratories;
e)
Labelling of energy efficiency
in addition to maximum energy efficiency levels;
f)
Training of personnel;
g)
Mutual recognition of energy
standards between countries.
2.5 National regulations
Several European countries are developing national
plans or regulations so as to reduce global warming from refrigeration and
air-conditioning plants:
2.4.1 Denmark
Denmark has published
2 by-laws:
a) Early March 2001, Denmark implemented a regulation
on import, sale and use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6. New and recovered
HFCs and new products containing these gases are prohibited after January
1, 2006. For certain applications no date for prohibition has been specified
due to the unavailibility of commercially accessible alternatives. According
to Directive 98/34, the Commission and Member States have until June 6, 2001
(a so-called standstill period) to deliver a detailed opinion which demonstrates
that the measure may create obstacles to the free movement of goods within
the internal market. To date, the European Commission and 5 European countries
(Belgium, Italy, Germany, Finland and Portugal) have expressed their opinions;
this means that the standstill period is automatically extended by 3 months.
It is now up to Denmark to submit explanations.
If the Commission announces its intention to propose
or adopt a Directive, regulation or decision on the matter, Denmark could
be forced to wait until March 5, 2002.
b) A tax has
been set up: 0.10 DKK (0.011 USD) per GWP100 with a ceiling of 200 DKK (22
USD). For HFC134a for instance the tax level is 14.3 USD/ kg of HFC134a. This
is a fiscal matter not requiring reporting under the European Union’s formal
notification.
2.4.2 UK
National Global Warming Action Programme
The Government has revised an initial programme
which many comments from refrigeration stakeholders. Some of the items comprising
the Government’s new position are:
·
HFCs are not a sustainable technology in the long term.
·
HFCs should only be used
where other safe, technically feasible, cost effective and more environmentally
acceptable alternatives do not exist.
·
HFC emissions will not be
allowed to rise unchecked.
·
A list of applications where
HFCs are not necessary shall be used.
2.4.3 Austria
The Ministry of Environment has sent out a draft
regulation on phasing out HFCs. It is not yet in force. The proposed timetable
is:
January 1, 2004: phase-out of HFCs for mobile
air conditioning
January 1, 2005: phase-out of HFCs in all new
refrigeration equipment;
January 1, 2010: phase-out of HFCs for maintenance
of all HFC equipment.
2.4.4
Norway
A proposal has been tabled in Norway to impose
an import tax on HFC refrigerants amounting to around 39 euros per kg for
R134a (SFT, 2001). Within the scheme the tax would be refunded if the recovered
fluid is returned. The proposed tax is based on a levy of around 30 euros
per tonne of CO2 equivalents.
2.4.5
France
The Ministry
of Environment proposed on January 26, 2001 to classify substances with a
high GWP (above 700) with a special symbol, N, in order to demonstrate that
the substance may be dangerous for the environment.
The situation
is therefore quite confusing and difficult for the industry (manufacturers
and users) who again cannot reasonably prepare long-term strategic plans because
of a lack of insight into future trends.
Harmonization
of standards and regulations is highly desirable.