Monday, June 21, 2010

Don't Forget the EPA 608 Requirement

When a law has been on the books for so long, it's possible for it to be taken for granted, or even unknown to new maintenance managers. Since the mid-1980's, the government of the United States has required that all persons who open a system or container holding a controlled refrigerant must be certified.

Persons who work on stationary equipment or use refrigerant designed for these systems can become certified by passing a proctored EPA Section 608 examination. The most reputable HVAC training providers often provide this proctored testing for no or little charge in conjunction with regular maintenance training.

Candidates for this test can be certified in any of the three equipment categories below, plus Universal.

Type I - A Type I technician primarily works on small appliances such as domestic refrigerators, window air conditioners, PTAC's and vending machines.

Type II - Primarily works on equipment using a high pressure refrigerant such as HCFC-22. The equipment includes residential air conditioners and heat pumps, supermarket refrigeration and process refrigeration.

Type III - Primarily works on equipment using a low pressure refrigerant such as HCFC-123 or CFC-11. The units are primarily chillers.

Universal - Any candidate passing all three of these EPA types is certified as UNIVERSAL.

To pass any EPA type, the candidate must pass a CORE section, plus the desired Technician section. The test is four sections (CORE, I, II, III) of 25 multiple choice questions each. All must be passed to achieve UNIVERSAL. Each section is graded separately and a passing score is at least 70%.

No one would say this is an easy test. Study and preparation are required. And, again, a reputable HVAC course training company will often provide a study guide for the test upon enrollment. Require that from your trainer, and you'll have a certified team!

3 comments:

Urethane Products by Bailey Parks said...

Great post. You've created a great resource for keeping up to date on environmental compliance - it's much appreciated. Please let us know if you are interested in publishing any unique articles we can supply. We're like everyone else out there - working to provide valuable content and links to/from the right people and are regular contributors to many industrial publications.

Blair Sorrel said...

From StreetZaps.com:

MYTH BUSTERS FINALLY GET BUSTED!

So Myth Busters doesn't believe that saline solutions increase conductivity? They should go back to the basic fifth grade experiment with a battery and salt water! Or what about the saline paste used for taking EEG readings in a medical office? Then again, Myth Busters have always focused on the comedic rather than realistic.

Let's consider the show some years ago that attempted to prove that urinating on a high tension line such as a third rail would not be harmful. In that winner, they employed a fluorescent light ballast to simulate the power source. In reality such a ballast uses high voltage alternating current to ignite the arc inside the tube. By contrast, a third rail supplies direct current at very high current levels to propel trains weighing on average 400 tons unloaded. High voltage is not inherently dangerous, it is the high current that creates tissue damage, more so where direct current is involved because of the electrochemical effects on the body. The difference between high voltage and high current is understandable by a 7th grade science student but apparently such facts never are allowed to interfere with a good show.

Moreover, the issues of stray current and water, especially saline, are well known. Electrical utilities with underground lines have strict rules as to the maximum time that supply cables can be de-energized and then reloaded without an insulation test. The concern is moisture infiltration when the unloaded cables cool, a concern that peaks when saline slush infiltrates electric cable ducts after snow melts. Furthermore, contact voltage incidents occur irrespective of salinity or even external conditions. While electrocutions are fortunately rare, no doubt, people have experienced minor incidents, especially in the tingle or nuisance electrical range, and simply shrugged them off or failed to understand them.

In another example, some years ago frequent track fires were noted in the railroad tunnel under Park Avenue in New York City, particularly several days after heavy snows. The culprit was saline drippings from the street above that compromised porcelain third rail insulators and allowed a ground path through the steel brackets that supported the under-running type third rail used there. Those stray voltage paths ignited subsequently the wood track ties on which grease inevitably accumualtes. The solution was the replacement of the brackets with non-conductive fiberglass mounts.

Every one of the previous examples involves some sort of saline solution that enhanced the conductivity of a particular device or line. No matter what the type of salt - the very term "salt" implies an ionic bond of a metal and non-metal, chlorine, which in water dissolves to form ions which are inherently electrically conductive by their very nature. While it may be expecting too much for the writers to read up on Basic Chemistry 101 or Intro Physics 101 - if they are claiming to represent facts then an electrical engineer or, at the very least, a grade school science teacher should be interviewed to acquaint the writers with technological and scientific reality.

Unknown said...

Very nice post, thanks for sharing the information. Keep up the good work.

maintenance consulting