A group of Italian refrigeration contractors is taking online retailer Amazon to court for continuing to sell HFC refrigerant without requiring buyers to be F-gas certified.

With the European Commission, EU member governments and authorities across Europe failing to act to stem the flagrant abuses of the F-gas regulations, 18 member companies of Italy’s CNA, the National Confederation of Crafts and Small and Medium Enterprises, have started their own action by taking Amazon to court for illegal F-gas sales.

The plaintiffs claim unfair competition and are asking the Court of Rome, as a matter of urgency, to force Amazon to stop selling F-gas to buyers without the necessary certification. The first hearing has been scheduled for October 11.

The CNA first raised concerns over the issue two years ago, which highlighted how the lack of controls created serious problems of credibility with companies regarding the whole F-gas system.

In March, a presenter on a popular Italian tv station exposed the ease with which anyone without the necessary F-gas qualifications could purchase refrigerant by obtaining an 800g bottle of R410A cylinder from Amazon.

CNA claims that it carried out similar tests, managing to purchase two cylinders of refrigerant from two different sellers through Amazon, one Italian and one German, both without any controls or questions asked by either the sellers or Amazon.

The plaintiffs point to the fact that the F-gas regulation (517/2014) clearly specifies that fluorinated greenhouse gases can only be sold to people and companies in possession of F-gas certification.

In a statement, the CNA says: “Operating in the F-gas sector without having securities and selling to subjects without license in violation of the legislation represents a clear act of unfair competition and determines the possibility of creating a market of suppliers who, in turn, compete illegally with companies regularly certified without any title, thus fuelling an illicit market in the F-gas.”

It adds: “This is an act of unfair competition that risks creating two parallel markets: next to the legitimate one of the qualified operators, another of subjects without the necessary certification. A practice that the applicant companies and the CNA ask to stop as soon as possible to bring the sector back to full legality.”

The Cooling Post has been exposing the widespread abuse of the F-gas system and the authorities’ seeming inability or unwillingness to act. Sales to non-F-gas-certified people is clearly happening on numerous online classified and auction sites across Europe. As prices have risen due to the phase-down, the European market has been witnessing a huge influx of illegal refrigerant, much of it being sold in banned disposable cylinders, with suspected issues of quota busting and incidences of large-scale theft.

Source: https://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/amazon-in-court-over-illegal-f-gas-sales/

In a nutshell, a PLC or programmable logic controller is a ruggedized computer used for automating processes.

A DCS or distributed control system is similar to a PLC in that it has rugged computer controllers, however, the DCS contains multiple autonomous controllers that are distributed throughout a system, also used for automating processes.

A Little History

The PLC was actually born more than forty years ago when an antsy design engineer named Dick Morley quit his job over a dispute with his boss (he wanted to work on Saturdays instead of Fridays, so he could ski more…his boss said no) and formed a company with a friend called Bedford Associates.

At Bedford, Morley and his friend wrote proposal after proposal, mostly for local tool firms hoping to evolve into the new solid state manufacturing arena with the help of small computers. The proposals didn’t exactly meet Morley’s creative nature—they were so similar and repetitive that, being the antsy type, he eventually grew bored.

That’s when Morley began to think outside the box, literally. He wondered if he could create an automated programmable controller that could handle his clients’ everyday jobs.

Morley got to work drafting an idea for a programmable controller. He shared it with his team who enthusiastically embraced the design. After finding financial support, Morley’s new enterprise, Modicon, was created.

As good fortune would have it, during the design phase of Morley’s creation, an executive at GM presented a request for a solid state controller that would make plants more reliable and durable, one that could also replace the hardwired and unreliable relay systems that were pervasive in manufacturing.

Boom…GM heard about Morley’s work and eventually contracted with Modicon to purchase over $1 million worth of their innovative programmable controllers (it was several years later, when personal computers or PCs were invented and the “logic” part of the name was added to create the term, PLC).

Modicon was now in business, big time. The company name stuck through a couple of acquisitions, then morphed into what is now Schneider Electric.

In the beginning, the PLC was used primarily for discrete controls. The programming of the PLCs was primarily in ladder logic, a format very similar to a schematic.

The PLC received device information from the field, solved the logic, and then energized the outputs to produce the desired effect, which generally meant performing repetitive tasks in a reliable and durable manner.

DCS Enters the Picture

The DCS appeared around 1975, out of necessity. Basically, the creation of a DCS system came about because of the increasing use of microcomputers. There had been other computer-based systems in the industry since the late 1950s, but these had limited scopes for scalability, robustness, and security.

There were many benefits to the DCS, but one of the primary advantages was that an entire plant could be connected via proprietary communications and controlled by a distributed system.

For instance, say you had a plant that made an ice cream-filled cookie sandwich. The plant would have a production line for the ice cream, and one of the autonomous controllers would process the batch of ice cream.

After the ice cream batch was complete, another autonomous controller would process the freezing of that ice cream. Yet another controller might process the cookie batch, while another might supervise the baking process. With several autonomous controllers, if a controller failed, it would impact only that process and not all of the others, which led to a robust system that virtually eliminated entire plant failure.

Bottom line? The DCS was really good at autonomously controlling single or multiple processes.

Another major benefit of the DCS was the integrated monitoring and control system similar to today’s SCADA systems. The entire tag base is right there, already created for the process control, and available to use on the monitoring and control screens.

Also beneficial was that the DCS had function block programming. Function block programming, if you aren’t familiar with it, is a section or several lines of code behind a single interface. That interface may do something like handling the manual and automatic operation of a valve. Function block programming saved a lot of time and redundant programming.

So, What the Heck Makes Them Different?

Essentially, the difference between PLC and DCS forty years ago was considerable, and if you owned a large plant with continuous processes, you likely would have chosen a DCS.

In today’s industries, however, the DCS and PLC are quite similar, save for the integrated monitoring and control.

With open source communications, fiber optics, Ethernet and the like, many PLCs can now communicate with each other and behave as autonomous PLCs that communicate over the network to other autonomous controllers.

That wide communication allows for single or multiple processes being controlled by one PLC to communicate with another PLC. A connected PLC system can have nearly the same security and robustness as a DCS, while a single PLC is a single point of failure, so you wouldn’t want to control an entire plant with a single PLC.

Take the ice cream sandwich example. PLC-A could process the ice cream batch. When the batch is complete, PLC-A communicates with PLC-B that the process was complete, and PLC-B then launches the freezing process.

You can see that with today’s technologies, a wide and robust PLC system could do virtually the same thing that the DCS can do.

Yet another advantage of the DCS is installation cost savings. This advantage occurs because of the autonomous controller can be located in close proximity to the process versus pulling long runs of I/O wire across a plant. The DCS’ onboard monitoring and control system is also a plus.

Speaking of advantages, today’s PLC systems offer nearly the same ones as the DCS, excluding the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA).

With a PLC system (multiple PLCs in a plant structure), you still need to create the supervisory and control system. The entire DCS database would be available for the creation of the monitoring and system, the PLC systems individual PLC databases would need to be created in the SCADA system software.

Help Wanted…

One of the drawbacks to the DCS has been the scarcity of programmers that have some experience with it.

Most plant floor technicians are familiar with ladder logic programming however, DCS programmers and technicians typically need more specialized experience in database functions, as well as IT-related networking knowledge.

Because of the specialized training, DCS programmers are a bit harder to come by.

In contrast, there are more programmers available for hire in the PLC arena and with the new programming languages such as function block, sequential function, etc., the advantage of function block programming is no longer exclusive to the DCS. This saves in development time when programming a PLC.

The takeaway from this comparison is that, with today’s technologies, either system can control an entire plant. One needs to weigh the system costs and the advantages/disadvantages to make the best decision for the situation at hand.

Source: https://www.automation.com/automation-news/plc-and-dcs-how-do-they-differ-how-did-they-come-about

Source: https://www.racplus.com/news/f-gas-enforcement-fears-raised-over-online-refrigerant-sales/10035520.article

Does car air conditioning refrigerant naturally dissipate over time? If so, how long does it take for car refrigerant to be “used up”? If a car is low on refrigerant could the cause of the low refrigerant be natural dissipation of the refrigerant?

Refrigerant is not consumed or used up in normal day-to-day operations, but some cars due exhibit a slight loss over time. While some will argue that on the molecular level no system is completely sealed, when your vehicle leaves the factory, its air conditioning is essentially leak free. This doesn’t mean it’s going to remain that way forever. The bulk of your AC system components are made of metal, but rubber seals and hoses are used at connection points. Over time these rubber pieces are susceptible to degradation and may cause minor leaks. They are leaks that may take years to become apparent to the driver.

If your vehicle is less than five years old and its AC system is inoperative due to refrigerant loss, then it likely has a significant leak other than what is mentioned above, such as an AC condenser, compressor or evaporator.

It really becomes a matter of plumbing at that point. Find the leak, temporarily evacuate the system of any remaining refrigerant, repair and refill to the factory-specified amount.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/culture/article-what-causes-ac-refrigerant-loss-in-a-car/

Almost everyone today is intimately familiar with some form of human-machine interface (HMI). We use them to send messages and watch videos (smartphones and tablets), create documents and drawings (laptop computers) and find our way around (GPS systems). HMIs are even appearing on coffeemakers, large appliances and other consumer goods.

In the world of industrial automation, applying HMIs to control and monitor machines, processes and even smart buildings has been a common practice for many years. These industrial HMIs, sometimes called operator interface terminals (OITs), are good at what they do but have traditionally required significant engineering effort for development, deployment and maintenance. They also typically include many proprietary elements and require ongoing expenditures for software and licensing.

Closely related to HMIs, and in fact often overlapping with them, are supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems. SCADA systems typically cover a much wider physical area, such as multiple pumping stations remote from a central facility, while HMIs are usually local to the processes for which they provide visualization. SCADA systems offer a wider reach for initiating control and monitoring, and usually include database capabilities for logging data points and facilitating analysis. But like HMIs, they are also usually proprietary, and expensive to support over time.

Today, automation engineers are increasingly taking advantage of available “smart” systems in the field, including Internet of Things (IoT) devices. These devices have lots of useful data to offer and frequently need monitoring, and are sometimes used as inputs to real-time control systems. But the traditional methods of connecting these remote devices through standard industrial systems is difficult and costly.

However, a next generation of HMI and SCADA hardware and software addresses these and other challenges. By using the latest commercial and open-source technologies, these products free users to focus on connecting with smart systems, getting data, transforming it into actionable information, and visualizing it when and where we want.

The Case for Connectivity

Outfitting processes and equipment with electrical and digital instruments is a standard practice with a well-developed history. A wide range of sensors, analyzers, controllers and other components are available to support these automation systems, but many of these established products require relatively expensive engineering and installation for deployment.

With the digitization of everything, easy availability of Ethernet and wireless networks (Wi-Fi), and energy-efficient designs—an entirely new class of IoT instrumentation has become available to address these deployment issues. These devices can economically be installed out at the “edge” of processes and facilities.

Larger equipment also comes standard as “smart.” Systems distributed throughout company sites—such as air handlers, power distribution equipment, and packaged skids for water handling and compressed air—all offer extensive operational and power usage data collected with smart devices.

In fact, edge-located IoT devices (Figure 1) and intelligent equipment are now the norm. Even if direct command and control is not warranted, substantial value can be gained by gathering the available data so it can be analyzed to reveal energy usage, perform condition monitoring, and help discover other trends. When problems are discovered early and addressed before escalation, money can be saved and downtime avoided.

Figure 1, Wireless Sensors, courtesy of Emerson: Field-located smart sensors, such as this wireless tank level instrument, are the norm now, offering data when end users make connections.

Issues with Classic Connectivity Methods

Although it’s desirable to tap into these smart devices, it’s not always easy or cost-effective. The “classic” approach involves several steps and linkages to make edge data available up to the cloud (Figure 2, top diagram). Not only are these connections difficult to configure initially, but they are also challenging to maintain over time, with required maintenance beginning at the periphery and progressing inward.

First, the field device is likely wired or networked to a local programmable logic controller (PLC), since this is often the nearest programmable system to the edge component. The PLC requires some device-specific communication driver or instructions to obtain the data, which may involve choosing the desired points and mapping them in a spreadsheet-like format.

Next, the PLC data is networked up to a PC-based HMI or SCADA system, with either approach requiring configuration of data tags, drivers and polling rate assignments. In turn, the HMI or SCADA needs additional configuration or programing steps to transport the data into a cloud-based database, where it can be made more widely available.

All these tasks are feasible and commonly employed, but they have many downsides. Typical PLCs and communications drivers may be proprietary, requiring costly configuration software and licenses. Even with the right hardware and software in hand, designers require specialized knowledge of devices, programming and networking. Certainly, the last networking link from the project site to the cloud demands dedicated attention to go through firewalls and maintain security.

Figure 2, Flattening the Architecture: The diagram at the top shows the traditional and overly complex methods often used for linking sensors to the cloud. The bottom diagram depicts the use of next generation hardware and software to significantly simplify these steps.

Hardware First

A better approach circumvents many of these issues by leveraging commercially-based and open-source hardware and software to achieve streamlined but effective high-performance connectivity (Figure 2, bottom diagram). Specialized elements are superseded with simple, standard building blocks far more easily managed, but still capable of implementing cloud-based IoT smart systems.

Where classic data handling solutions demand hardware-intensive layers of PLCs, servers and PCs networked together, newer platforms are streamlined with the proper amount of connectivity and processing power. A fundamental building block for this next-generation solution is an industrially hardened component combining connectivity and computing power, optimized for data handling tasks and HMI/SCADA visualization.

An edge-located component of this type is not exactly a PLC, or a PC or an HMI—but includes some of the capabilities found in each of these components. It is built upon commercial technologies to offer a superior price/performance ratio, but fortified with features for reliable operation in harsh environments.

This type of edge component can function directly as an industrial controller, or inputs can be added to it for monitoring legacy systems. Where more advanced networkable devices are available, such as packaged equipment controls or IoT devices, the edge component can act as a robust gateway.

As many or as few edge components as necessary may be installed to gather data from other smart equipment, depending on the logistics of the sites. Each edge component acts as a bridge to connect other intelligent devices up to the cloud. Working together, these edge components form the backbone of a new architecture for HMI and SCADA.

Software Technology Enables Advancements

Hardware alone in the form of an edge component isn’t enough to power next-generation HMI and SCADA connectivity to IoT devices, as numerous open-source and built-in software technologies are also required to deliver modern HMI and SCADA systems. Here is a list of key features needed for an effective edge component, followed by an explanation as to the role of each.

• Linux operating system
• Native OIT/HMI options (onboard display and off-board via HDMI)
• Extensible to mobile and web-based HMIs, scalable for any device
• Built-in OPC UA drivers for popular PLCs
• Improved licensing (affordable, server-based, no tag limits, no client licenses)
• MQTT/Sparkplug for secure, outbound, IT-friendly communications
• Node-RED to deliver integrated cloud connectivity and data flow engine

Microsoft Windows is the most popular and familiar PC operating system (OS), and many HMI and SCADA platforms run on Windows. As the leading alternative open-source OS, however, Linux cost-effectively provides stability and security without demanding excess computing resources. It is already heavily used in IoT and other smart devices, making it a natural fit for edge processing.

While there are many data handling use cases for edge components to be “headless,” without any sort of display, if an edge component can offer a local display̶—and the ability to drive an even larger HDMI monitor—it is more useful for local operator interactions, and easier for designers to configure. Equally important is the ability to extend the HMI out to web-based and mobile HMIs, making the interaction experience scalable and seamless from any authorized user’s device.

Built-in OPC UA drivers facilitate native communications between the edge component and almost any popular PLC, and they can be combined with a reasonably priced software environment without costly and awkward tag limits and client licenses.

No edge component discussion would be complete without a mention of enabling technologies targeted at securely moving data. An open-source protocol called message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT) is specifically tailored to be robust and streamlined, even over less capable networks. More importantly, MQTT can initiate outbound communications, thus operating seamlessly over typical business IT systems, thus avoiding complex and hard-to-maintain network configurations. This is particularly important since it helps operations personnel to concentrate on their own processes, without having to rely on IT personnel. MQTT is often combined with a common industry specification called Sparkplug to efficiently deliver industrial-type messaging.

A browser-based tool called Node-RED provides a visual configuration interface to define data from sources and route it to destinations (like a cloud-based database) over various communication paths. Industry-standard Transport Layer Security (TLS) ensures all communications are secured with banking-level encryption. Once the data is in the cloud, one can extend their HMI and SCADA systems to anywhere worldwide with an internet connection.

All these acronyms add up to open-source, built-in software options geared exactly for helping you securely move data from the edge up to the cloud, while avoiding the expense, complications and pitfalls of traditional methods.

Conclusion

Next-generation HMI and SCADA technologies are available now to help you meet your automation goals. One example of an edge programmable industrial controller (EPIC) component of this type is Opto’s 22 groov EPIC (Figure 3).

Source: https://www.automation.com/the-next-generation-of-hmi-and-scada

The UK government has confirmed that it will maintain the requirements of the F-gas regulations in the event of a “no deal” Brexit.

While the F-gas regulations will remain, a “no deal” could mean that UK-certified F-gas engineers may need to be re-certified by a body in an EU country if they wish to work in the EU.

Information on how a “no deal” scenario would affect the market for fluorinated gases and ozone depleting substances is one of a series of explanatory technical notices, published yesterday.

While the government insists that a “no deal” remains unlikely, Defra assures the industry that the majority of the requirements in the EU ODS and F-gas regulations will continue to apply in the same way after the UK leaves the EU, including in the unlikely event of no deal.

This, it says, will ensure the UK can continue to phase down the use of F-gases and maintain controls on ODS to meet its obligations under the Montreal Protocol.

It points out that the current quota systems are applied to companies not countries, and are administered by the European Commission. In a ‘no deal’ scenario, the UK would set up its own quota systems.

The current EU-wide HFC quota which companies receive would be split into two parts: one quota for placing on the UK market issued by the UK Government and another for placing on the EU market, issued by the EU Commission.

New UK IT systems would be established and administered by the Environment Agency (EA), but companies’ reporting requirements would not change.

Businesses that produce, import, or export HFCs or ODS or products and equipment pre-charged with HFCs or ODS would need to apply for UK quota to place them on the UK market. Businesses would also use the new UK systems to report on their use of ODS and F-gases.

The UK would continue to follow the European F-gas phase down, but would administer this through a separate UK system run by the EA. The current EU total HFC quota would be split into UK and EU portions. Companies would be notified by the EA before the end of this year of their UK reference value (the baseline for calculating annual UK quota values) and UK HFC quota for the period from 30 March 2019 to 31 December 2019.

To determine these quantities for each company, the EA and Defra have already written to each EU quota holder asking for evidence of the quantity of HFCs they placed on the UK market in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The European Commission is running a parallel exercise to determine the allocation of EU quota for UK companies that currently place HFCs on the EU market. This would enable these companies to continue to get a quota from the European Commission in the unlikely event of no deal, but their quota would be adjusted to deduct their UK market share.

UK companies would need to set up an office in the EU or appoint an “only representative” (a legal  representative to take over the tasks and responsibilities of importers) there to remain eligible for EU quota. Businesses not based in the UK would need to appoint an “only representative” in the UK in order to be eligible for a UK quota.

A new UK quota system would also require a new UK HFC registry and reporting system, to capture the same type of information as is currently recorded on the EU HFC registry and F gas reporting tool. The development of a tool is said to be underway.

ODS

The UK would continue to use a quota system to restrict the use of ozone depleting substances. Where companies currently apply to the European Commission for an ODS quota, they would instead apply to the EA. Businesses would also need to use new UK systems to report to the EA on their use of ODS and apply to the EA for import and export licences on a new electronic licensing system.

The requirements to receive an ODS licence will not change, only the IT system used to apply for a licence. Further information on how to use the new IT systems will be communicated later this year. From March 29, businesses would need to hold a licence to import or export ODS between the UK and EU.

Certification

Certificates issued by EU bodies will continue to be valid in the UK, enabling technicians holding those certificates to continue working here. However, engineers certified by UK bodies to service F gas equipment may need to be re-certified by a body in an EU country if they wished to work in the EU, unless the EU decides to continue recognising such certificates.

Source: https://www.coolingpost.com/uk-news/f-gas-will-remain-in-no-deal-brexit/

The ability to connect information technology (IT) systems with operational technology (OT) systems, such as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems and Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), gives businesses access to information for a comprehensive picture of what is happening across the enterprise’s operations. It also comes with considerable IT and OT security-related risks that can have a far-reaching impact on the organisation.

“When we think about IT security, we tend to think of corporate networks, data and e-mails. However, the high level of connectivity that is available to companies today means that industrial, engineering and building automation systems can also be exposed to cyber security threats. The malicious worm, Stuxnet, for example, was designed to specifically target industrial PLCs, which modified their coding and gave unexpected commands to the control system. The consequence of Stuxnet was that the entire manufacturing operation was brought to a standstill for days until the IT and OT vulnerabilities were remediated.

“When integrated systems aren’t adequately segregated and protected against threats like these, the whole enterprise is exposed, with potentially far-reaching consequences,” says Charl Ueckermann, CEO at AVeS Cyber Security.

“Just think about it, when automated industrial systems and PLCs don’t behave the way that they should, the health and safety of your people is at risk, machinery and processes may become unsafe, production output can be affected, and there could be consequences for the communities you operate in or serve.”

However, says Ueckermann, companies can and should continue to leverage the opportunities to manage and streamline business and operations with integrated systems.

“The key to protecting your organisation’s industrial automation systems is transparency.”

To start, Ueckermann says organisations should have a thorough understanding of their OT environment. This includes having visibility of all physical and computer assets and how they are connected.

Once companies have a comprehensive understanding of the environment and the potential risks, it then becomes necessary to call on technology to assist with controlling access to the environment – which includes both physical and digital assets – as well as put processes in place to protect data.

“Automation and control systems rely on interdependent connectivity and thus require appropriate tools to protect data in the networked systems,” says Ueckermann.

Ongoing monitoring to identify possible gaps in security and detect unauthorised access or execution of programmes is also highly recommended. With the correct tools, organisations can proactively pick up vulnerabilities, unauthorised access to systems and data, as well as malware on automation systems and PLCs.

“Education is an integral part of threat management. Systems engineers should have a greater understanding of security and the potential risks for automation control, SCADA and PLC systems. Collaboration between IT, engineering and operations personnel helps to build a strong team that can respond to threats and incidents quickly and manage risks effectively,” says Ueckermann.

The capacity to recover from an incident on these systems should also be built-in to restore to ‘business as usual’ as soon as possible. Disaster recovery plans should include strategies for managing the systematic failure of technologies as well as entire systems.

He says standards and guidelines for industrial control systems’ security – also called industrial cyber security – help companies to keep the checks and balances in place that ensure that the highest level of security in control systems are maintained across the enterprise.

AVeS Cyber Security works with companies to implement the NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cyber Security. Commonly referred to as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, it provides organisations with a structure for assessing and improving their ability to prevent, detect and respond to cyber incidents. The framework uses business drivers to guide cyber security activities and considers cyber security as part of an organisation’s overall risk management processes.

“By implementing the framework, your organisation will become more focused and proactive about protecting critical assets, both physical and digital. There is a range of technologies that are available to simplify compliance with the framework to ensure optimal security of data in networks, as well as automation and control systems,” concludes Ueckermann.

Source: https://www.itweb.co.za/content/kLgB17eJO36M59N4

The supposedly ground-breaking European F-gas regulations have become a farce, with the authorities seemingly unwilling or unable to stem sales of illegal refrigerant.

A major part of the regulations, the HFC phase-down, was seen as a model for the rest of the world, an example of Europe’s pre-eminence in the fight against climate change. Sadly, the failure of the European Commission and the relevant authorities in the member states to properly police the regulations has set an example of ineptitude, inaction, obfuscation and lies.

The high prices and supply issues as a result of the phase-down timetable has sucked in an enormous amount of cheap contraband refrigerant this year, as our recent reports have shown. Much of it is probably imported outside of the quota system, sold to anyone regardless of whether or not they are F-gas certified, and most appears to be in disposable cylinders – a type of packaging which was banned in Europe in 2007.

So valuable has refrigerant become that it is now the target of thefts across Europe. Some of this is obviously well organised. The Cooling Post has highlighted two significant recent thefts involving a total of over 20 tonnes of R134a. We have reports of many other thefts involving smaller amounts and anecdotal evidence of opportunistic thefts from across Europe.

Yet why would anyone want to steal the gas when they can, it would appear, quite easily import a container load of refrigerant from China with very little chance of getting caught? The potential profits are astonishing and the potential fines, in comparison, are miniscule.

Unmoved

DG Clima, the European Commission’s body ultimately responsible for overseeing this farce, are unmoved by the high refrigerant prices, smugly claiming that they are well within the range that they expected as a result of its phase-down measures.

If that is the case, the Cooling Post would like to know why they were not clever enough to foresee that this would encourage the rampant law-breaking which we are now witnessing? And why did it not ensure that procedures were put in place by member states to counter the illegal activity that would obviously ensue?

Openly sold

In reality, dealing with this illegal activity does not require the services of Hercule Poirot. It’s not as if the illegal gas is being sold from the boots of cars in deserted car parks in the dead of night (although it may be as well). It is being quite openly sold via various internet websites in full view of the authorities, should they care to log on and look.

Let’s be clear here, there are perfectly legal refrigerant vendors using the internet as a sales channel. And they must be equally appalled that this medium is swamped with these illegal sales. Not only are the high GWP gases like R404A and, in particular R134a, being sold but this illegal trade is also sucking in HCFCs like R22 and even CFCs.

This is happening across Europe and in large quantities. A vendor on a German website over the weekend was offering discounts on 30 or more disposable cylinders of R134a, R404A and R507. Discounts on lots of 10 or 20 are not unusual. Photographs posted by vendors also suggest they have access to huge stocks.

Yet, DG Clima refuses to accept there is a problem. In response to concerns from the Cooling Post, an individual at DG Clima, who wished to remain anonymous, maintained that the Commission recognised that higher prices were making illegal trade more attractive but quoted a recent report which found no evidence of large scale illegal trade. Laughably, and as an indication of how out of touch DG Clima is, that report conducted by Öko-Institut e.V was based on trade figures from 2016 and has no relevance to the current situation.    

UK non compliance

In some cases the inability to police the market comes down simply to inadequate funding. 

In July, the UK government rejected calls from industry for greater funding for the Environment Agency, the body charged with policing the F-gas regulations in the UK. It claimed that “compliance with the HFC phase down was generally good” and that the Environment Agency monitored sales on online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon on a “daily” basis.

Having been monitoring the internet ourselves from the beginning of the year, the Cooling Postwas in a position to see that this was clearly either a lie or, at best, the Environment Agency’s internet monitoring was being carried out by someone who had not the faintest clue what they were looking for.

Eventually and, it has to be said, belatedly, the UK Environment Agency insisted that vendors add a note about their, and their customers’, legal responsibilities regarding the F-gas regulations. Incredibly, the Environment Agency had also directed these requirements at vendors who were clearly selling refrigerant in illegal disposable cylinders, yet took no action against them.

Ignored

Some of the above is based on the best evidence we have, as the Cooling Post is only permitted to contact the UK Environment Agency through its press office. Sadly, that department now steadfastly ignores all correspondence and requests for information and comment from the Cooling Post. Perhaps they’re embarrassed.

Despite adding notes about the F-gas regulations it became clear that the UK sellers were not taking this seriously. In a number of subsequent undercover contacts with these online advertisers by the Cooling Post, posing as a potential purchaser, it became obvious that the vendors were prepared to sell to anyone. As suspected, they were merely paying lip-service to the Environment Agency’s requests and were quite prepared to ignore the regulations.

The Cooling Post passed its concerns to eBay, which was the main source of internet activity in the UK, and that particular website is now virtually clean.

In fairness, the Cooling Post has always found that eBay is swift to act when they are made aware of infringing product. Similarly, nearly 200 adverts for R134a, alone, in illegal disposable cylinders were eventually removed from eBay’s German classified website Kleinanzeigen when the Cooling Post pointed this out to them. That website is also, now, virtually clear of all such material.

Frequent checks

DG Clima maintains that member states are taking various measures to prevent illegal trade, including “customs training, spot checks, meetings between the environmental ministry and environmental inspectorates and customs authorities, control instruments to prohibit online trade of refrigerants on the internet, frequent website checks and the establishment of a relevant working groups dealing, inter alia, with these issues”.

Someone is just not telling the truth here. On Friday we reported on one particular high profile website in Poland – a country hit hard by the illegals – which was carrying at least 150 adverts for refrigerant in illegal disposable cylinders. Pleas from the Polish refrigerant suppliers association PROZON to the operators of the OLX website for the material to be removed have so far been ignored.

So where is the support and action from the Polish authority whose duty it is to police this?

DG Clima maintains that where the Commission considers that a member state is not taking sufficient action to implement EU legislation, the Commission may initiate infringement proceedings. There are currently no infringement case linked to the illegal trade in HFCs.

There has also still been virtually no prosecutions of individuals or companies found to be contravening the F-gas regulations.    

Next year, a global phase down will begin under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Let’s hope that some lessons are learned from this European fiasco or the coming worldwide illegal trade in refrigerants will make Europe’s ineptitude appear insignificant.

Source: https://www.coolingpost.com/blog-posts/end-this-f-gas-farce/