Draft Summary of Comments

For the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak
Repair Requirements

Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167

March 4, 2014

Prepared for: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Stratospheric Protection Division

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Prepared by: 

ICF International

1725 Eye Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684867"  1.	SUMMARY OF
COMMENTS	  PAGEREF _Toc380684867 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684868"  2.	Purpose and Scope	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684868 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684869"  2.1.	Inclusion of “use” in the
Purpose and Scope of Subpart F	  PAGEREF _Toc380684869 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684870"  2.2.	Inclusion of “and encourage the
use of substitutes”	  PAGEREF _Toc380684870 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684871"  3.	Definitions	  PAGEREF _Toc380684871
\h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684872"  3.1.	Comfort Cooling Appliance	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684872 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684873"  3.2.	Commercial Refrigeration Appliance	
 PAGEREF _Toc380684873 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684874"  3.3.	Critical (Appliance) Component	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684874 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684875"  3.4.	Initial and Follow-Up Verification
Tests	  PAGEREF _Toc380684875 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684876"  3.4.1.	Proposed Definition of Initial
and Follow-up Verification	  PAGEREF _Toc380684876 \h  Error! Bookmark
not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684891"  3.5.	Full Charge and Seasonal Variance	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684891 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684892"  3.5.1.	Proposed Definition of Full
Charge	  PAGEREF _Toc380684892 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684893"  3.5.2.	Proposed Definition of Seasonal
Variance	  PAGEREF _Toc380684893 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684895"  3.6.	Industrial Process Refrigeration	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684895 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684896"  3.7.	Leak Rate	  PAGEREF _Toc380684896
\h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684897"  3.7.1.	Proposed Definition of Leak Rate	
 PAGEREF _Toc380684897 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684898"  3.7.2.	Proposed Elimination of Method 1
in Leak Rate Calculation	  PAGEREF _Toc380684898 \h  Error! Bookmark not
defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684899"  3.8.	Normal Operating Characteristics or
Conditions	  PAGEREF _Toc380684899 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684900"  3.9.	Retrofit, Repair, and Retire	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684900 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684901"  3.9.1.	Proposed Definition for Retire	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684901 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684902"  3.9.2.	Proposed Definition for Retrofit	
 PAGEREF _Toc380684902 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684903"  3.10.	Other Definitions	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684903 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684904"  3.10.1.	Appliance	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684904 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684905"  3.10.2.	“Engineered System”	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684905 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684906"  3.10.3.	Refrigerant	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684906 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684907"  3.10.4.	Duty Types	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684907 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684908"  3.10.5.	Refrigeration Circuit	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684908 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684909"  4.	Required Practices	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684909 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684910"  4.1.	Repair of Leaks and Leak Repair
Trigger Rates	  PAGEREF _Toc380684910 \h  36  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684911"  4.1.1.	Requirement to repair all leaks
if the leak repair trigger rate has been breached	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684911 \h  36  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684912"  4.1.2.	Costs associated with lowering
the leak repair trigger rates	  PAGEREF _Toc380684912 \h  39  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684913"  4.1.3.	Proposed leak repair trigger
rates of 20% for industrial process refrigeration appliances and
commercial refrigeration appliances and 10% for comfort cooling
appliances	  PAGEREF _Toc380684913 \h  39  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684914"  4.2.	Verification of Repairs	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684914 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684915"  4.2.1.	Requirement to perform a
follow-up verification test no sooner than 24-hours after repairs are
completed	  PAGEREF _Toc380684915 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684916"  4.2.2.	Requirement that initial and
follow-up verification tests be performed for all types of appliances
subject to the leak repair requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc380684916 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684917"  4.2.3.	Use of the word “immediately”
in 82.156(i) and (j)	  PAGEREF _Toc380684917 \h  42  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684918"  4.3.	Requirement to Develop and Complete
Retrofit/Retirement Plans	  PAGEREF _Toc380684918 \h  43  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684919"  4.3.1.	Proposal to shorten the one-year
timeframe that is currently granted to owners or operators to complete
appliance retrofit/retirement plans	  PAGEREF _Toc380684919 \h  43  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684920"  4.3.2.	Requirement to replace leaking
components	  PAGEREF _Toc380684920 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684921"  4.3.3.	Minimum requirements for a
retrofit/retirement plan	  PAGEREF _Toc380684921 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684922"  4.4.	Extension to Repair and Retrofit/
Retirement Timelines	  PAGEREF _Toc380684922 \h  46  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684923"  4.4.1.	Proposal to remove the 120-day
exemption when owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration
appliances undergo an industrial process shutdown	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684923 \h  46  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684924"  4.4.2.	Proposal to allow extensions	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684924 \h  48  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684925"  4.5.	Worst Leaker Provision	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684925 \h  49  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684926"  4.5.1.	The worst leaker provision	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684926 \h  49  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684927"  4.5.2.	Two proposed options for the
worst leaker provision	  PAGEREF _Toc380684927 \h  52  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684931"  4.5.3.	Concerns about requiring the
retrofit/retirement of an appliance based upon the failure of an initial
verification test	  PAGEREF _Toc380684931 \h  54  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684933"  4.5.4.	Replacement of components rather
than the entire appliance	  PAGEREF _Toc380684933 \h  55  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684935"  5.	Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc380684935 \h  56  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684936"  5.1.	Service Records	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684936 \h  56  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684937"  5.1.1.	Requirement to keep records
on-site	  PAGEREF _Toc380684937 \h  56  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684938"  5.1.2.	Electronic Reporting	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684938 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684939"  5.1.3.	Recordkeeping requirements for
persons servicing appliances	  PAGEREF _Toc380684939 \h  59  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684940"  5.2.	Records Documenting the Fate of
Recovered Refrigerant	  PAGEREF _Toc380684940 \h  59  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684941"  5.3.	Documenting the Determination of
the Appliance Full Charge	  PAGEREF _Toc380684941 \h  59  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684942"  5.4.	Other Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc380684942 \h  60  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684943"  6.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
  PAGEREF _Toc380684943 \h  61  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684946"  7.	General Comments and Other Issues	 
PAGEREF _Toc380684946 \h  62  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684947"  7.1.	General Support for the Proposed
Regulations	  PAGEREF _Toc380684947 \h  63  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684948"  7.2.	General Opposition to the Proposed
Regulations	  PAGEREF _Toc380684948 \h  64  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684950"  7.3.	Applicability to systems with a
charge less than or equal to 50 lbs	  PAGEREF _Toc380684950 \h  65  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684953"  7.4.	Preamble discussion of “knowingly
venting”	  PAGEREF _Toc380684953 \h  66  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684954"  7.5.	Other Issues	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684954 \h  66  

 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

This document summarizes comments on the proposed rule, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair
Requirements, which are found in EPA’s docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167. A
total of 40 comments were submitted and are listed in   REF
_Ref226527003 \h  Table 1  by organization and Docket ID number. Three
of these comments were submitted after the close of the comment period
on March 25, 2011. 

	

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 : Public Comments Received by EPA on the
Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements

Count	Organization 	 Docket ID

1	AbitibiBowater	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0138

2	Alcoa Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0134

3	American Bakers Association (ABA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0142

4	American Chemistry Council (ACC)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

5	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

6	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

7

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0166

8	California Air and Resources Board (CARB)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0130

9	CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0155

10	Cornell University Environmental Health & Safety
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0132

11	Coto Consulting, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0161

12	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

13	Department of Defense (DoD)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0133

14	Eastman Chemical Company Texas Operations (Eastman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0137

15	Emerson Climate	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0099

16	Environmental Support Solutions (ESS)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0140

17	Flexible Packaging Association (FPA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0152

18	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

19

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0164 a

20	General Electric Company (GE)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0153

21	Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0146

22	National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project
(NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

23

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0165 a

24	Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0147

25	Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0144

26	Perkins Coie, LLP	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0160

27	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0124

28

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0131

29

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0141

30

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0157

31

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0162

32

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0098

33	Safeway Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0136

34	Shecco	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0149

35	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

36	Supervalu, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0143

37	Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0126 b

38

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0163 a

39	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

40	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129

a Comment was submitted after the close of the comment period on March
25, 2011.

b Comment previously submitted August 31, 1998 regarding Proposed Rule
63 FR 32043-32099; Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant
Recycling; and Substitute Refrigerants.

All comments have been reviewed, summarized, and organized by main
categories within the remainder of this document to highlight major
issues and clarification requests pertinent to the rule. Summaries are
organized by the following main sections of the rule:

Section 2 – Purpose and Scope

Section 3 – Definitions

Section 4 – Required Practices

Section 5 – Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Section 6 – Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Section 7 – Other Issues

At the beginning of each section, an outline of categories is provided
followed by a table detailing organizations that contributed comments.
Below each individual topic heading of a section, a bulleted list of
comments is provided. Comments are organized within each topic by
frequency (i.e., comments supported by the largest number of commenters
are placed first to highlight issues of common concern) followed by
Docket ID number. Special attention was paid to ensure that comments
were properly addressed with sufficient and relevant detail extracted
from their submittal. Commenters are listed at the beginning and Docket
ID numbers are provided in parentheses at the end of each comment.

The majority of comments submitted to EPA express non-support for
EPA’s proposed amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements.
Comments deal primarily with EPA’s request for comments on required
practices in § 82.156 and changes to the definitions in § 82.152, and
most comments request modifications or clarifications to the regulatory
language. Several commenters stated that EPA should not require repairs
to all leaks as it is not practical and unnecessarily burdensome for
large, complex appliances where it can be difficult to identify and
repair some leaks. EPA also received comments that the costs associated
with leak repair trigger rate scenarios exceed the benefits that would
be achieved. 

The majority of comments received on the proposed leak repair trigger
rates for IPR and comfort cooling were in support of keeping the current
rates of 35 and 15 percent. Several commenters state that the
requirement to perform a follow-up verification test no sooner than
24-hours after initial verification is unnecessary and burdensome.
Commenters also generally oppose the worst leaker provision, asserting
that the provision should not be applicable to three unrelated leaks
that could result in the unnecessary and very costly retrofitting and/or
retiring of appliances.  

In addition, of the nine comments EPA received regarding the requirement
to keep records on-site, eight state that these requirements would
impose a significant burden, especially for organizations with a large
volume of facilities in various geographic locations. Commenters
expressed confusion around using the language “greater than 50 lbs”
instead of “50 lbs and greater” and request clarification. Comments
regarding the inclusion of users to the purpose and scope of Subpart F
generally were in non-support and thought the proposed language is a
departure from the Clean Air Act (CAA). Commenters also requested
modifications to the leak rate calculation, and suggested retaining
Method 1 to avoid the burden of software upgrades, recertifying
technicians, and general confusion regarding leak rate calculations. 
Lastly, commenters were generally concerned about the proposal to
shorten the one-year timeframe currently granted to complete
retrofit/retirement plans.

Purpose and Scope

EPA received five comments on the Purpose and Scope of the proposed
regulations. Comments were in reference to the following categories:

  REF _Ref380415747 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  2.1 	Inclusion of “use”
in the Purpose and Scope of Subpart F

  REF _Ref380415754 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  2.2 	Inclusion of “and
encourage the use of substitutes”

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Lorraine Krupa Gershman	American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

2	James D. Jones	Alcoa Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0134

3	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

4	Brian A. Bell	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

5	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

Inclusion of “use” in the Purpose and Scope of Subpart F

EPA received five comments on the inclusion of users to the purpose and
scope of Subpart F, all in non-support. Four of the commenters think the
addition of the word “use” is beyond the scope of the CAA and
EPA’s statutory authority. One commenter found EPA’s proposed
amendment to be consistent with the CAA, but thought that EPA needs to
clarify the intent of the word “use” in the context of Subpart F.
The need to further define or clarify the new terms in the context of
Subpart F was also raised by another commenter.

USEC opposes EPA’s inclusion of “users” and “use” in the
purpose and scope of Subpart F. They believe that the addition of
“use” implies mandatory appliance repair during normal use instead
of being on “applicable leak rate threshold exceedance.” USEC
asserts that the leak repair provisions only apply once the applicable
leak rate threshold is exceeded, citing evidence from EPA 300-B-95-010,
Compliance Guidance For Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair
Regulations Under Section 608 Of the Clean Air Act. USEC believes that
the EPA proposal to include “use” goes beyond clear Congressional
intent, Section 608 language, and thus should not be included in the
rule.  [0125]

Auto Industry Forum (the Forum) does not agree with EPA’s addition of
the word “use” in the phrase, maximizing the recapture and recycling
of such ozone-depleting substances during the “use, service,
maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances.”  The Forum is
concerned with EPA’s proposal to expand a provision in Section
82.150(a) from “purpose” to include “scope”, which would
indicate the range of applicability of the rules. Further, the Forum
opposes EPA replacing the term “class I and class II” with the term
“ozone-depleting,” because it could expand the scope of the
regulations beyond those  defined terms, depart from the CAA Section
608, which refers to “class I and class II substances,” and could
add confusion.    [0148]

Alcoa Inc. believes that the inclusion of “use” in the purpose and
scope of Subpart F is consistent with the plain language of the CAA, but
that the proposed text does not add any additional clarity with respect
to EPA’s stated objective, “to clarify that the regulations also
apply persons using refrigerants who are owners or operators of
appliances with large refrigerant charges.” Alcoa Inc. holds that EPA
must define what “use” means in the context of its Subpart F
regulation.  

Alcoa Inc. sees that there are distinct differences between persons who
“use” refrigerants and those persons who own equipment that
“contain” refrigerants. Alcoa Inc. states that the term “use” is
consistently and repeatedly linked to persons engaged in the service,
repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration.
They deduce that within the context of Section 608, §608(a)(3)(A) was
expected to reduce refrigerant “use,” because less refrigerant will
be required to replenish losses minimized through the regulations
implementing the prohibitions in Section 608(c). Alcoa Inc. maintains
that the plain language of Section 608 is focused on reductions in
refrigerant emission to the lowest achievable level during the service,
repair, or disposal of appliances.

Alcoa Inc. asserts that if EPA’s intent is to more clearly articulate
that Subpart F’s scope includes owners and operators that perform
their own service, repair, or undertake the removal of refrigerant from
their appliances prior to disposal, that level of clarity should be
added to the proposed amendment. If not, then EPA should clearly define
within the context of Subpart F what “using refrigerants” means.
[0134]

ACC objects to the EPA’s proposed changes to the purpose and scope
provision of Subpart F (§82.150(a)), holding that they appear to be an
effort to import its misinterpretation into the regulatory leak repair
requirements. The commenter objects to the EPA’s proposed addition of
“use” in two places, and cites this as proof that EPA acknowledges
that the current language of the rule does not support its
interpretation. ACC believes that EPA lacks the statutory authority to
make this change, because the statutory venting prohibition does not
apply to “use.” The commenter believes that the references to
“use” in §82.150(a) should not be adopted and, in the preamble to
the final rule, EPA should disavow its interpretation of the statute’s
“knowingly vent” provision and acknowledge that it does not apply to
leaks during use of an appliance when the leak rate is less than the
repair threshold.  [0139]

NEDA/CAP questions whether these proposed regulations impermissibly
expand the scope of EPA’s statutory authority. Specifically, the
commenter highlights the inclusion of “use” into the EPA proposal
and points out that Section 608(a) only provides EPA with the authority
to establish "standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal
of class I substances during the service, repair, or disposal of
appliances and industrial process refrigeration.” The commenter hopes
EPA will address this issue if it finalizes the rule and discuss how
revisions to the regulations are necessary to meet the goals of the Act.
 [0151]

Inclusion of “and encourage the use of substitutes”

EPA received two comments in reference to the phrase “encourage the
use of substitutes.”  The Auto Industry Forum agrees with EPA’s
addition of this language, while ACC disagrees with such language.

The Forum agrees with EPA’s proposed changes to add the language "and
encourage the use of substitutes" and delete the language "and their
substitutes" in the first sentence because these changes make the
regulations more consistent with CAA Section 612.  [0148]

ACC notes that EPA proposes to change the purpose statement so that it
no longer intends to “reduce emissions of …substitutes…to the
lowest achievable level” but rather that it intends to “encourage
the use of substitutes.” ACC states that this restatement loses sight
of one of the original purposes of Section 608, which was not only to
reduce ODS emissions but also to minimize emissions of their
substitutes, unless the substitutes did not pose a threat to the
environment.  [0139]

Definitions

EPA received 31 comments on definitions. Comments were in reference to
the following definitions provided in the proposed rule:

  REF _Ref378947650 \r \h  3.1 	Comfort Cooling Appliance

  REF _Ref380487441 \r \h  3.2 	Commercial Refrigeration Appliance

  REF _Ref378950016 \r \h  3.3 	Critical (Appliance) Component

  REF _Ref380487465 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 	Initial
and Follow-Up Verification Tests 

  REF _Ref380415924 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition of Initial and Follow-up Verification

  REF _Ref380415930 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.4.2  	Proposed 24-hour
Waiting Period

  REF _Ref380487477 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 	Full
Charge and Seasonal Variance

  REF _Ref380415978 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition of Full Charge

  REF _Ref380415983 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition of Seasonal Variance

  REF _Ref378947645 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 
Industrial Process Refrigeration

  REF _Ref378774039 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Leak Rate 

  REF _Ref380416024 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition of Leak Rate

  REF _Ref380416029 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Elimination of Method 1 in Leak Rate Calculation

  REF _Ref378774045 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Normal Operating Characteristics or Conditions

  REF _Ref380487500 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 	Retrofit,
Repair, and Retire

  REF _Ref380416128 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition for Retire

  REF _Ref380416135 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition for Retrofit

  REF _Ref378774178 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 	Other
Definitions

  REF _Ref380416174 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Appliance

  REF _Ref380416179 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	“Engineered System”

  REF _Ref380416185 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Refrigerant

  REF _Ref380416215 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Duty Types

  REF _Ref380416224 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Refrigeration Circuit

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Dale Herendeen	AbitibiBowater	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0138

2	James D. Jones	Alcoa Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0134

3	Lorraine Krupa Gershman	American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

4	Paul Shorb	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

5	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

6

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0166

7	Pamela Gupta	California Air and Resources Board (CARB)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0130

8	David P. Hutchison	CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0155

9	Christina Schwerdtfeger	Coto Consulting, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0161

10	Robert D. Bessette	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

11	Donald R. Schregardus	Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0133

12	Kevin Phillips	Eastman Chemical Company Texas Operations (Eastman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0137

13	Steven Ehrlich	Environmental Support Solutions (ESS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0140

14	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

15

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0164

16	Robert W. Schenker	General Electric Company (GE)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0153

17	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

18

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0165

19	Frederick G. Fedri	Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0144

20	Christopher J. Sutton	Perkins Coie, LLP	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0160

21	Reid Jennings	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0124

22	Anonymous 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0131

23

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0141

24

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0162

25	Rob Uhl	Safeway Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0136

26	Christianna Papazahariou 	Shecco	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0149

27	Anonymous 	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

28	Ronald T. Mendes	Supervalu, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0143

29	John Myers	Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0163

30	Brian A. Bell	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

31	Kathleen Tobin	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129

Comfort Cooling Appliance

EPA received four comments on the applicability of the proposed new
definition of comfort cooling appliance to air-conditioning equipment
that is typically used to provide cooling/humidity controlled appliance.
All four comments suggest modifications to further clarify the proposed
new definition. One comment (from ESS) suggests specifying that comfort
cooling applies to spaces where people are present, including occupied
computer rooms. FMI expresses concern over considering the sum of all of
the cooling system’s components as an appliance and proposed a broader
definition for “component.” Alcoa Inc. recommends that EPA
streamline the definition and remove the reference to specific
refrigerants. Another comment (from The Auto Industry Forum) suggests
that EPA clearly delineate each of the three categories of refrigeration
and air conditioning equipment, including comfort cooling appliance.

ESS specifically suggests the following modification to the proposed
definition for comfort cooling appliance: “Comfort Cooling Appliance
means any air-conditioning appliance used to provide cooling in order to
control heat and/or humidity in facilities where people are present in
the space and the temperatures and humidity are in the HVAC industry‘s
comfortable range including occupied computer rooms. (10% trigger
rate).” [0140]

FMI believes the definition of “comfort cooling appliance” is vague
and seems to regard a supermarket system in its entirety as a single
appliance. The implication would be to replace or retrofit all
components of a system (e.g., cases, unit coolers, condensers,
compressor systems and interconnecting piping) instead of the
problematic component, which would be an unduly burdensome and wasteful.
FMI suggests two options to address their concern. The first option
would be to broaden the definition of component, and alter the
regulations such that they would impose the follow-up verification test
requirement and the retire option to failed components rather than the
whole appliance. Specifically, FMI proposes the following, more broad
definition of component: “A factory-made assembly of refrigeration
Components that function to control air temperature and/or humidity in
facilities such as office buildings and computer rooms. The commenter
also mentions including in the definition a list of components that are
intended to be included, but not be limited to (e.g., evaporators,
condensers, refrigerant compressors). The second and preferred option
would be to revise the definition so that it doesn’t capture a
supermarket system in its entirety. Specifically, FMI proposes: “A
factory-made assembly of refrigeration Components that function to
control air temperature and/or humidity in facilities such as office
buildings and computer rooms.” They suggest that the definition is
intended to include, but not be limited to packaged indoor or outdoor
air-conditioning units, and air-handlers, condensers, condensing units
and compressor systems used in an Engineered System. [0150, 0164]

Alcoa Inc. Inc. believes that EPA’s proposed definition of comfort
cooling appliance does not achieve the stated objective of providing
greater clarity, and creates unnecessary confusion. By incorporating a
listing of specific refrigerants in the definition, the commenter
believes that EPA brings into question the applicability of the
definition to appliances containing refrigerants other than those listed
in the definition and the applicability of certain required practices if
non-listed refrigerants are contained in the appliance. Alcoa Inc. Inc.
recommends that EPA streamline the definition and eliminate the
reference to specific refrigerants. Specifically, they recommends the
following definition: “Comfort cooling appliance means any air
conditioning appliance, such as building chillers and roof-top
self-contained units, used to control heat and/or humidity in the
facilities to which the appliance is connected.” [0134]

The Auto Industry Forum states that EPA does not define the range of
appliances covered across comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and
industrial process refrigeration or make clear that these categories are
mutually exclusive. To make the definitions clear, the commenter
suggests that EPA define comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration
first, and then define industrial process refrigeration appliance as
other appliances covered by the regulation that do not fit within the
other two categories. In addition, the commenter suggests that EPA
should clarify the scope and applicability of categories listed on
EPA’s website, which indicate that there is a leak repair trigger for
“all other appliances” that is the same as comfort cooling
(http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/leak.html). The commenter states
the website indicates that “all other appliances” have a leak rate
trigger of 15%, but there is no definition of such appliances and no
such leak rate in the rules.  [0148]

With respect to the comfort cooling appliance definition in particular,
the Auto Industry Forum suggests that EPA delete the words “and
computer rooms” and make clear in the regulation that such activities
are part of industrial process refrigeration, not comfort cooling. The
commenter notes that the term “comfort” at least implies its effect
on living things and therefore should be reflected in the definition of
comfort cooling. Alternatively, they might fall in the “all other
appliances” category which is not referenced in the rules but is
mentioned on EPA’s website. The commenter states that, in any case,
there needs to be a clear delineation of the categories and the
requirements that apply to them. [0148]

Commercial Refrigeration Appliance

EPA sought comment on the inclusion of the compressor rack system in the
Agency’s current interpretation of what comprises a commercial
refrigeration appliance. EPA received two comments on the definition of
“commercial refrigeration appliance,” both suggesting modifications.

ESS suggests the following as the definition for commercial
refrigeration appliance: “Commercial refrigeration appliance means any
food related refrigeration appliance used to store food. This includes
the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, grocery and
convenience stores, restaurants, and other food service establishments.
They may be walk in or drive in coolers and freezers including cold
storage food warehousing. (20% trigger rate).” [0140] 

FMI proposes the following definition for commercial refrigeration
appliance: “A factory-made assembly of refrigeration Components that
function to extract heat from or reject heat to a space or substance, or
to compress a refrigerant vapor, for the purposes of storing perishable
goods in retail food, cold storage warehousing, or any other sector
requiring cold storage. This definition is intended to include, but not
be limited to, self-contained refrigeration equipment, and remote
refrigerated merchandising or storage fixtures, unit coolers,
condensers, condensing units and compressor systems used in an
Engineered System.” [0150]

Critical (Appliance) Component

EPA sought comment on the proposed change to the definition of critical
component and received a total of five comments. One comment (from
Eastman) supports EPA’s proposal to allow comfort cooling appliances
to be granted the same flexibility for repairs due to unavailable
components.  While other commenters generally supported the proposed
change, several suggest modifications. Another common theme from
commenters (Auto Industry Forum, ACC, and NEDA/CAP) was a concern over
safety considerations brought on by the proposed change.

Eastman supports EPA’s proposal to allow comfort cooling appliances to
be granted the same flexibility for repairs due to unavailable
components.  [0137]

Alcoa Inc. supports EPA’s proposal to provide owners and operators of
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances flexibility and
additional time when “critical” components are unavailable for
repairs. However, Alcoa Inc. believes that without the term
“critical,” or some equivalent qualifier, the stand alone term
“component” could be interpreted to include any part of the
appliance, which effectively “emasculates the definition to the point
that it has no meaningful purpose within the regulation.” Alcoa Inc.
suggests that the definition retains some form of a qualifying
descriptor and clearly define that term to mean “an essential
appliance component, without which the appliance will not function
(e.g., compressor, condenser, evaporator).” [0134]

Auto Industry Forum believes that the proposed definition for component
could inappropriately apply to components that are not part of the
refrigerant circuit (e.g., electrical wiring and controls, cooling fans
that need cleaning, etc.) and don’t require the involvement of a
refrigerant technician. The Forum supports adding a definition for
appliance component but one that is associated with the term
"refrigerant" as pertaining to the refrigerant circuit. The commenter
notes that work performed on non-refrigerant components does not require
an EPA-certified technician since the refrigerant circuit is not being
opened to conduct such repair. Moreover, the commenter states that a
refrigerant technician may not be qualified to perform certain
electrical work and inadvertently creating an overly broad definition of
the term component could lead to safety and quality problems. The Forum
proposes the following changes to the definition:

“Component means a  n appliance component of an appliance’s
refrigerant circuit, such as, but not limited to, compressors,
condensers, evaporators, receivers and all of its connections and
subassemblies that handle refrigerant without which the appliance will
not properly function and/or will be subject to failures.” [0148]

ACC believes that replacing “critical component” with
“component” eliminates considerations of safety in the definition.
The commenter suggests that EPA modify the definition to read as
follows: “Component means an appliance component, such as, but not
limited to, compressors, condensers, evaporators, receivers and all of
its connections and subassemblies without which the appliance will not
function safely and/or will be subject to failures.” [0139]

NEDA/CAP supports removing “critical” from the definition since this
implies a judgment call by maintenance staff or environmental managers. 
However, NEDA/CAP believes that removing “safely” is not appropriate
because it limits the overly broad last phrase of the proposed
definition “will not properly function and/or will be subject to
failures.” Without the phrase “safely,” NEDA/CAP feels any number
of small component problems could be argued to cause a component to not
function properly or be subject to failures and unnecessarily trigger a
requirement for replacement of the component, or, under the “three
strikes, you’re out” rule embedded in the worst leaker provision,
retirement of the unit.  Therefore, the commenter believes it is
unnecessary to remove the term “safely” because it could
unjustifiably tighten the repair and replacement program without
consideration of the impact of such a change in this rulemaking.  [0151]

 Initial and Follow-Up Verification Tests

Proposed Definition of Initial and Follow-up Verification

EPA received six comments proposing modifications to the language within
the definition of initial and follow-up verification. CIBO, FMI, and
NEDA/CAP’s proposed modifications remove the 24 hour provision in the
proposed “follow-up verification” definition. OCC recommends adding
a safety option for verification testing and clarifying that testing is
specifically for leak repair. ESS proposed changes to the names for the
verification tests and comments on the feasibility of testing under
normal operating conditions. Alcoa, Inc. believes the proposed changes
would create an unnecessarily burdensome requirement without a
demonstration of specific health or ecological benefits.

CIBO suggests that the phrasing of the proposed change be revised since,
as written, it could be interpreted to mean that each of the
verification tests listed must be done, rather than EPA’s intended
meaning, as suggestions of some methods that may be used. CIBO
recommends that this definition be revised as follows: 

“Follow-up verification test means a test that validates the
effectiveness of repairs within 30 days of the appliance’s return to
normal operating characteristics and conditions but no sooner than 24
hours after completion of repairs. Follow up verification tests include,
but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles….and handheld gas
detection devices." [0145]

FMI recommends the following changes to the definitions of “follow-up
verification test” and “initial verification test”:

“Follow-up verification test means a test conducted by a technician
that validates the effectiveness of repairs within 30 days of the
appliance’s return to normal operating characteristics and no sooner
than 24 hours after completion of repairs. Follow-up verification tests
include… “

“Initial verification test means a leak test that is conducted by a
technician as soon as practicable after the repair is competed. An
initial verification test, with regard to the leak repairs that require
the evacuation of the appliance or portion of the appliance, means a
test conducted prior to the replacement of the full refrigerant charge
and before the appliance or portion of the appliance has reached
operation at normal operating characteristics and conditions of
temperature and pressure.” [0164]

NEDA/CAP suggests that EPA should remove the word “immediately” from
the regulatory requirement so that the provision would read "Owners or
operators shall conduct an initial verification test at a reasonable
period after conclusion of the repairs, not to exceed 24 hours."
NEDA/CAP believes it may be prudent to wait a brief period for such
initial verification of the repair, and that immediately examining the
equipment may result in a leak going undetected. For the follow-up
verification definition, NEDA/CAP suggests the definition of should be
modified to remove the no sooner than 24 hour after completion
restriction. NEDA/CAP feels EPA’s proposal has two fundamental
problems. First, certain equipment return to normal operations
immediately following a service call, and it is valid to test it at that
time. NEDA/CAP states that, to justify this additional cost and the
administrative complexity that the source must then manage, EPA provides
no data that demonstrates that unrepaired leaks are more frequently
found “after the appliance has operated under normal conditions over
an extended period of time (but no longer than 30 days)” than
immediately after the appliance has returned to “normal operating
conditions.” Second, the commenter feels that this requirement will
impose considerable expense for small and medium operators that do not
have on-site certified maintenance because facilities must pay the
additional cost of a separate service call. Aside from the costs,
NEDA/CAP believes this will also mean that data must be collected from
repair technicians at two different times on the same repair, and that
someone must remember to schedule the call and follow up to make sure
the call occurs timely.  NEDA/CAP suggests that a 24-hour waiting period
should not be added to the requirements since this eliminates the
possibility of making a repair and conducting the follow-up verification
during the same work day by maintenance or service personnel who are
familiar with the repairs to the equipment.  [0151]

OCC recommends two amendments to the definitions. First, OCC recommends
that the proposed rule contain the following wording:

“Follow-up leak repair verification tests include, but are not limited
to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or ultrasonic leak detectors,
pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye and black light, infrared or
near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection devices. Where repairs
are made in areas of an appliance that render it dangerous, unsafe, or
not possible to test safely while under load, a deep vacuum test per
ASHRAE guidelines for the system shall be conducted prior to recharging
the refrigeration system and shall satisfy the follow-up leak repair
verification test requirement for the system after recharge is
completed.”

OCC states that there are operational circumstances that can be unsafe
to the technician performing the follow-up leak repair verification test
and that the addition of an option to use the deep vacuum test takes
into consideration those areas that become dangerous or inaccessible
once a system is restarted.  OCC notes that special unsafe-to-monitor
provisions can be found in LDAR regulations at 40 CFR 63.168 (h)
defining unsafe-to-monitor for situations exposing the monitoring
personnel to immediate danger. Second, OCC believes EPA should clarify
descriptive language by using terminology such as “the initial leak
repair verification test” and “follow-up leak repair verification
test” to help technicians better understand the intent and specific
purpose of the testing.  OCC believes that the wording changes would
provide an unambiguous reading of the purpose for the testing throughout
the rule. [0144]

ESS recommends modifying the names of the tests and including language
in the follow-up definition to note that leaks cannot be verified with
systems running under normal operating characteristics and conditions.
With regards to the modification of the names of the tests, the
commenter notes that, during the 1995 rule process when verification
tests were introduced to the IPR industry (and federally owned), the
proposed test names evolved from “static” and “dynamic” to
“initial” and “follow-up.” ESS notes that it has promoted to
clients since 1995 that they proactively perform and document initial
and follow-up verification tests. ESS found confusion within the non-IPR
industries about the meaning of the tests. ESS states that technicians
documented how they found a leak in the initial verification test space
of their service form even though a definition of the test was listed.
Technicians then documented the initial test they performed in the
follow-up test space on the form. ESS estimates that the failure rate of
understanding is over 40% within the non-IPR industry. ESS notes that
the same reason is given: “It was not in my 608 EPA certification
test, we have always checked our work prior to charging a system and why
didn’t EPA call it Initial Leak Repair Verification Test and Follow-up
Leak Repair Verification test so we know it is about leaks we
repaired.” ESS believes many of the industries involved did not have
an environmental department and that all their work done was by
contractors and technicians who have no experience with IPR systems.
Therefore, ESS suggests that renaming the tests may bring clarity to the
technicians who have not been exposed to this subject. ESS further feels
that EPA should make modifications to include training on verification
testing in order to better prepare new technicians for compliance. 

Secondly, ESS notes that there are situations where it is impossible to
perform a follow-up verification test while running under normal load.
ESS notes that clients have had to extrapolate the 1995 Federal Register
language to develop policy and procedure to address the issue, and ESS
believes it is time to clarify and address this issue with a revised
definition. ESS points to ASHRAE Standard 3 on deep vacuum tests:
[Federal Register: August 8, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 152)][Rules and
Regulations][Page 40430], where, according to ESS, EPA agrees that in
certain circumstances, performing a follow-up verification test prior to
normal operating characteristics and conditions may be more meaningful
and reliable. [0140]

Alcoa, Inc. believes the proposal to amend the follow-up verification
tests requirements (via changes to the definition of the term and the
required practices portion of the rule) would create an unnecessarily
burdensome requirement without a demonstration of specific health or
ecological benefits. [0134]

Proposed 24-hour Waiting Period 

EPA received twenty-five comments opposing the requirement to perform a
follow-up verification test no sooner than 24-hours after initial
verification. Commenters state that owners/operators would be required
to have a service technician return on a second day for all repairs,
which can double the cost of a repair; that follow-up verification
testing should be allowed as soon as the equipment has returned to
normal operating characteristics and conditions, as allowed under the
current rule; and that EPA does not provide sufficient data or
explanation to justify the requirement.  EPA received one comment in
support of this requirement.  

ACC, USEC, Eastman, The Auto Industry Forum, Perkins Coie, LLP,
AbitibiBowater  and CIBO comment that the proposed requirement will
result in facilities paying substantial, additional, and unnecessary
costs for a second service call.  It was noted that many businesses do
not have “in-house” technicians and a technician may need to be
dispatched from another location.  The commenters note that while this
may be appropriate with respect to some repairs, it should not be
necessary for many others.  [0139, 0125, 0137, 0148, 0160, 0138, 0129,
0145]

Eastman, ACC, and DoD note that for many repairs, the repair technician
will be able to verify that the appliance had returned to normal
operating conditions during the initial service call, without the need
for an additional visit. [0137, 0139, 0133]

 The Auto Industry Forum, Eastman, Southern Company, ACC, TVA, AT&T, and
FMI state that a more appropriate requirement would be that the unit is
returned to normal operating characteristics and conditions. The
commenters state that the time period for each appliance to reach normal
operating characteristics and conditions is often less than 24 hours,
and the selection of 24 hours seems to be arbitrary. ACC believes EPA
should allow the use of professional judgment regarding secondary
follow-up verification and when this should occur for industrial process
refrigeration systems because work activities, such as the replacement
of insulation over pipes, need to occur shortly after the system returns
to operation. [0148, 0137, 0135, 0139, 0154, 0163, 0164]

DoD, Verizon, Eastman comment that equipment owners, operators, and
certified technicians are best equipped to determine the appropriate
amount of time after an appliance has resumed operation at normal
operating characteristics prior to conducting a follow-up verification
based upon the nature of the repair, the overall condition of the
appliance, and other factors. [0133, 0129, 0137]

CIBO, TVA, and ACC note that the service call on a second day will often
be handled by a second technician who did not perform the initial leak
repair work and is not familiar with the particular leak. [0145, 0163,
0139]

USEC, ACC, DoD, Alcoa Inc., Verizon, CIBO, TVA, and AT&T comment that
EPA does not provide sufficient explanation or data to justify EPA’s
implication that it is necessary to wait until an appliance has operated
under normal operating conditions over an extended period of time to
ensure that repairs hold up. [0125, 0139, 0133, 0134, 0129, 0145, 0163,
0154]

TVA, Verizon, and FMI comment that if EPA is going to maintain the
24-hour requirement, EPA should factor these costs into its economic
analysis. TVA believes that mandating an additional inspection after 24
hours of the repair but before 30 days have passed increases labor and
diagnostic costs of the repair job.  TVA states that this follow up leak
check will take between 10 and 12 man hours, which, at $70 to $100 per
man hour fully burdened with overheads, tools, etc., totals to
approximately $700 to $1200 per repair job in addition to the cost
required to fix the leak.  TVA’s estimate includes travel to job site,
various pre-job briefings, coordination with plant operations, in some
cases, notification of regulators. [0163, 0129, 0150, 0164]

USEC comments that the proposed 24 hours minimum is too restrictive and
will lead to delays in returning equipment to service. USEC states there
is no reason to believe the equipment is more likely to fail the
follow-up verification test after 24 hours than if the test was
performed as required by the current definition. The commenter also
states that the current definition already requires the follow-up
verification testing to occur “after the appliance or portion of the
appliance has resumed operation at normal operating characteristics. .
.” USEC believes the current requirements adequately test the repairs
and should not be changed. [0125]

The Auto Industry Forum states that it is generally preferable to
complete the follow-up verification as soon as the unit is brought back
on line and up to its normal operating temperature and pressure to
assure that the leak has been properly repaired. The Forum notes that,
if the repair is not successful, waiting 24 hours to make that
determination risks additional refrigerant loss and harm to the
environment, and could pose risk to the appliance. The commenter also
believes that imposing a 24-hour delay requirement creates a greater
risk that the follow-up test will not occur. The Auto Industry Forum
notes that facilities typically have technicians perform the follow-up
verification test as soon as normal operation is returned to minimize
the chance that the technician will not fulfill this obligation within
the 30-day requirement. [0148]

ACC states that the phrasing regarding the methods of performing the
tests could be interpreted to suggest that each of the verification
tests listed be used. ACC suggests that EPA rephrase this as
“Follow-up verification test methods which may be used include, but
are not limited to,…” Finally, ACC notes that EPA has omitted from
the new definition a good deal of clarifying material without
explanation. The commenter believes the addition of a definition of
“normal operating characteristics and conditions” does not replace
the explanation as to how to determine when the equipment has returned
to normal operating conditions. ACC encourages EPA to retain the
language found in the current definition of follow-up verification tests
in §82.152. [0139]

DoD states that the proposed 24-hour minimum is too prescriptive and may
significantly increase the costs of leak repairs. DoD recommends EPA
should keep the current definition of follow-up verification as-is and
remove the 24-hour minimum required waiting period. [0133]

Eastman does not believe EPA should require owners/operators to wait at
least 24 hours to conduct follow-up monitoring. Eastman believes the
owner/operator will know when the appliance has resumed operation at
normal operating characteristics and conditions and in many instances
could conduct the follow-up monitoring at that time, even if that time
period is less than 24 hours. Eastman believes that waiting at least 24
hours will result in increased operating costs. Eastman states that, in
many instances, the refrigeration appliance could be returned to service
and the person(s) conducting the repair could remain on site until the
unit is at normal operating characteristics and conditions and conduct
the follow-up checks before leaving the site, which would eliminate
another trip by personnel to the appliance location. [0137]

Alcoa Inc. believes the proposed 24-hour waiting period is unnecessary,
and should be removed from the final rule. The commenter believes the
current EPA definition is clear in its meaning and its applicability.
The commenter notes § 82.152 defines, for the purposes of § 82.156(i),
a follow-up verification test to be one that involves checking of
repairs within 30 days of the appliance’s returning to normal
operating characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure,
except in cases where sound professional judgment dictates that these
tests will be more meaningful if performed prior to the return to normal
operating characteristics and conditions. [0134]

Perkins Coie, LLP believes that the proposed change eliminates
flexibility and doesn't demonstrably result in any improved protection
of human health or the environment. The commenter suggests that EPA
instead provide owners and operators guidance recommending that
follow-up verification testing be conducted after the appliance has
operated for 24 hours, but allow the qualified service technician the
flexibility to perform the follow-up verification test sooner in
circumstances where the technician can document that the appliance is
operating under normal conditions in advance of the test. [0160]

ESS encourages EPA to refer to the 1995 Federal Register discussions and
the EPA/CMA settlement when considering the minimum 24 hour wait time
for follow-up verification tests. ESS notes that the issue was to allow
large IPR systems time to heat their product back up to temperature to
allow the system to return to normal operating conditions. ESS also
notes that smaller IPR, comfort, commercial, and other refrigeration
systems that have a pent up load built up during repair time usually
return to normal operating load as soon as their internal safety
controls allow. If the repaired area was not successful, the test would
fail immediately at those temperature and pressures, so waiting a
minimum of 24 hours will not reduce emissions and add significant costs
to the industry. ESS therefore suggests the definition be modified to
the following: 

“Follow-up ‘Leak Repair’ Verification test means a test that
validates the effectiveness of repairs within 30 days of the successful
Initial Leak Repair Verification test date. Follow-up verification tests
include, but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or
ultrasonic leak detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye and
black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection
devices. If repairs were made to areas of an appliance that make it
impossible to conduct the test while running under load then a Standing
Deep Vacuum test for the appropriate amount of time for the system size
shall serve as the Follow-up verification test. (Examples: Low Pressure
appliance, low side leak repairs, water cooled heat exchanger repairs
and locations deemed unsafe or impossible to access with system running
under normal load).” [0140]

An anonymous commenter states that the 24-hour waiting period will place
a large burden on supermarkets by effectively mandating that a return
trip be made in order to perform the follow-up verification test, which
would double the cost of each repair. The commenter notes that current
practices of supermarket in-house technicians and outside contractors
allow them to make the repair in one service call by performing an
initial verification test followed by the follow-up verification after a
waiting period of several hours. The commenter notes that these costs
will rise even further if the leak rate thresholds are lowered, which
would trigger more leak records. The commenter estimates that within a
supermarket chain that has roughly 6,000 refrigerated systems,
approximately 480 systems would therefore likely require the mandatory
repair if the leak rate for refrigeration appliances is lowered to 20
percent (i.e., 8%). The commenter states that, assuming the average
labor coat of $55.00 per hour, follow-up verification on a single
service call would cost roughly $26,400. The commenter believes that if
supermarkets are required to request a return trip for the follow-up
verification test, supermarkets could expect that cost to double to
$52,800. [0131]

CARB comments that the 24 hour wait period may be unnecessary, since
industry input suggests many systems are able to return to normal
operating conditions much sooner than 24 hours.  CARB believes that the
intent that the follow-up verification test be conducted after the
system has returned to normal operating conditions is an important
stipulation to ensure that the repairs will hold. [0130]

Southern Company comments that follow-up verification no sooner than
24-hours after initial verification could double the cost of repairs for
facilities in remote locations. Southern Company agrees that thirty days
is a reasonable length of time to complete repairs on equipment that is
leaking above the leak repair trigger rate. Southern Company believes
that the requirement for follow-up verification testing no sooner than
24 hours after repairs, however, will increase the costs associated with
leak repairs, particularly for companies like Southern Company that have
several facilities in remote locations.  For example, certified service
personnel must drive four hours to reach one of the facilities owned by
a Southern Company operating company. Southern Company notes that
requiring a second verification no sooner than 24 hours after the first
verification would essentially require the certified service personnel
to either spend the night near the facility or complete a second 8-hour
round trip the next day, which could double the cost of the repair.
[0135]

Safeway Inc comments that a follow up leak check within 30 days, but no
sooner than 24 hours can be extremely burdensome. Safeway Inc notes that
once a refrigeration system is brought up to normal operating pressures,
a leak check done then versus 24 hours from then, or 7 days from then
will yield the same results; the leak is either repaired or not. Safeway
Inc notes that many supermarkets are located in remote areas; even for
supermarkets that are not located “remotely” (e.g., a 5 hour drive
into the mountains), many are located 1 or 2 hours from the closest
technician, which will lead to increased costs to repair leaks. Safeway
Inc notes that the scenario of having the technician perform the leak
check the next time they visit the store is also not good as it could be
longer than 30 days before the next service call, it would create more
havoc on record keeping, and it may be a different technician on the
next visit which could make finding the location that was repaired
difficult. Safeway Inc believes the leak check could be accomplished
with the same level of accuracy as soon as the system is up to normal
operating pressure. [0136]

Supervalu, Inc. comments that the proposed follow up verification
testing provision would have little, if any, impact on the environment,
while being overly costly and burdensome for appliance owners and
operators.  Supervalu, Inc. notes that typically supermarket appliances,
unlike commercial refrigeration appliances, can be returned to normal
operating temperatures, pressures, and conditions in less than one hour
after the system is put back on line. Supervalu, Inc. states that once
normal conditions are restored, verification testing is appropriate.
Supervalu, Inc. comments that such a requirement drives up the cost of
service, may cause inconvenience to customers if cases on the sales
floor are left empty or must be re-emptied for a subsequent verification
test and will result in unnecessary loss of sales. [0143]

Verizon notes that many smaller comfort cooling units may return to
normal operational characteristics in a short period of time; therefore,
a follow-up verification test during the same day that the repairs have
been completed may still provide the same level of environmental
protection without the added burden of recalling a technician on a
subsequent day. [0129]

OCC comments that EPA should remove the proposed 24 hour waiting period.
OCC notes that with the current rule provisions requiring that in all
cases, the follow-up verification test shall be conducted at normal
operating characteristics and conditions, the requirement to wait 24
hours provides an undue cost burden, especially for those facilities
requiring outside contractors to revisit the plant. OCC states that
costs and emissions associated with travel back to the facility, passing
through security protocols, safety checks, redeploying testing equipment
and a new set up effort would be incurred. OCC also notes that the rule
does not provide a recordkeeping element to clarify what defines the
start of the 24-hour clock; to demonstrate clearly that the 24 hours has
been expended, information would need to be documented (e.g. through a
signed certified technician’s service order) that indicates date and
time that the initial leak repair verification test (or other 24-hour
clock start-activity identified in the rule) was successfully achieved.
OCC believes that unless there is data demonstrating that full operating
conditions reached under the current rule are different from full
operating conditions reached after 24 hours of operation, the imposition
of a 24-hour waiting period does not logically translate into lower
emissions. OCC notes that other provisions in the proposed rule
amendment provide better and enhanced means to elicit emission
reductions. OCC believes that having the opportunity to conduct the
verification test once the unit is operating at normal operating
conditions is a more prudent course of action rather than having to wait
24 hours, because there may be cases under which a unit passes the
initial verification test but experiences a leak shortly after startup. 
OCC notes that a delay of the verification test could result in a
leaking unit going unchecked for at least 24 hours and higher
refrigerant emissions. OCC recommends that the language currently in
place at 40 CFR 82.156(i)(3) remain unchanged. [0144]

TVA comments that current accepted industry practices utilized by most
certified refrigeration mechanics call for a thorough leak test on a new
system by pressurizing the system with inert gas and then reducing the
pressure to form a deep vacuum (system evacuation and moisture removal).
 TVA states that repaired or overhauled equipment is normally tested in
a similar manner.  [0163]

FMI maintains that a follow-up verification as defined in the proposed
amendments would have almost no value in reducing refrigerant emissions.
FMI states that it would be an extremely rare event for the repair of a
specific leak site, having passed a verification test immediately
following the appliance’s return to normal operating characteristics
and conditions, to subsequently fail within the presently prescribed
follow-up window. FMI notes that a technician’s reputation is on the
line with every service call, and technicians know that if their repairs
fail regularly, they will lose the business of retailer or wholesalers.
FMI states that firms in the industry expect the job to be done
correctly the first time. 

FMI notes that for the owner/operator of a supermarket system, providing
access to a repair site often means removing perishable product from a
merchandising fixture. FMI believes that the service cost of a follow-up
inspection, the cost of store labor and the cost of lost revenue that
results from removing saleable product from a merchandising fixture are
far in excess of the benefit gained by imposing a 24 hour waiting period
for a follow-up verification test. FMI states that the typical service
call for a technician lasts about 4 hours—often longer—and that a
technician may have to drive an hour or two to visit a store location,
and then an hour or two back. FMI notes that thousands of small,
independent retailers are located in small towns that do not have
resident certified refrigeration technicians, and for many of these
retailers, the closest technician may be a six hour or more drive away.
FMI states that these retailers face challenges in getting technicians
to drive vast distances to make a repair in the first place, and
requiring these retailers to bring a technician back to check on a
previously made repair will be nearly impossible. FMI comments that a
retailer would effectively be forced to pay a technician to stay
overnight to comply with the 24-hour waiting period. With contractor
rates averaging $90 to more than $100 an hour, the follow-up
verification requirement will cost retailers and wholesalers hundreds or
thousands of dollars more for each leak repair in addition to the costs
of lost revenue and store labor described above FMI comments that
retailers have estimated that complying with the waiting period
requirement will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. 
FMI states that pulling a case for repair requires significant amounts
of store labor, so if the 24 hour waiting period is implemented, it is
likely that retailers will leave a case pulled for that entire period,
which not only leads to lost revenue, but inconveniences consumers.  FMI
notes that small businesses will bear a significant share of this
burden.

FMI comments that the waiting period will impose environmental costs; 
in many circumstances it will double the amount of time technicians
spend on the road driving to reach store locations thus doubling the
amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by their vehicles for each repair.
FMI also believes EPA should specify in the regulations that the test be
conducted by a technician to ensure that it is accurate.  [0150, 0164] 

AT&T comments that adding a 24-hour requirement is unjustified. AT&T
comments that this 24-hour requirement would create a substantial and
unnecessary additional cost on AT&T, and likely on many other parties.
AT&T has over 8,000 facilities with comfort cooling equipment that would
potentially be subject to this requirement if a leak repair were
necessary. These locations are spread widely across the country, and
generally do not have an on-site technician qualified to service
refrigeration and cooling equipment. AT&T believes the proposed 24-hour
requirement would in effect require an extra visit by the technician
after almost every repair, in order to perform the follow-up
verification.  AT&T therefore requests that the words “but no sooner
than 24 hours after” be stricken from the proposed new text of 40 CFR
82.156(i)(2).  AT&T notes that the rule would still require that the
follow-up verification test not be performed until the repaired
equipment had returned to “normal operating characteristics and
conditions.” 

AT&T also comments that the proposed rule appropriately allows an
owner/operator to use professional judgment to select which type of test
to use, based on such factors as the type and location of the repair and
the repair history of the equipment.  AT&T notes that most of the test
methods listed in EPA’s proposal are essentially instantaneous and do
not inherently involve change over time, including: the use of soap
bubbles, electronic of ultrasonic leak detectors, fluorescent dye and
black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection
devices. AT&T states that if the cause and location of a leak are known,
the repair is straightforward, and the relevant area can be accessed by
one of the test types listed above, then that type may be the best to
ensure that the repair was successful. AT&T comments that these types of
tests are just as accurate in confirming the success of a repair whether
they are performed (a) immediately after a system returns to “normal
operating characteristics and conditions” or (b) 24 hours later.  AT&T
notes that if for some reason none of the “instantaneous” types of
tests is applicable, one may need to rely on pressure or vacuum testing
at two different times, to see if lower pressure in the second test
indicates a loss of refrigerant—but the occasional need for these
tests does not justify requiring that all follow-up verification tests
be delayed 24 hours. AT&T states that the necessary time interval
depends on the sensitivity of the pressure test and on how slow a leak
one is trying to detect. AT&T notes that this sort of follow-up
verification based on two pressure tests is not to determine whether a
completed repair will “hold”; rather, it is to determine whether the
repair was successfully completed in the first place. AT&T believes that
allowing owner/operator discretion to decide how much time interval is
needed between pressure/vacuum tests would follow logically from the
fact that EPA’s proposal currently leaves the owner/operator
discretion to choose which type of verification test is appropriate. 
AT&T proposes the following alternate language: “Owners or operators
shall conduct a follow-up verification test within 30 days of completing
a repair and recharge of the appliance.  The follow-up verification test
shall be conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions. 
If the follow-up verification test relies solely on detecting pressure
differences at different times to determine whether a slow leak exists,
the second test shall be conducted no sooner than 24 hours after the
first test, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that a shorter
interval is sufficient.” [0154]

GE is concerned with the 24-hour wait period requirements in §82.152,
§82.156 (i) and §82.156 (j). GE emphasizes that this provision
automatically requires that any leak repair to industrial process,
comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration appliances must be performed
over two days. GE sites perform repairs in the following three different
ways: 

A limited number of large manufacturing GE sites employ certified
refrigeration technicians and maintain the needed refrigerant recovery
equipment. These sites can easily schedule the follow-up verification
tests on subsequent days because the needed certified technician and
recovery equipment will be readily available. GE states that the 24-hour
delay provisions will not significantly impact these sites. 

Some GE sites hire qualified refrigeration contractors who employ the
certified refrigeration technicians and maintain the needed refrigerant
recovery equipment. If the site is sufficiently large and has numerous
industrial process refrigeration and/or comfort cooling appliances, the
site may hire the refrigeration contractor on an extended agreement such
that the contractor routinely comes to the site on a periodic basis.
These sites can easily schedule the follow-up verification tests on
subsequent days when the refrigeration contractor is already scheduled
to come to the site (if they are scheduled to come more frequently than
monthly to assure that the 30 day limitation is met).  GE states that
again, the 24-hour delay provisions will not significantly impact these
sites. 

The great majority of GE sites hire a refrigeration contractor on an as
needed basis. This is particularly the case, if the site is an office
facility or small to medium manufacturing or service site. These sites
call a refrigeration contractor when one or more appliances on site need
to be serviced. The refrigeration contractor travels to the site and
typically completes the needed service or repairs in one day, including
any initial and follow-up verification tests.  GE notes that in this
situation, the needed certified refrigeration technician and needed
recovery equipment are not available on site, nor will they likely be
routinely available on site within 30 days. GE states that the
refrigeration contractor will have to schedule a second visit to the
site to complete the follow-up verification tests because of the
proposed 24-hour delay provision. GE believes that this will increase
the cost because two service visits will be required for every leak
repair to comfort cooling, commercial and industrial refrigeration
appliances. 

GE maintains that these additional costs could easily be $200 or more
per visit.  GE notes that if they conservatively assume that there is at
least one service repair requiring a second visit under the 24-hour
delay provision at 500 GE sites in the US with refrigeration appliances
greater than 50 pounds, then the cost increase of performing the
follow-up verification test on a subsequent day instead of the same day
would be at least $100,000. GE believes the cost increase would likely
be much higher since many GE sites have numerous industrial process
refrigeration and/or comfort cooling appliances with greater than 50
pounds of refrigerants.

GE notes that §82.156 (i) and §82.156 (j) extend the initial and
follow-up verification tests to comfort cooling and commercial
refrigeration appliances with greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant, and
many commercial and institutional organizations will be required to
perform initial and follow-up verification tests for the first time. GE
believes it is likely that most of these organizations hire
refrigeration contractors on an as needed basis in the same manner as
the majority of GE sites; therefore, many of these commercial and
institutional organizations will incur the same cost increases that GE
will incur from the additional contractor travel time costs to visit the
site on the second day. 

GE believes that EPA is not likely to achieve any significant
refrigerant release reductions by delaying the follow-up verification
for 24 hours. GE states that the 24 delay may in fact lead to an
increase in refrigerant releases. GE provides an example of a situation
in which a refrigeration contractor performs a repair that is followed
by a successful initial verification, and the appliance is then turned
on and brought up to normal operating conditions and the appliance then
starts to leak at the normal operating conditions. GE notes that in this
case, the follow-up verification test will not be performed until 1 to
30 days after the repair because of the proposed 24-hour delay
provision. GE states that a significant quantity of refrigerant could be
released from the appliance before the follow-up verification test is
performed at a later date, and this leak would likely be identified
sooner if the follow-up verification test were performed on the day of
the repair. GE recommends that the 24-hour delay for the follow-up
verification test should be removed from all provisions because it will
increase costs and provide little benefit. [0153]

The Auto Industry Forum opposes adding a 24-hour wait period. The Forum
states that it is generally preferable to complete the follow-up
verification as soon as the unit is brought back on line and up to its
normal operating temperature and pressure to assure that the leak has
been properly repaired. If the repair is not successful, waiting 24
hours to make that determination risks additional refrigerant loss and
harm to the environment, and could pose risk to the appliance. Based on
feedback from engineering staff at member company facilities, following
the completion of repairs, appliance systems have been found to reach
steady state within a very short time period following startup,
generally no more than about 15 minutes. The engineering staff report
that the effectiveness of repairs is verifiable through the verification
tests described in the proposed amended regulation very soon after the
appliance returns to normal operating characteristics and conditions,
such that a 24-hour waiting period is both unjustified and unnecessary.
The Auto Industry Forum’s members interviewed appliance service
technicians employed by their facilities as well as third-party
contractors they utilize for appliance service. The Auto Industry Forum
comments that these technicians consistently reported that the
effectiveness of repairs is verified soon after repair completion and
return of the appliance to normal operating characteristics and
conditions. The Auto Industry Forum also notes that all of those
surveyed reported that if the leak test should happen to find a leak, it
would be preferable to find it soon after completion of the repair
rather than 24 hours later because the technician would still be working
on the appliance and could more easily troubleshoot problems. Specific
comments made by those interviewed by the Forum member companies include
the following:

One lead HVAC third-party technician stated that the equipment is
generally normalized within a few minutes following startup. He noted
that the technicians have a clear idea as to whether a leak has been
repaired prior to charging the system because they check it under vacuum
with a micrometer prior to charge. If the system is not tight, the
technicians will simply not charge the unit. The follow-up leak
verification test, then, according to the lead HVAC technician, actually
serves as a second check to the micrometer vacuum check.

A third-party contractor who is familiar with a variety of appliances
from ice machines to rooftop HVAC to large chiller units indicated that
all units return to normal operating characteristics and conditions in 5
to 15 minutes. [0166]

Shecco welcomes this provision and assesses that 24 hours is an
appropriate amount of time, at a minimum, that allows the appliance to
return to normal operating characteristics and conditions. Shecco
recognizes that this requirement encompasses increased servicing costs,
especially for owners and operators with no in-house certified servicing
personnel but believes that the incurred costs would be counterbalanced
by avoiding another leak repair in the event that the initial repair was
not effective. Shecco also believes this provision would ensure higher
quality of services by the leak repair providers. [0149]

CWI suggests that EPA consider an alternative clarification that
requires follow-up verification to be conducted “no sooner than 24
hours but not later than 30 days after successful initial verification
testing of all leak repairs and the appliance has operated under typical
conditions.” The commenter believes that this clarification may
provide clearer instruction to prevent the issues EPA identified where
follow-up verifications were performed immediately after repairs and the
initial verification. [0155]

Full Charge and Seasonal Variance

Proposed Definition of Full Charge

EPA received nine comments in opposition to the proposed change to the
definition of full charge, one comment in support, and one comment
recommending a modification. The Auto Industry Forum supports the
proposed definition of full charge, but they do not support removing the
option to determine the full charge based on a combination of the
methods. NEDA/CAP, USEC, and CIBO note that a combination of methods may
be more accurate and cite the Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process
Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of the CAA.
NEDA/CAP, Perkins Coie, LLP, and CIBO note that the proposed changes
will require recalculations that will be burdensome. ACC and a private
citizen disagree that the proposed changes reduce complexity. 

USEC opposes the proposed change. USEC states that the current
definition has been in place for an extended time and that the regulated
community is familiar with the current system and thus should be allowed
the most flexibility in determining full charge while still meeting
regulatory requirements. For some large and complex IPR, USEC states
that a combination of methods may be the most practical way to determine
full charge determinations and that appliance owners are in the best
position to determine the methodology for determining full charge
capacity. The commenter provides an example from the Compliance Guidance
for Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act (citing the same Compliance Guidance as
NEPA/CAP and CIBO). The commenter states that if a combination of
methods has been previously used and documented, new resources will have
to be unnecessarily expended in order to comply with the proposal and
the determination may be less accurate. [0125]

NEDA/CAP and CIBO disagree with the proposed change to disallow the use
of a combination of methods for determining full charge. They note that
EPA’s own guidance recognizes that use of more than one method may be
necessary to calculate full charge in certain instances (citing the same
Compliance Guidance as USEC and CIBO). The commenters assert that if EPA
disallows use of a combination of methods, owners will need to
re-calculate full charge using one of the remaining methods, which in a
number of instances will result in less accurate calculations of full
charge and/or necessitate substantial review and revision to all
previous full charge calculations and procedures.  

NEDA/CAP state that, since EPA’s primary motivation for this proposed
change is to “streamline” the rules, NEDA members do not support it.
 Moreover, the commenter thinks that it will force unnecessary
re-calculations and repairs, and in tandem with lower leak trigger
rates, the possibly retrofits and or replacements that the Agency has
not assessed. [0151]

CIBO states that, not only does this proposed change result in less
accurate full charge calculations, it also necessitates substantial
review and revision to all previous full charge calculations and
requires revisions to resulting leak rate calculation procedures. CIBO
states that, given that there is no record support or legal
justification for this change, that it will lead to inaccuracies and for
other reasons as noted, this change is arbitrary and should not be made.
[0145]

Perkins Coie, LLP believes that the definition of "full charge" should
not be changed as proposed by EPA. The commenter suggests that the
proposed change is unnecessarily restrictive and will adversely affect
owners and operators of comfort cooling appliances. As an example,
businesses that take over an existing facility with field
installed/charged units may not have data regarding the charge of these
units (e.g., manufacturer's name plate does not include the full charge
of the unit), and it would be a great deal of work to go to each unit
and pull the charge, weigh it, and return the charge to comply. The
commenter believes flexibility in the measurement of full charge is
needed to account for seasonal variability as well as to address minor
modifications to the appliance. The commenter believes the proposed
change will limit the current flexibility authorized by the existing
regulations without a demonstrable benefit to the protection of human
health or the environment. [0160]

The Auto Industry Forum supports changing the definition of full charge
but does not support removing the option to determine the full charge
based on a combination of the methods. In the case of modified
appliances, the commenter notes that the load requirements may have
changed since the system was originally charged, and therefore, the
manufacturer’s nameplate information would no longer be correct. The
commenter notes that owners use a combination of calculation, actual
measurements, and manufacturer’s nameplate information to determine
the new full charge, and therefore, the Forum believes the option to
determine the full charge based on a combination of methods should be
retained. The commenter also notes that the full charge determination
could be subject to change. As an example, a manufacturer might
determine that "full charge" is 100 pounds based on anticipated
operating conditions (method 1), and use this value for the first few
years. Should it be determined later that 10% more refrigerant is
required to achieve desired operation and is documented through actual
measurements (method 3), then the full charge value should be changed to
110 pounds. [0148]

ACC believes that EPA is incorrect in stating that complexity is reduced
by removing only an optional approach for determining a full charge. The
commenter believes that no one is required to use a combination of
methods for determining full charge and that anyone who does so probably
concluded that the complexity involved was worth the effort, based on
their own individual circumstances. The commenter believes that the
agency’s approach to the recordkeeping requirement around the
determination of full charge would require that owner/operators of
existing refrigeration equipment, who determined their full charge long
ago and may not have retained the weights, measurements, calculations,
and other records on which their conclusions were based, must now
re-determine their full charge.  ACC suggests that this repeats the
entire cost of determining the full charge, plus adds a recordkeeping
requirement, and further, the records will need to be kept for the life
of the equipment, a point EPA does not clarify. [0139]

A private citizen believes that committing to one full charge
methodology for the life of an appliance will prove difficult in some
situations. The commenter believes, for instance, that if a store
receives a brand new refrigeration rack, full charge determination can
be obtained from the rack manufacturer. If that store is remodeled and
circuits are added or removed from the equipment several years later, it
would be the current refrigeration contractor who would be most
knowledgeable about the charge capacity of the present system. The
commenter believes that, according to this proposed rule, supermarkets
would be required to go back to the rack manufacturer in order to
determine the full charge, and this would require paying two people to
determine the same information about the system (the original
manufacturer and the current refrigeration contractor). The commenter
believes that some flexibility should be included in this proposed
change and suggests that there could be exceptions where a new charge
method would be allowed (e.g., a remodel or significant redesign of the
system). The commenter raises questions about what method would be
required in the event that a supermarket were to purchase an existing
store from another supermarket company. The commenter questions if the
supermarket could determine charge capacity at the time of purchase or
if it would be required stick to the original methodology decided upon
by the original owner of the system. [0141]

Supervalu, Inc. notes that the proposed change does not take into
account that for exigent circumstances (e.g., failure of a component), a
change in methodology may be necessary to ensure accuracy while
minimizing burdens. Committing to one methodology would not be
burdensome under normal operating circumstances. The commenter lists,
for example, method 2 (calculated value) may be typically used, but in
the event of a component failure resulting in the entire charge of being
lost, it may be appropriate to change the methodology to method 3
(actual measurement) to determine the full charge amount. Supervalu,
Inc. notes that their comments supplement and expand on the comments
submitted by FMI on behalf of its 1,500 member companies. [0143]

FMI supports EPA for proposing to change the exiting regulation by
specifying that owners or operators of commercial appliances may take
seasonal variances into account in determining the full charge of an
appliance. [0150]

A private citizen believes it is clear in the preamble that EPA intended
to allow the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance in determining
the “full charge,” however, the commenter feels it was left out of
the definition in the proposed rule.  The commenter recommends that
bullet 3 of the definition should be updated to include the amount added
to the appliance as in the current rule. [0162]

Proposed Definition of Seasonal Variance

EPA received one comment supporting the definition of seasonal variances
and one comment in opposition.

FMI supports EPA’s change to the existing regulation. [0150]

NEDA/CAP objects to the definition of seasonal variance because the
weather variation between winter and summer may or may not require
exactly the same change of coolant.  [0151]

Industrial Process Refrigeration

EPA received two comments with modifications to the proposed definition
for IPR to capture industrial processes.

The Auto Industry Forum believes the proposed amendments to the
definition have an unintended consequence of excluding appliances that
have traditionally been considered IPR by revising the phrase
“manufacturing industries” to read “manufacturing process” and
the phrase “the industrial process” to “a manufacturing process”
in the two sentences of the definition. The commenter notes that the
proposed changes do not appear to include several appliances that are
within the IPR category. As an example, an air dryer is an industrial
refrigerant appliance that serves a critical role in drying the
compressed air used to operate the machines in a manufacturing facility
or other industrial facility as part of the industrial process. However,
the commenter believes that it is not a “manufacturing process.”
Similarly, the commenter notes the industrial refrigerant appliances
used to cool the air in a wind tunnel or test chamber are considered
IPR, but are not used in a manufacturing process. The commenter believes
the definition should be clarified to include other industrial processes
and activities associated with industry that are not classified as
comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration. The commenter notes that
some of these appliances may fall in the “all other appliances”
category that is not referenced in the rules but is mentioned on EPA’s
website. Therefore, there needs to be a clear delineation of the
categories and the requirements that apply to them. Specifically, Auto
Industry Forum suggests that EPA should revise the first and second
sentences of the definition to read:

Industrial process refrigeration appliance means refrigeration
equipment, that may be complex or customized, that is used in a
manufacturing process or in an activity associated with industry that is
not comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration. Industrial process
refrigeration-appliances include equipment that is directly linked to a
manufacturing or an industrial process or activity, including but not
limited to, appliances used in the chemical; pharmaceutical;
petrochemical; food or beverage manufacturing, packaging, or processing;
power generation; and other industrial ice manufacturing industries. 
[0148]

ESS suggests the following as the definition for Industrial Process
Refrigeration Appliance: 

“means refrigeration equipment, that may be complex or customized,
that is used in a manufacturing process. Industrial process
refrigeration appliances include equipment that is directly linked to a
manufacturing process, including, but not limited to, appliances used in
the chemical; pharmaceutical; petrochemical; food or beverage
manufacturing, packaging or processing; power generation; and industrial
manufacturing machines ice machines and ice rinks. (20% trigger
rate).” [0140]

Leak Rate 

EPA received fourteen comments on the proposed changes to the definition
of leak rate. Ten commenters were opposed to eliminating the annualizing
method (i.e., method 1), while two commenters supported this
modification. Two commenters (CARB and Eastman) suggest revising the
rolling average method (i.e., method 2). NEDA/CAP commented that over
half of companies are using the annualizing method. An anonymous
commenter and OCC have concerns regarding the costs of upgrading
leak-tracking software to comply with the change in rule. A few
commenters also questioned whether there is sufficient environmental
benefit to justify the change. 

USEC notes that the terms in the numerator of the equation on page 78566
are different than in the leak rate equation and wording in § 82.156
and this can represent a significant difference. In the first equation
(page 78566), the commenter notes that a leak rate must be calculated
every time a leak is repaired. This means a simple minor repair such as
tightening a leaking gasket or repairing a minor valve leak would
require calculation of the leak rate and associated recordkeeping
activities. If several small leaks in different parts of the appliance
are repaired in a single day, the commenter states that the current
wording would require a subsequent number of leak rate calculations and
associated records. The commenter believes that this is not practical or
workable for a complex IPR appliance with many small existing and
emergent leaks, especially if there is a continuous leak repair program.


The commenter states that the proposed leak rate definition is not clear
on when the leak rate must be calculated. For example, the proposed §
82.156 leak rate equation includes a term of “pounds of refrigerant
added since last successful follow-up verification.” The commenter
notes that this implies a leak rate must only be calculated if there has
been a successful follow-up verification; however, if the leak rate
trigger has not been exceeded, a follow-up verification will never be
required and subsequently a leak rate calculation will never be
required. The commenter notes that if this is the intent of the rule,
this would streamline and simplify compliance for those appliances that
never trigger the leak repair requirements thereby reducing associated
costs. USEC believes clarification of the requirements is needed and if
the leak rate calculations are only required after the addition of
refrigerant since the last successful follow-up verification, it is
strongly supported as a streamlining effort and as a burden reduction
for the regulated community. 

The commenter notes this would also address the second issue above in
that leak rate calculations are not required for an ongoing leak repair
program as long as the trigger rate is not exceeded. The commenter
states that if the leak rate definition is changed to exclusive use of
the rolling average method, the assertion the change will not impose
additional burden is false and should not be implemented and that the
change will result in added costs for certified technician retraining,
changes in recordkeeping, changes in written procedures, etc. In support
of aspects of the proposed definition, USEC believes the proposed
definition of leak rate will not pose additional burden and determines
that it is reasonable for appliance owners to keep records documenting
full charge capacity. USEC supports EPA’s statement that this
information is already required by regulation. 

USEC does not support a change to the exclusive use of the rolling
average method. USEC believes that the appliance owner or operator
should be allowed the flexibility to choose the best method for their
individual situation. USEC suggests clarification that the leak rate
calculation is only required if the applicable leak rate threshold has
been triggered and that it does not require implementation for an
ongoing program of repairing minor leaks. USEC believes that Method 1 of
the current regulation is likely used by many IPR owners and that
changing the definition in midstream would cause them to rework their
current compliance methodology including retraining certified
technicians, record-keeping practices, changes in written procedures,
etc. The commenter states that all of this would be costly and increase
the likelihood of noncompliance until the new methodology is fully and
completely implemented. 

The commenter notes that requiring a change “in an effort to provide
greater clarity to the leak repair requirements” is not supported
unless there is a benefit to the change in methodology. The commenter
believes clarity is not a good reason if there is already a system in
place that many appliance owners have incorporated into their
refrigeration practices. The commenter believes these many owners
already understand and have implemented the current requirements and
that allowing the appliance owner flexibility and the opportunity to use
either method is not a complex and confusing issue. The commenter notes
that Method 1 has been recommended since at least 1995 (EPA
300-B-95-010, Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process Refrigeration
Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, p. D-1).
The commenter notes that the Compliance Guidance was jointly developed
by EPA and industry and would seem to be the best overall approach as
many appliance owners and operators likely rely on it for implementing
their leak repair programs. The commenter also notes the Section 608
leak repair requirements apply almost exclusively to existing owners or
operators using class I or class II ODS and notes that, presumably new
owners or operators will be using new appliances that do not contain
class I or class II ODS. Additionally, the commenter states that
existing sources, as older appliances as replaced, the leak repair
requirements disappear for that equipment. Since the impacts of the
Section 608 leak repair requirements mainly affect sources already
complying with the regulatory requirements, the commenter believes a
change to exclusive use of the rolling average method is not justified.
[0125]

An anonymous commenter believes that removing the annualizing method in
the leak rate definition will create several problems for a supermarket
chain. The commenter notes that the leak-tracking software use the
annualizing method and if a switch to the Rolling Average Method is
required, the software will have to be revised, which may be costly and
would require time to research the effect the change would have on
current records. The commenter questions whether or not the system will
recalculate the leak rates on all existing records when the leak rate
definition is changed to the Rolling Average Method. The commenter
suggests further clarification on how the Rolling Average Method works
with step by step examples provided to show hypothetical refrigerant use
and calculated leak rate. Furthermore, the commenter questions the
accuracy of the statement on page # 78566 that states the Rolling
Average Method “ . . . takes a true snapshot of the amount of
refrigerant that is added to an appliance over a consecutive 12-month
period by simply looking at the ratio of the amount of refrigerant added
over the last consecutive 12-month period and the full charge.”  The
commenter believes this contradicts with the following statement in the
rule: “taking the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the
appliance since the last successful follow-up verification or the number
of pounds of refrigerant added during the previous 365-day period (if
the last successful follow-up verification occurred more than one year
ago).”   

The commenter provides two examples for consideration. In the first
example, 50 lbs of refrigerant is added to a system on February 11th and
the last successful follow-up verification was on November 1st of the
previous year. The commenter believes that step one requires only the
addition up the amount of refrigerant added since November 1st (50 lbs)
and this would provide a snapshot of the past three months rather than a
consecutive 12-month period as stated above. In another example 2, 50
lbs of refrigerant is added to a system on February 11th, and the last
successful leak verification test occurred two years ago.  For this
example, according to step one, the commenter believes the requirement
would be to sum all pounds of refrigerant added in the previous 365-day
period (still 50 lbs). The commenter believes that the time before the
last successful follow-up would be irrelevant, since the amount of
pounds required for the leak rate calculation remains the same, which is
confusing. 

The commenter also believes the Rolling Average Method fails to note
what types of refrigerant use should be included and requests that the
rule state any types of refrigerant additions that should be excluded
from the calculation (e.g., if Seasonal Adjustments or Refrigerant
Conversions should be excluded or included). The commenter also wonders
if there would be a record required of the initial charge of R407A added
for the conversion if an appliance was converted from R22 to R407A. The
commenter believes that seasonal adjustments, refrigerant conversions,
and system additions should be excluded from the Rolling Average Method
leak rate calculation.  The commenter states that the term “system
additions” refers to situations where the current system is expanded
to include more circuits or refrigerated cases and more refrigerant must
be added to compensate for the additional load. The commenter believes
that the Annualizing Method superior in this regard as it does not
require determination of the reasons for past refrigerant additions. The
commenter also disagrees with the statement that the EPA “believes
that the current leak repair requirements raise the question of when a
leak event ceases.” The commenter believes that the leak event ceases
with the successful completion of the follow-up leak verification test
and believes it would be good to amend the leak rate definition to
clarify this point. 

The commenter further believes that “systems additions” should be
excluded from the definition. The commenter notes this exclusion would
entail expansions to include more circuits or refrigerated cases that
would require additional refrigerant to compensate for the additional
load. The commenter notes this can be a common occurrence as stores are
remodeled and refrigerated cases are added to a circuit. The commenter
suggests the “system addition” refrigerant addition is made because
the circuit size has increased and requires more refrigerant, and since
it is not due to a leak, the system additions should not be subject to
the leak rate calculation. [0131]

NEDA/CAP believes EPA’s Notice proposes several fundamental changes to
the definition of leak rate which also may make the application of the
new triggers even more onerous. NEDA/CAP believes these changes will
reduce flexibility and increases the complexity of determining full
charges for calculating leak rates. NEDA/CAP asserts that, based on
membership practices and a general discussion with industry groups, well
over half of the companies use the annualized method—contrary to
EPA’s suggestion that no one is using the annualized method is
erroneous. Before EPA can proceed to finalize the proposed revisions,
NEDA/CAP feels it needs to assess the costs and benefits of the proposed
change. And, NEDA/CAP believes, if after considering the impact of such
a change in methodology the agency decides to implement the change, it
also should provide a two year transition period because the change will
require system changes and training to implement properly.  [0151]

Alcoa Inc. encourages EPA to retain the current definition of “leak
rate,” for the same reasons it gave in the final 2005 leak repair
requirement rule and believes EPA should not limit the options for
determining an appliance’s leak rate by eliminating the annualizing
method. The commenter notes that, prior to 2005, EPA had not promulgated
a formal definition of “leak rate” for the purposes of the leak
repair requirements contained in § 82.156(i). The commenter also notes
that in its January 11, 2005 rulemaking (70 FR 1971), EPA asserted that
the annualizing method has the advantage of being relatively simple,
familiar, and that owners and operators had incorporated that
methodology into their manual and computerized refrigerant tracking
systems and standard operating procedures. The commenter states that,
with regard to the rolling average method (i.e. Method No. 2), EPA
expressed its belief that there was a “disadvantage” associated with
the rolling average method “because it permits owners or operators to
delay repair of certain types of leaks longer than the annualizing
method and may not show that appliances are leaking until they have lost
a relatively large percentage of charge…” The commenter suggests
that based in part upon comments it received during that rulemaking, and
its desire to provide more flexibility to owners or operators, EPA
stated it had decided to codify an option that allowed appliance owners
or operators to use either of the two methods, provided the option
chosen is used consistently for calculating leak rates for the lifetime
of all appliances located at an operating facility. The commenter states
that the rationale offered by EPA for its 2010 proposal, to abandon the
current definition of “leak rate” and to adopt the exclusive
definition of “leak rate” it rejected in 2005, is inconsistent with
its relatively recent decision that Method No. 2 was “not
preferable” (70 FR 1971). In addition, the commenter believes it is 
unreasonable to believe that the community of owners and operators has
changed so significantly that the sentiment expressed in the prior
public comment is now significantly different, or that the disadvantages
EPA relied upon to determine in 2005 that Method No. 2 was “not
preferable” have been eliminated. [0134]

OCC requests that EPA retain the annualized method and the rolling
average method as written in the 2005 rule amendment.  OCC believes
that, since there are acknowledged strengths and weaknesses for both
methods, elimination of the annualized method may provide some clarity
in restricting options at the expense of producing confusion,
potentially oversimplifying the new formula, and eliminating of a tried
formula that has been used for almost two decades. OCC believes the
costs associated with procuring updates to refrigeration software,
training and rewriting plant refrigeration procedure manuals, or
required outside computer technical support to modify in-house
spreadsheets, do not appear to justify the changes when no demonstrated
advantage is gained.  [0144]

ACC believes that the "annualizing method" (Method 1) to determine leak
rate should remain an option. The commenter believes that although the
concept of a "true rolling average" of Method 2 is appealing, the
complexity of the calculation and the associated recordkeeping has no
added environmental benefit. The commenter notes that after refrigerant
has been added to an appliance, it is important that the leak rate be
quickly and accurately calculated so that any required regulatory
responses can be undertaken within the allotted time. ACC believes that
using Method 2 is functionally more complex, requiring a rolling 365-day
window with a total of all refrigerant additions from within that
window. The commenter notes that the total changes as refrigerant
additions "roll" in and out. The commenter also notes that the
complexity increases as repairs are made (and verified), initially
shrinking the size of the window to one day. ACC believes it is not
clear that required use of Method 2 will result in any environmental
benefit, but it will result in an increase in leak rate calculation
errors and associated non-compliance. ACC believes that linking the
trigger for calculating leak rate to the last successful follow-up
verification test is a good clarification (since it clearly resets the
leak rate to zero) that ACC suggests should be used in both options.
[0139]

The Auto Industry Forum opposes the proposed elimination of the Method 1
calculation, noting that it will make leak rate calculations more
complex, time-consuming, and problematic from a compliance management
perspective as additional records must be reviewed in order to perform
the calculations. The Forum believes EPA should clarify that requiring
leak rate to be calculated at the time of refrigerant addition means
that the leak rate does not need to be calculated upon repairs where
refrigerant is not added to the system. The commenter notes that Method
1 does not require review of all the service records listing refrigerant
additions that have been made during the year together with a
determination of whether the leak verification checks had been completed
and found to be successful. Rather, the commenter believes it only
requires the most recent service record showing a refrigerant addition
to perform the calculation, simplifying compliance while assuring an
appropriate calculation of the current annualized refrigerant leakage
rate. The commenter suggests that both annualized and rolling average
leak rate calculation methods must be retained, or at a minimum, EPA
should retain the current Method 1 (as shown below) as the preferred
method and EPA should continue to provide current Method 2 as an option
[0148]:

Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing refrigerant,
calculated at the time of refrigerant addition and measured between
refrigerant charges. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the
percentage of the appliance's full charge that would be lost over a
consecutive 12-month period if the current rate of loss were to continue
over that period. The rate is calculated from the last day that
refrigerant was added to the appliance as described under Method 1
below:

Method 1.

(i) Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance
since the last day that refrigerant was added to the appliance and
divide it by the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance normally
contains at full charge; 

(ii) Take the shorter of the number of days that have passed since the
last day refrigerant was added or 365 days and divide that number by 365
days;

(iii) Take the number calculated in Step 1 and divide the result of Step
1 it by the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance contains at
full charge calculated in Step 2.; and

(iv) Multiply the number calculated in Step 3 by 100 to obtain a
percentage. 

ESS feels that the existing formulas and date of calculation for leak
rates should remain as written in the 2005 rule because the reduced
trigger rates will deliver the emissions reduction. ESS believes that
the added cost to industry to change the formula and remove choice is
not warranted and will punish organizations that have complied for over
17 years using the annualized method. ESS questions why there should be
a change when no value is gained. ESS believes the 1993 rule’s
original intent was to break the industry of its past practices of
topping off oozing systems and never repairing until a major event
required a repair. ESS believes the rule allowed the industry to get a
system back on line but forced industry to make repairs within 30 days,
mothball within 30 days, or create a retrofit or replacement plan. The
commenter believes that, because of the intent of the original rule, the
date refrigerant is added has been used many times by industry to
trigger their repair efforts. ESS notes that in the 2005 rule change,
four leak rate scenarios were given and the present two methods,
annualized and rolling average, were selected. ESS encourages EPA to
leave the leak rate choices and allow an owner to make a onetime
selection of method of choice for their appliances. ESS believes that
much of the recent input to EPA on leak rates comes from the Commercial
Refrigeration and Industrial process groups who prefer the Rolling
Average Method, while the other refrigeration and comfort cooling
industries have not had as much input. [0140]

CIBO believes by disallowing use of Method 1 found in the current
definition of leak rate, EPA is reducing flexibility and imposing new
burdens on industry that are unnecessary and unwarranted by fact, EPA
analysis or data, or law. CIBO notes that many members currently use
Method 1 for determining leak rate. CIBO believes that if EPA adopts
their proposed change, all facilities will be required to use a more
complex approach to determining leak rate and require facilities to
establish new compliance procedures. If EPA fails to demonstrate benefit
from this revision, or justify additional costs, CIBO opposes EPA’s
proposed changes to the current methods for calculating leak rate.
[0145]

CARB believes a single rolling average method will not accurately
reflect the annual leak rate in some cases. CARB believes the proposed
formula works well for leaks that occur longer than a year apart or if
the pounds of refrigerant added reflect the total additions in the past
365 day. However, CARB notes that when leaks occur less than a year
apart and the equation uses the number of pounds of refrigerant added
since the last repair, the formula does not reflect the magnitude of the
annual leak rate of the system and an annual normalization factor is
needed. CARB gives a hypothetical situation as an example to demonstrate
that when there is no annual normalization built into the proposed leak
rate calculation, the annual leak rate appears lower than actual:  Given
a 100 pound charge, and a 15 pound leak in 180 days since the last
repair, the leak rate would be calculated using the proposed equation
as: (15 pounds leaked / 100 pound full charge) * 100% = 15% leak rate.
If normalized to an annual leak rate, it is: (15 pounds leaked / 100
pound full charge) * (365 days per year / 180 days since the last
repair) * 100% = 30% annual leak rate. CARB believes that the leak rate
calculation method should be revised to the following to accurately
reflect annual leak rates [0130]:

Eastman believes that under the “Rolling Average Method”
calculation, EPA should allow the date of the initial successful leak
determination to be used if the follow-up leak verification date is also
found to be successful. Eastman believes the actual repairs to stop the
leak were proven at the initial leak verification check and subsequently
proven by the follow-up leak verification test. Eastman notes that
EPA’s Method 2 calculation, Step 1, is not sufficiently
self-explanatory and encourages EPA to clarify with examples of how the
leak rate would be calculated when last successful repairs were made but
multiple required repairs were made within a 365 day period, when
repairs were made that were not required and how the calculation would
be made where an appliance required repair and the last repairs were
made more than 365 days ago.  Eastman notes that many facilities will
have to purchase upgraded software for inclusion in their refrigeration
programs to implement the Rolling Average Method. [0137]

A private citizen notes the movement towards a leak rate formula that
accounts for periods of longer than a year between recharges is much
more useful than a single-year calculation. The commenter notes that, as
refrigeration and cooling technology improves, the useful life of
systems increase, and with those increases come reduced levels of ODS
leakage. The commenter believes that having a formula that accounts for
those reduced levels of leakage over periods extending more than one
year will improve documentation of leak rates and subsequently, the
regulation of systems leaking unacceptable levels of ODS.  [0124]

Southern Company supports EPA proposal to change the definition of leak
rate by removing the annualizing method (Method 1).  Although Southern
Company agrees with EPA that there are advantages and disadvantages with
both the annualizing and rolling average approaches, Southern Company is
prepared to adopt the rolling average approach (Method 2).  [0135]

FMI supports EPA’s change to the definition of leak rate whereby the
leak repair clock for a leak event is stopped after successful initial
verification and follow-up verification and documentation of repairs for
all leaks. [0150]

Normal Operating Characteristics or Conditions

EPA received one comment opposing the reference to “full charge” in
defining normal operating characteristics or condition.

The Auto Industry Forum believes appliances may not contain a "full
charge" when returned to service and thus, the normal operating
conditions will be different than if the appliance contains a full
charge. The Forum objects to adding "full charge" to the definition of
normal operating characteristics and instead suggests adding "for the
refrigerant charge" to clarify that the normal operating conditions will
reflect the ambient, load, and actual refrigerant charge conditions of
the appliance at the time that it is being operated. The commenter notes
that following a refrigerant leak repair, it may be unnecessary to add
the entire "full charge" to achieve the desired operation of the
industrial process appliance. As long as records are kept to establish
that the subsequent refrigerant addition was not due to leaks, the
commenter believes such records should be sufficient compliance
determination in the event no repairs are made and no verification tests
performed after subsequent refrigerant addition. The Auto Industry Forum
proposes the following revisions to the proposed definition to address
this issue:

Normal operating characteristics or conditions means, for the purposes
of §82.156(i), the appliance operating temperatures, pressures, fluid
flows, speeds and other characteristics based on the refrigerant charge,
including full charge of the appliance, that would be expected for a
given process load and ambient condition during operation. Normal
operating characteristics and conditions are marked by the absence of
atypical conditions affecting the operation of the refrigeration
appliance. [0148]

Retrofit, Repair, and Retire

Proposed Definition for Retire

EPA received five comments noting that the definition of retire was
unclear and suggesting modifications. Three of the commenters suggested
that EPA clarify the definition of “appliance” to indicate whether
it is the entire system or includes the retirement of components. Three
commenters expressed concerns regarding the intent of “removal of an
appliance from service” (i.e., whether removal refers to removing the
entire system, components of the system, or just the refrigerant). 

USEC believes clarification is needed on the proposed definition of
retire, not only in regards to repair but also in regards to system
mothballing. USEC does not believe an appliance can undergo system
mothballing for an indefinite period of time and then be subsequently
retired. [0125]

CARB suggest that retire would be better defined as “the permanent
removal from service of a refrigeration system, or component, rendering
it unfit for use by the current or any future owner or operator.” CARB
believes that EPA’s intent is somewhat unclear; while repairs are at
the component level, if a repair is unsuccessful the retirement
requirement is that the entire appliance must be scrapped even if all
but a small component is leak tight and functions well. The commenter
notes that the requirement that retire means that an entire appliance
must be removed from service is likely to cause unnecessary expense and
time when removal from service of a specific component that has proven
to be unrepairable would likely serve the same function.  [0130]

The Auto Industry Forum recommends clarification that EPA intends for
appliances to be able to be disabled and the equipment left on-site. The
commenter believes appliances that are retired may not be removed from
the site for some time. The Forum suggests that the term "retire" should
be clarified so that it is understood that the appliance will have its
refrigerant removed and it need not be physically removed from its
location, but simply rendered inoperable. The Forum recommends the
definition be revised as follows:

Retire means the permanent removal from service of the entire appliance
and removal of refrigerant from it, rendering it unfit for reuse by the
current or any future owner or operator of the facility. The appliance
need not be physically removed from the facility. [0148]

Safeway Inc believes the definition of appliance needs to be addressed
in the sense that retiring or retrofitting an entire appliance can be
very burdensome. Safeway Inc does agree that if a component (evaporator)
keeps leaking it should be replaced, not continually repaired. [0136]

Eastman believes that the proposed regulatory definition does not
mention “major components” as does the preamble wording and notes
that the wording “entire appliance” could have many meanings and is
not clearly defined by EPA. Eastman believes EPA’s intent is to remove
(i.e., retire) the appliance sections and/or pieces that held the
appliances refrigeration charge and install a newer appliance and
recharge the new appliance. The commenter notes that then the appliance
is evacuated and removed, the removed appliance and/or sections may be
taken off-site by the refrigeration service company and from that point
on the previous owner/operator of the properly evacuated company no
longer follows what happens to the old appliance. Eastman believes the
owner/operator should only be required to properly evacuate the unit
being removed/retired and not have to worry about proving that no future
owner or operator used any of the retired equipment. [0137]

Proposed Definition for Retrofit

While creating the distinction between “retrofit,” “repair,” and
“retire,” EPA states that a retrofit involves the conversion of an
appliance so that it is compatible for use with a substitute with a
lower ODP. EPA received one comment from Sheeco suggesting EPA also
require the use of lower GWP substitutes in advance of December 31,
2019.The Auto Industry Forum and ACC opposed the specification that
retrofits include substitutes with lower ODP and requested that EPA
allow owners to continue using equivalent ODP substances.

Shecco recommends that EPA provide provisions in the amended regulation
where a retrofit involves the conversion of an appliance so that it is
compatible for use with a substitute with a 0 (zero) ODP and not a lower
ODP. Shecco states that it is less costly to convert directly to non-ODS
substances and avoid the need for a second conversion. The commenter
believes that such a provision would enhance the avoided tons of ODP
emissions between now and December 31, 2019, therefore, enabling the US
to meets its interim phase-down targets and preparing the industry for a
smoother transition to non-ODS appliances. Shecco suggests the inclusion
in the amendments of a recommendation by EPA whereby it encourages the
conversion to refrigerants that not only encompass 0 ODP but also low
GWP (e.g., ammonia, CO2). [0149]

The Auto Industry Forum believes that EPA should allow equivalent ODP
substances to continue to be used. The commenter states that there is no
explanation why EPA assumes that it is the ODP of the substance that
would necessitate the retrofit rather than the appliance itself.
Moreover, the commenter believes EPA does not take into account or
provide any exception for the situation where a company cannot use a
lower ODP substance for the particular process in question. The Forum
notes in their members’ experience, refrigerants with lower ODPs may
actually require a higher compressor pressure, which could indicate that
requiring this change does not make sense from a leakage standpoint.
[0148]

ACC does not believe that EPA’s proposal for all appliances to be
retrofitted with refrigerants with a lower ODP makes sense at this point
in time. The commenter encourages EPA to suggest that owners/operators
retrofitting equipment consider refrigerants with a lower ODP, but not
mandate replacement since there is a surplus of certain Class II
refrigerants. Rather, ACC believes owners and operators should be
allowed to choose the refrigerant that best works for each application,
accounting for supply and demand and expense of maintenance. [0139]

Other Definitions

EPA received seven comments suggesting modifications to definitions
currently in the rule, such as “appliance” and “refrigerant”,
and suggesting additional definitions to the rule, such as “engineered
systems,” “duty types,” and “refrigerant circuit.” 

Appliance

EPA received three comments with suggested modifications in order to add
clarity to the term “appliance” as it is currently defined in the
rule. OCC requests that EPA consider including clarification to the term
appliance to avoid confusion with owners and operators of commercial
refrigeration and IPR. NEDA/CAP requests that EPA further clarify what
is meant by an “appliance with a full charge greater than 50 pounds”
to avoid inadvertent confusion. FMI commented that the definition of
“appliance” is too broad.

OCC requests for the purposes of reading clarity that the EPA consider
including the wording “appliances, industrial process refrigeration
and commercial refrigeration” wherever it is inclusive of devices in
all group categories. OCC believes confusion is encountered in the
intermix of terminology used in the rule, in particular the use of the
word “appliance” in a paragraph where there is inference to owners
and operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial process
refrigeration as well. OCC also believes, in some instances, the
terminology ascribed to the term “appliance” does not readily
translate to large industrial process refrigeration and can easily
misdirect the understanding of a specific meaning as it is used
interchangeably in the rule. [0144]

NEDA/CAP requests that, as part of this rulemaking, EPA reaffirm and
codify the agency’s historic interpretation that the "appliance with a
full charge greater than 50 pounds" test is applied to each independent
refrigeration circuit in an appliance. NEDA/CAP notes that this
interpretation is cited in the preamble of the 1995 rule and should be
made explicit in the regulation itself in order to avoid inadvertent
confusion. NEDA/CAP believes that EPA should reaffirm that an appliance
with two independent refrigerant circuits of 49 pounds each does not
trigger the requirements applicable to an "appliance with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds." NEDA/CAP believes this addition to the
regulations will further streamline and clarify an essential component
of the refrigerant leak repair rule. [0165]

FMI states that the definition of “appliance” in the Proposed Rule
is overly broad, and places an undue and unnecessary burden on
owners/operators of systems typical of those found in a supermarket. FMI
believes this burden makes the Proposed Rule inconsistent with E.O.
13563. FMI also notes the EPA definitions of “Comfort Cooling
Appliance” and “Commercial Refrigeration Appliance” in §82.152.4
are vague and would seem to regard a supermarket system in its entirety
as a single appliance. FMI feels the implication of this in implementing
EPA’s remedy to retire or retrofit an “appliance” with a leak rate
exceeding 20 percent and failing the three strike rule would be to
replace or retrofit all cases, unit coolers, condensers, compressor
systems and interconnecting piping that comprise the full system. FMI
states that, as the Proposed Rule has mandated that two tests be
conducted for each leak repair, this is not an unlikely scenario.
Furthermore, FMI believes refrigeration and comfort cooling systems are
integrated in certain stores, so conceivably a leaking air conditioning
component could trigger replacement or retrofitting of all refrigeration
components. FMI considers this to be an unduly burdensome and wasteful
remedy. FMI believes this is especially true when considering a typical
supermarket scenario where the failed portion of the system might be a
discrete piece of equipment (e.g. an air-cooled condenser) that may be
of much older vintage than other fully functional and compliant parts of
the system that had been replaced in a recent remodel. 

FMI suggests two options for addressing the concern over the present
definition: to broaden the definition of component (see the component
definition earlier in the comment summary) or to constrain the
definition of appliance with more technically precise language that
doesn’t capture a field-erected, supermarket type, system in its
entirety. FMI sees this as the most straight-forward approach, though
additional revisions to the regulations would be necessary (e.g. leak
rate definition, §82.156(i), §82.156(j)) so that the use of the newly
defined terms would not alter the intent of the regulations. [0164]
[0150]

“Engineered System”

EPA received one comment suggesting the inclusion of “engineered
system” as a new definition in the proposed rule.

FMI proposes defining the new term “Engineered System,” which is
typical of those systems used in the supermarket industry. These
definitions borrow some language from American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, which is generally
recognized by governments and regulatory agencies as the authoritative
source of standards for the industry. FMI believes this might help with
EPA’s intended definition and use of the term, “appliance.”
FMI’s proposed new definition for “Engineered System” reads as
follows:

 “A field-erected refrigeration or comfort cooling system comprised of
multiple appliances or Components interconnected by refrigerant piping,
forming a closed circuit in which refrigerant is circulated between one
or more evaporators and a central condenser”. 

FMI believes the definition would allow owners/operators of engineered
systems to implement the “retire” option for a three-strike failed
appliance (e.g., refrigerated merchandiser, condenser) rather than the
entire system. [0150]

Refrigerant

EPA received one comment suggesting the modifications to the definition
of “refrigerants” in the proposed rule. 

CARB believes that high-GWP, non-ODS refrigerants (substitutes for Class
I and Class II refrigerants) should be included in the rule’s
definition of refrigerants. CARB notes that phasing out of various ODS
compounds  and the retrofit provisions of the current rule will likely
cause facilities to transition into ODS substitute refrigerants such as
HFCs, which, although not harmful to the stratospheric ozone layer, are
potent GHGs.  The commenter notes that, considering the U.S.EPA
Endangerment Finding on GHGs, it does not seem reasonable to transition
from one class of high-GWP compounds into another and not implement
controls on the second class of compounds. Moreover, the commenter
states that the purpose and scope (§82.150) as well as the no-venting
etc. provisions of the current rule apply to all refrigerants including
the ODS substitute refrigerants; therefore, CARB believes that these
refrigerants should also be subject to the required practices such as
leak repair, retrofit and retirement, and recordkeeping requirements of
the rule. [0130]

Duty Types

EPA received one comment suggesting to add a fourth duty type in the
proposed rule to cover refrigeration systems that are charged with
>10,000 lbs of refrigerant.

ESS believes that thousands of regulated entities have identified
systems that do not fall under the three major duty types as “Other
Refrigeration” with a current leak trigger rate of 15%, and suggest
adding a fourth duty type. The fourth duty type, according to ESS,
should include other refrigeration systems that are very large (i.e.,
>10,000 lbs), such as refrigerated air dryers, non-food cold storage,
wind tunnels, electrical equipment room cooling, non-occupied control
rooms, environmental (climatic) chambers, growth chambers,
turbine/engine inlet air cooling, test chambers, test cells and
aquariums. ESS believes that none of these examples are for people
comfort, food storage, or removing heat from a product in production. 

ESS suggests that once all four duty types are established, a definition
should be created to address when multiple duty types are served by a
central system or single appliance. The commenter believes that once a
multiple duty type definition is created, it can then be removed from
the proposed IPR definition changes. 

The commenter also notes that Commercial Refrigeration as originally
created was simple: if appliance is 50 lbs and greater and it contained
food for retail sales, storage, or post production, it was Commercial
refrigeration. The commenter states that the food industry including
retail sales/distribution, food manufacturers and large cafeterias are
big enough to hold their own designation. The commenter suggests that,
with the proposed change to Commercial Refrigeration Appliance, EPA has
allowed any manufactured product to be included in the definition. ESS
believes this change will cause confusion and add compliance costs. ESS
believes that, because Other Refrigeration has not been defined, EPA has
granted manufactured non-food products stored and currently designated
by industry as Other Refrigeration an extended leak trigger rate from
current 15% up to the proposed 20%. 

ESS suggests adding the following language: “Multiple Duty types
served by an appliance or a system means the Duty Type that is selected
shall be based on which duty type has 51 percent or more of the total
load on an annualized basis.” ESS also suggests adding the following
language: “Other Refrigeration appliance means any appliance that does
not fit the definition of Comfort, Industrial or Commercial appliance
clearly. Other refrigeration includes but is not limited to,
refrigerated air dryers, non-food cold storage, wind tunnels, electrical
equipment room cooling, non-occupied control rooms, environmental
chambers, growth chambers, turbine/engine inlet air cooling, test
chambers, aquariums and test cells (10% trigger rate).” [0140]

Refrigeration Circuit

EPA received one comment suggesting the inclusion of “refrigerant
circuit” as a new definition in the proposed rule.

Coto Consulting, Inc. seeks an explicit discussion about how multiple
"refrigeration circuits" are defined as part of a "refrigeration
system." The commenter notes in California Air Resources Board's
Regulation for the management of High GWP Refrigerants for Stationary
Sources, a refrigeration system is explicitly defined “by a single
refrigeration circuit" under 95382(a)(57), and the commenter notes
SCAQMD's Rule 1415.1 contains an identical definition under
Section(c)(46). The commenter seeks an explicit definition of circuit,
along with any guidance or clarification EPA could provide. The
commenter provided the graphic below to depict a typical situation that
the commenter has seen with HVAC&R systems. The commenter would like to
confirm that each of the three discrete refrigeration Circuits #1, #2
and #3 (49, 49 and 51 lbs, respectively) is subject to the 50-lb
applicability determination and not the aggregate refrigerant amount
(149 lbs) [0161]:

(graphic provided by commenter 0161)

Required Practices

EPA received 27 comments on required practices.  Comments were in
reference to the following required practices outlined in the proposed
rule:

  REF _Ref380487587 \r \h  0 	Repair of Leaks and Leak Repair Trigger
Rates

  REF _Ref380414106 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.1.1  	Requirement to repair
all leaks if the leak repair trigger rate has been breached

  REF _Ref380414129 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.1.2 	Costs associated with
lowering the leak repair trigger rates

  REF _Ref380414141 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.1.3 	Proposed leak repair
trigger rates of 20% for industrial process refrigeration appliances and
commercial refrigeration appliances and 10% for comfort cooling
appliances

  REF _Ref378773577 \r \h  4.2 	Verification of Repairs

  REF _Ref380414324 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Requirement to perform a follow-up verification test no sooner
than 24-hours after repairs are completed

  REF _Ref380417148 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.2.1 	Requirement that
initial and follow-up verification tests be performed for all types of
appliances subject to the leak repair requirements

  REF _Ref380417154 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.2.2 	Use of the word
“immediately” in 82.156(i) and (j)

  REF _Ref379555631 \r \h  4.3 	Requirement to Develop and Complete
Retrofit/Retirement Plans

  REF _Ref380417189 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.3.1 	Proposal to shorten
the one-year timeframe that is currently granted to owners or operators
to complete appliance retrofit/retirement plans

  REF _Ref380417198 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.3.2 	Requirement to replace
leaking components

  REF _Ref380417214 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.3.3 	Minimum requirements
for a retrofit/retirement plan

  REF _Ref378773580 \r \h  4.4 	Extension to Repair and
Retrofit/Retirement Timelines

  REF _Ref380417242 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.4.1 	Proposal to remove the
120-day exemption when owners or operators of industrial process
refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial process shutdown

  REF _Ref380417250 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.4.2 	Proposal to allow
extensions

  REF _Ref378773581 \r \h  0 	Worst Leaker Provision

  REF _Ref380417265 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.5.1 	The worst leaker
provision

  REF _Ref380417289 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.5.2 	Two proposed options
for the worst leaker provision

  REF _Ref380417307 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.5.3 	Concerns about
requiring the retrofit/retirement of an appliance based upon the failure
of an initial verification test

  REF _Ref380417312 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.5.4 	Replacement of
components rather than the entire appliance

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Dale Herendeen	AbitibiBowater	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0138

2	Lorraine Krupa Gershman	American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

3	Paul Shorb	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

4	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

5	Pamela Gupta	California Air and Resources Board (CARB)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0130

6	Robert D. Bessette	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

7	Donald R. Schregardus	Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0133

8	Kevin Phillips	Eastman Chemical Company Texas Operations (Eastman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0137

9	Steven Ehrlich	Environmental Support Solutions (ESS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0140

10	Ram K. Singhal	Flexible Packaging Association (FPA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0152

11	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

12

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0164

13	Robert W. Schenker	General Electric Company (GE)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0153

14	Henry Eby	Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0146

15	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

16	Frederick G. Fedri	Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0144

17	Christopher J. Sutton	Perkins Coie, LLP	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0160

18	Reid Jennings	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0124

19	Anonymous 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0131

20

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0162

21

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0141

22	Rob Uhl	Safeway Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0136

23	Christianna Papazahariou	Shecco	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0149

24	Anonymous	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

25	Ronald T. Mendes	Supervalu, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0143

26	John Myers	Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0163

27	Kathleen Tobin	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129



Repair of Leaks and Leak Repair Trigger Rates

Requirement to repair all leaks if the leak repair trigger rate has been
breached

EPA received ten comments on the proposed requirement to repair all
leaks within 30 days of discovery when the appliance leaks above the
respective leak repair trigger rate. Nine of these comments stated that
EPA should not require repairs to all leaks. Commenters maintained that
the requirement is not practical for large, complex appliances because
it can be difficult to identify and repair some leaks; that businesses
would incur unnecessary expenses because a full system leak test would
be required every time the leak repair trigger rate has been breached;
that mere knowledge of a leak should not violate the intentional venting
prohibition in Section 608(c); and that there should be an exception for
leakage from appliance valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings. Two
of the commenters recommended that EPA revise the language to “all
known leaks.” 

One comment supported the requirement to repair all leaks and believes
that leaks in appliance valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings must
also be addressed during leak repair.  

USEC commented that EPA’s goal of fixing all leaks and achieving a
zero percent leak rate is commendable, but not practical or possible for
a large complex system with many components or refrigerant circuits.
USEC believes that clarification is needed for when repairs to “all”
leaks are required and asks if the all leak repair requirement is only
applicable to when the leak rate trigger rates are exceeded. USEC
comments that for large complex industrial process refrigeration (IPR)
appliances, it is not possible to identify numerous small leaks; the
leaks may be internal to other equipment and not easily accessed without
system shutdown.  The commenter notes that it is only the larger, more
substantial leaks that become identifiable and repairable. USEC states
that even where small leaks can be identified, it may not be practical
to repair them because it robs resources that are better used for
identifying and repairing more substantial leaks. USEC also notes that
the requirement assumes no new leaks develop during the up to 30 day
period allowed for repair. The commenter believes it is likely that even
if all existing leaks could be identified and repaired during the 30 day
period, new leaks will have developed. USEC also states that a zero
percent leak rate is not reasonable as evidenced by the current and
proposed leak rate trigger thresholds. USEC notes that for IPR
appliances the current leak rate threshold is 35 percent with a proposed
leak rate threshold of 20 percent. USEC concludes that while the
requirement may work on smaller, simpler appliances, it is not workable
for large, complex appliances and should not be included in the final
rule. [0125]

Eastman believes EPA should maintain the current requirement at section
82.156(i)(2), as repairs to “all” leaks is subjective. The commenter
explains that many seals in refrigeration equipment rely on the oil
barrier that forms to keep refrigerant from escaping and also keeps the
seal lubricated so the seal does not burn up and/or ruin. However,
refrigerant is in contact with the oil against that seal and under the
right conditions the seal could show signs of refrigerant vapors, but
only in de minimis quantities. Eastman states that if an appliance had
three leak locations other than the appliance’s compressor seal and
the seal is operating per its design specifications, as described in the
oiling scenario above, then “all” leaks cannot be repaired and an
owner/operation would be in noncompliance with the regulation. [0137]

ACC notes that it is not always feasible to find, let alone repair, all
of the leaks. ACC suggests that, rather than requiring all leaks to be
repaired, EPA instead require facilities to “make a good-faith effort
to repair all leaks” and keep documentation of such repair efforts.
[0139]

CIBO believes that it is unreasonable to require “all” leaks to be
repaired. CIBO maintains that EPA’s belief that owners don’t try to
repair all leaks is unfounded, and states that most owners/operators and
service providers do try to fix all leaks when they are servicing
appliances. However, CIBO believes it is unreasonable for EPA to require
all leaks to be fixed within 30 days when not every leak may be known
and where some leaks may be difficult to repair. CIBO urges EPA not to
require owners/operators to fix all leaks within 30 days, as owners or
service providers should not be penalized for their best efforts to
reduce leaks. [0145]

The Auto Industry Forum is concerned with the new requirement that
“all” leaks be repaired particularly as it may relate to the
preamble statement. The Auto Industry Forum notes that EPA appears to
imply that if there are any unrepaired leaks at all, that the
intentional venting prohibition is violated. The Auto Industry Forum
believes this is incorrect and that contrary to EPA’s statement in the
preamble, it is a change in regulation and does impose a new
requirement. The Auto Industry Forum quotes the statutory venting
prohibitions and states that the existence of a leak or knowledge of a
leak does not create a “knowing” venting or otherwise “knowing
release.”  The Auto Industry Forum states that EPA has correctly
acknowledged that there can always be minor leakage from appliance
valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings, even though these are very
tight systems. The Auto Industry Forum believes it is thus important for
EPA to clarify that mere knowledge of a leak does not violate the
Section 608(c) prohibitions. The commenter suggests that EPA eliminate
the word “all” before leak at the places it occurs in the proposed
rule, including in sections 82.156(i) and (j), since this represents a
change in policy and regulation that (1) is unwarranted under the
statutes and (2) is being accomplished without proper notice or
justification in the proposed rule. The Auto Industry Forum also
comments that EPA would have to provide an exception for the routine
leakage that occurs from fittings and the like. EPA would be compelled
to add language in sections 82.156(i) and (j) stating that: “Some
level of minor refrigerant leakage from appliance valves, seals,
gaskets, and other fittings is not subject to the requirement to repair
‘‘all’’ leaks in according to regulation.”  [0148]

Perkins Coie, LLP believes that this proposed change to the current
requirements would add unnecessary expense to businesses that rely on
regulated comfort cooling appliances. Perkins Coie, LLP states that if a
compressor fails resulting in a leak triggering the leak repair
requirement, the technician, in addition to fixing the known leak, will
be required to audit the entire appliance for all other leaks to ensure
that he/she is in compliance with the proposed regulation. The commenter
believes that EPA's proposed requirement for a business to find all
leaks if the leak rate trigger has been breached will result in (i) a
significant increase in man hours to complete the leak repair; and (ii)
lost income due to a business's unnecessary "down time" resulting from
the appliance not being in use.  Perkins Coie, LLP also comments that
there is no documentation to support EPA's premise that technicians are
putting regulated appliances back into service without repairing
identified leaks when a leak rate trigger is breached. Perkins Coie, LLP
believes the proposed requirement will result in additional expense to
businesses with no measurable reduction in refrigerant emissions. [0160]

An anonymous commenter believes that the use of the word “all” is
vague, and should be rephrased as “all known” leaks. The commenter
notes that based on the preamble, EPA expects some level of leakage from
seals, gaskets, and other fittings. The commenter recommends that EPA
clarify what it means to repair “all” leaks and if some level of
leakage is acceptable. The commenter states that the use of the word
“all” would also infer that once a leak is found that the owner
should look for additional leaks to ensure that all leaks have been
repaired. The commenter notes that when a packing leak is discovered on
a valve, the repair often consists of simply tightening the packing to
stop the leak. The commenter notes that in this example, the repair is
completed without evacuating the appliance since the refrigerant circuit
is not violated. The commenter states that the leak has stopped, but
this does not mean that “all” leaks have been repaired; other
unknown leaks could be present that would not be detected without
evacuating the unit and doing a complete system leak test. The commenter
believes that the use of the word “all” in the proposed rule would
now require that owners always completely shut down every appliance,
evacuate the refrigerant and do a full system leak test in order to
verify that “all” leaks have been repaired. The commenter states
that unnecessary refrigerant evacuations can lead to an increase in
emissions and would significantly increase the cost of maintaining
equipment. [0162]

NEDA/CAP’s members object to this requirement as ambiguous and
arbitrary. NEDA/CAP believes that the rule should require responses to
“all known leaks.” NEDA/CAP also notes that depending on their
locations, some leaks may not be able to be repaired within 30 days.
NEDA/CAP believes that EPA’s rule should provide that if such leaks
are identified, extensions for repairing them may be necessary if the
location and reason for additional maintenance time is necessary.
NEDA/CAP notes that this will particularly be the case when the leak
occurs from industrial refrigeration systems, because not only does a
process unit have to be dismantled to make the repair, but the
manufacturing process has to be shutdown, necessitating losses in the
form of product, downtime and potential contract issues with customers.
[0151]

CARB commented that all leaks should be required to be repaired
irrespective of their sources. CARB believes that the proposed allowance
discussed on page 78568 of the Federal Register posting that leaks in
appliance valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings need not be
addressed during leak repair should not be included in the amended rule.
CARB notes that while it is not possible to prevent all leaks; valves,
seals, gaskets, and other fittings can be significant leak locations
particularly where there is a rotating or sliding shaft as in a valve or
shaft seal or other points of motion or stress. [0130]

Costs associated with lowering the leak repair trigger rates

EPA received seven comments related to the costs and benefits of various
leak repair trigger rate scenarios on page 78597. Five comments received
state that the costs of this proposed change exceed the benefits that it
would achieve. One of those comments also states that the benefits EPA
calculated are not evenly distributed among all sources of emissions,
and recommends that EPA evaluate whether it can target certain sources
to comply with the lower leak rates. Two comments state that a change in
the leak rate trigger for repairs will result in additional and
unnecessary costs. 

NEDA/CAP and FPA believe that EPA’s own analysis suggests that the
costs of lowering the leak repair trigger rate for appliances far
exceeds the benefits that it would achieve. While emission reductions
are valuable, having a monetized benefit of only $1.6 million with a
cost of $38 million does not appear to be a reasonable trade off. The
commenters urge EPA to not change the current leak rate triggers. [0151,
0152] 

AT&T states that all cost/benefit scenarios examined by EPA showed that
the calculated benefits from the reduction in emissions were outweighed
by the costs of such reductions. AT&T appreciates that there are
limitations to any specific cost/benefit analysis but comments that the
benefits EPA is calculating for all regulatory options are not evenly
distributed among all source categories; instead, they are largely
associated with a few main source categories of emissions. AT&T notes
that the six largest source categories of benefits from the leak repair
option EPA proposed account for 329.5 ODP-weighted tons out of a total
of 384.1 ODP-weighted tons. AT&T believes that in finalizing the
application of new trigger rates for leak repair, EPA should evaluate
whether it can better target the sources that should comply with lower
leak rates and consider differentiating rates for different source
categories. [0154]

CIBO believes $38.2 million cost for $1.6 million benefits is arbitrary
and not supported by the record. [0145]

TVA believes that lowering the leak rates as proposed would result in
significant additional costs as a result of more frequent repairs and
replacements that would be necessary across the county. [0163]

Southern Company comments that a change in the leak rate trigger for
repairs could result in additional unnecessary costs.  Southern Company
states that lowering the leak rate threshold from 15% to 10% will
require more service calls and require more repairs and replacements of
existing equipment across the country, which will entail significant
additional costs. [0135]

AbitibiBowater comments that the change in leak rate for triggering
repairs from 35% to 20% is unnecessary and will lead to increased
regulatory burden and costs. [0138]

Proposed leak repair trigger rates of 20% for industrial process
refrigeration appliances and commercial refrigeration appliances and 10%
for comfort cooling appliances

EPA sought comment on the ability or lack thereof of owners or operators
of commercial refrigeration and comfort cooling and industrial process
refrigeration appliances to repair leaks within 30 days when their
appliances leak above the proposed leak repair trigger rates of 20% for
industrial process refrigeration appliances and commercial refrigeration
appliances and 10% for comfort cooling appliances. 

EPA received seven comments specific to this issue. Four of these
comments state that the leak repair trigger rate should be maintained at
15% for comfort cooling appliances. Three of these comments state that
the leak repair trigger rate should be maintained at 35% for industrial
process equipment components, emphasizing the complexities associated
with these appliances.  One comment offers support for the new proposed
trigger rates, one comment requests clarification regarding if the new
trigger rates only apply going forward, and one comment questions the
use of data from California’s South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD).

Comfort cooling

CIBO comments that for comfort cooling, the 10% trigger rate is very low
and very small amounts of added refrigerant will trigger these
requirements. CIBO believes that while these units may be able to make
repairs in most instances within 30 days, lowering the trigger to 10%
may impose unnecessary burdens for these units. CIBO recommends that EPA
retain the current leak trigger rate. [0145]

ACC opposes lowering the leak repair trigger rate for comfort cooling
appliances since these systems typically have a full charge not much
greater than 50 pounds and the amount of refrigerant that leaks would
not be a large amount at either 15 or 10 percent. ACC notes that in many
cases, degraded performance would not be noticed until the system has
lost more than 15% of its charge. [0139]

Perkins Coie, LLP opposes changing the leak rate trigger for comfort
cooling appliances because it will be costly to businesses (the number
of service calls required to repair leaks exceeding the lower leak rate
repair requirement will significantly increase, along with the
administrative time and associated costs necessary to process the
additional documentation generated from the increased number and
frequency of service calls), without a sufficient environmental benefit
to justify the additional costs. [0160]

NEDA/CAP expressed concern that lowering the leak trigger to 10% may
prompt retrofits or replacements with other equipment that will have a
likelihood of challenging annual capital budgets and competing for other
pollution control and process change resources. NEDA/CAP notes that
repairing these units within 30 days is far more feasible than shutting
down process equipment to repair industrial refrigeration assemblies.
NEDA/CAP states that replacement of air conditioners for certain
manufacturing that is space-constrained may also create engineering
concerns for replacing roof units for which structural engineering is
required since the footprint of new equipment seems generally larger to
handle less efficient refrigerant substitutes. [0151]

Industrial Process Refrigeration

CIBO believes that industry maintenance practices are sufficient to
minimize leaks and recommends that EPA retain the current leak trigger
rate. CIBO comments that EPA fails to account for the complexities
related to repair, replace or retrofit of industrial process equipment
components. CIBO members believe that reduction of the leak rates as
proposed could trigger more repairs that would require facility or
process downtime. CIBO comments that even if EPA fails to provide more
time for industrial process repairs requiring shutdown, the current 35%
leak rate provides industry with much greater flexibility than afforded
by the 20% leak rate trigger. CIBO notes that in general, companies that
discover slow leaks in industrial process equipment plan to fix those
known leaks as soon as possible or when shutdown is required will fix
those units during the first scheduled downtime. Given that these
industrial process refrigeration units are integral parts of the
production processes at facilities, failure to maintain this equipment
could result in unplanned and costly downtime at a facility. [0145]

TVA states that for chillers used in the nuclear industry, it is
critically important to retain the flexibility provided by the current
35% leak rate. TVA states that given that some of these chillers are an
inherent part of the nuclear generation process, failure to maintain
their operation at critical junctures could jeopardize the operation of
the entire generation unit. TVA notes that this could force TVA to enter
an unplanned Limited Condition of Operation (LCO) at a nuclear unit,
which if not resolved within a specified period of time (stated in the
plant’s technical specification attachment to the operating license),
could require TVA to shut down a reactor for certain periods. TVA notes
that a forced shutdown of this nature could have a significant adverse
economic impact on TVA’s power generation operation. TVA believes that
the mandate of Section 608 to develop standards that are achievable
should take into account factors such as whether the standards allow the
necessary flexibility to operate the plant, which relies on the
refrigeration system, in a safe and reliable manner. [0163]

NEDA/CAP emphasizes that it is more difficult to repair, replace or
retrofit industrial process equipment components than comfort cooling
components. Because industrial refrigeration systems are integrated and
specially engineered into process equipment, they require shutdown of
process equipment for repair and depending on the equipment, substantial
lead time to design replacement components or replacement. NEDA/CAP
states that recognizing these engineering and cost issues (from shutting
down process equipment so that repairs can be made), reduction of the
leak rates as proposed could trigger more repairs which would require
facility or process downtime. NEDA/CAP believes that EPA must allow more
time for repairs requiring process shutdown for industrial process
refrigeration appliances in the first instance, but that even if EPA
fails to provide more time for industrial process repairs requiring
shutdown, the current 35% leak rate provides industry with much greater
flexibility than afforded by the 20% leak rate trigger.  NEDA/CAP
believes that most companies who discover slow leaks in their industrial
process equipment will plan to fix those known leaks as soon as possible
or when scheduled outages and seasonal manufacturing process unit
“turn-arounds” next occur.  NEDA/CAP believes that industry
maintenance practices are sufficient to minimize leaks. [0151]

General:

Shecco welcomes the described reductions in the leak repair trigger
rates as the minimum level. [0149]

An anonymous commenter requested clarification regarding if the new leak
repair trigger rates would only apply going forward from a particular
date, or if it would be necessary to recalculate the leak rate for
existing records as well. [0141]

NEDA/CAP notes that as a basis for lowering the leak rate triggers, EPA
discusses the agency’s review of thousands of appliance repair records
maintained by California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD).  NEDA/CAP states that the data EPA references on page 78571 of
the Notice came from commercial refrigeration systems in supermarkets
and is not necessarily pertinent since grocers may be more sensitive to
diminished performance of refrigerators, particularly for perishable
foods.  NEDA/CAP also questions whether it is reasonable to rely on
repair record data from SCAQMD as a basis for the proposed decision
because there is so little industry located there.  NEDA/CAP urges EPA
to study additional impacts before the proposed revisions to the leak
rate definitions are finalized, and to sample other jurisdictions where
there is significant industrial activity in the northeast, Midwest, or
Texas.  NEDA/CAP believes EPA would find a much more substantial
economic effect on businesses as a result of changing the percentages
for both industrial refrigeration appliances and air conditioners.
[0151]

Verification of Repairs

Requirement that initial and follow-up verification tests be performed
for all types of appliances subject to the leak repair requirements

EPA proposed a new requirement that owners or operators of all types of
appliances that are subject to the leak repair requirements perform both
an initial and follow-up verification of repairs.  EPA received three
comments stating that the commenters were not opposed to this expansion.

CIBO does not object to expanding the verification requirements to
comfort cooling units with charges of more than 50 pounds, even though
this will require some additional recordkeeping. [0145]

GE is not concerned with the extension of the initial and follow-up
verification tests to comfort cooling and commercial appliances. GE
believes it makes sense that verification be required following leak
repairs for comfort cooling and commercial appliances in the same manner
as with the industrial process refrigeration appliances. GE currently
recommends that its sites perform verification tests following comfort
cooling appliance leak repairs as a best practice.  GE agrees that
§82.152, §82.156 (i) and §82.156 (j) should be revised to require
initial and follow-up verification tests for all appliances with greater
than 50 pounds of refrigerant. [0153]

FMI does not oppose EPA's proposed amendment to extend the follow-up
verification test requirement to commercial refrigeration appliances.
[0150]

Use of the word “immediately” in 82.156(i) and (j)

EPA received five comments opposed to the inclusion of the word
“immediately” in 82.156 (i) and (j).

ACC comments that EPA should remove the word "immediately" from the
regulatory requirement §82.156(j)(1). ACC suggests the following
revision: "Owners and/or operators shall conduct an initial verification
test as soon as practicable after conclusion of the repairs.” ACC
notes that this revision provides the owner/operator flexibility as to
when the initial verification test is conducted. [0139]

CIBO notes that it generally takes time for records to get from service
providers to owners of equipment, who perform leak rate calculations, so
it is unrealistic and unnecessary to require calculations to be
completed immediately. [0145]

The Auto Industry Forum comments that the term "immediately" is
undefined and practically unachievable. Auto Industry Forum notes that
Dictionary.com defines immediately as: “without lapse of times;
without delay; instantly; at once.” The Auto Industry Forum believes
that imposing a time requirement for the initial verification test is
unnecessary because this check should occur prior to adding refrigerant
to the appliance. The Auto Industry Forum states that if EPA includes a
time requirement, it must be associated with the addition of refrigerant
and the operation of the appliance, and recognize that workers take
required breaks, may need to go to an office to get information to
complete calculations, or may need to do other tasks.  The Auto Industry
Forum also notes that some initial verification tests (e.g., the deep
vacuum check of very large appliances) can take several hours to
complete. The Auto Industry Forum includes text edits in their comments
recommending that the word “immediately” be deleted from every
instance in sections 82.156(i) and (j). [0148]

An anonymous commenter believes the use of the word “immediately” is
unnecessarily stringent. The commenter states that the addition of
“immediately” means that the technician or someone at the facility
would have to calculate the leak rate at the time of the service. The
commenter notes that in some cases, the data needed to properly
calculate the leak rate may not be immediately available to the
technician. As an example, a contractor called in over the weekend to
service an appliance finds out that parts will have to be ordered to
make the repair, but since the appliance is critical to production the
technician adds some refrigerant to keep it operating until the parts
can be obtained to make the repair. The commenter notes that under this
circumstance, use of the word “immediately” would potentially
require plant personnel to be called for the sole reason of calculating
the leak rate, since a contractor would not typically have the required
information available. The commenter states that the only important
thing about calculating the leak rate is to make sure that it is
calculated soon enough to ensure that any required repair timelines are
met, and suggests updating the language accordingly.  [0162]

NEDA/CAP notes that there is a lag time between the receipt of
information from service providers to appliance owners who calculate the
leak rate. NEDA/CAP also does not believe it is necessary to calculate
the leak rate immediately, and proposes that the leak rate be calculated
no longer than two weeks following receipt of service records from the
contractor. [0151]

Requirement to Develop and Complete Retrofit/Retirement Plans

Proposal to shorten the one-year timeframe that is currently granted to
owners or operators to complete appliance retrofit/retirement plans

EPA received eight comments on the proposal to shorten the one-year
timeframe currently granted to complete retrofit/retirement plans. Seven
comments oppose the time reduction. These comments state that design and
replacement of custom industrial appliances takes longer than six
months; that corporate approvals for capital expenditures are generally
required at least one year in advance; and that shutdown of process
equipment may be required for extensive periods of time, which must also
be planned far in advance particularly for the nuclear industry. One
comment supports the time reduction because it will substantially affect
the ODP-weighted metric tons being released into the atmosphere.

Eastman comments that EPA should continue to allow up to one year to
retrofit/retire industrial refrigeration appliances.  Eastman notes that
many larger (e.g., >50 lb. appliances) industrial appliances are custom
made and the design and replacement of a custom refrigeration appliance
can take more than six months. [0137]

FPA’s members believe that it is unreasonable to shorten the time it
takes to implement a plan to retrofit or replace an appliance for
several reasons:

First, most plants are constrained by corporate requirements for
justifications of capital expenditures, which generally are approved at
least a year in advance. If a significant industrial refrigeration unit
or an air conditioner must be retrofitted or replaced, it will therefore
be difficult to obtain funding and implement a retrofit or replacement
program.

Second, if the appliance that must be replaced is an industrial
refrigeration assembly that is integrated into a process line, then
production must be shut down to enable replacement, which may also
require significant engineering time to ensure that the unit works as
intended with the process. Many manufacturers are constrained by capital
budgets and will not be able to obtain funding for the replacement or
retrofit of significant pieces of equipment.

Third, many industrial process refrigeration units have to be specially
fabricated and six months is not a sufficient lead time for engineering,
fabrication and installation. [0152]

Southern Company comments that shortening the repair or retrofit
timeline from one year to six months could place an unreasonable burden
on their facilities with very large custom appliances. Southern Company
notes that many of their systems are very large and very costly (at
least several hundred thousand dollars), and these systems would require
an extended period of time for design, budgeting, and installation of
new equipment, which could be very disruptive to operations. Southern
Company believes certain larger systems could not be retired and
replaced in the six months EPA has proposed. [0135]

CIBO comments that EPA should not shorten the length of time allowed for
completion of retrofit/retirement plans. CIBO believes that six months
is an unreasonable amount of time in which to design, fund, order,
obtain and install a new appliance. CIBO states that EPA has no reason
to cut the time period for sources to make needed repairs, nor record
support, such as emission reductions based on the types of timeframes of
repairs undertaken by the range of facilities that would be affected by
this rule, to support the proposal. CIBO believes the amendment is
arbitrary and should not be made. CIBO recommends that the current 1
year timeframe and provisions that allow for extensions when these
extensions are warranted should be retained. [0145]

NEDA/CAP comments that six months is an extremely short period for the
replacement of large equipment which is likely to require capitalization
(i.e., the project cannot be implemented with maintenance budgets which
limit expenditure amounts to less than $10,000-$100,000, depending on
the size of the company).  NEDA/CAP states that industrial refrigeration
systems, which are integrated with process equipment, frequently require
extensive engineering involving the process equipment, unique design and
fabrication off-site, and finally, shutdown of process equipment for
potentially extensive periods of time to replace or retrofit. NEDA/CAP
notes that there also has been some concern expressed that even for roof
air conditioning units, additional structural engineering may be needed
to safely remove and replace an air conditioner with a new unit.
NEDA/CAP believes that the shorter period is not supported without
additional assessment by the agency. NEDA/CAP also maintains that the
six month proposal ignores an important business reality about the time
needed for approval of capital budget items, especially for small and
medium size manufacturing businesses. NEDA/CAP therefore suggests that
EPA retain the current provision, or that it allow additional time for
the replacement or retrofit of industrial refrigeration systems provided
documentation shows that the operator is reasonably diligent in
implementing the replacement or retrofit. [0151]

ACC comments that complex industrial process refrigeration systems are
in many cases closely integrated with complex manufacturing process, and
their replacement or retrofit typically requires capital expenditures
along with detailed engineering, equipment procurement, construction,
and a process shutdown to incorporate the new system into the existing
operations. ACC believes EPA should continue to maintain a 1-year period
to either permanently retire or retrofit an industrial process
refrigeration unit to allow industry adequate time to perform
engineering analysis, identify replacement systems, acquire the
equipment, adequately plan and execute any shutdown activities while
minimizing emissions, and plan for additional work that may be required
during the shutdown period. [0139]

TVA recommends that EPA retain the current one year schedule for a
retrofit/retirement. TVA believes that a six month lead time to replace
a large chiller or DX unit is neither reasonable nor practical for the
following reasons: 

In a non-nuclear application, the purchase of a 350 ton chiller
typically has a 4 to 6 month lead time from manufacturer’s receipt of
order. In addition, time is required to engineer the interfaces between
the new chiller and existing chiller plant, upgrade the equipment room
to meet various safety regulations and, for government installations
such as TVA’s, competitively bid the job. This requires well defined
scope and specifications for the request for proposals (RFP) with the
actual bidding process taking approximately a month to twelve weeks from
RFP to contract award, depending on complexity of the job and the
agency’s specific procurement policies and regulations. The
installation of the chiller can take anywhere from one week to one month
or more, depending on scope of chiller replacement and the associated
modifications required for the equipment room. From beginning to end to
complete the replacement in 6 to 9 months is highly improbable. 

The type of equipment used in a nuclear application is a
custom-engineered and custom-built piece specific to a particular plant.
Extra chillers are not stockpiled by the manufacturer. This equipment
has specific quality and testing requirements, which must meet the
plant’s NRC mandated Quality Assurance (QA) programs required by
Federal Law (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B). This often adds several months
to the commercial grade equipment’s lead time. Due to the congestion
in the powerhouse and plant operational requirements, a chiller
replacement in a nuclear application has to be coordinated with other
plant outage and modification activities. In many cases, plant
engineering work must be completed before the chiller specifications are
released for bids and the contract awarded (especially government
projects). In the nuclear business, this means a lengthy design control
process that meets the plant’s legally mandated QA requirements. This
design control process can take from 4 to 16 weeks due to the number and
complexity of drawings, specifications, safety reviews, and engineering
reviews that are typically required. Thus, the total process of
replacing a chiller can take a minimum of 9 to 12 months under the best
of conditions with much of this time being outside the scope or control
of the equipment supplier. 

Six months to complete a retrofit or retirement of an industrial process
refrigeration unit fails to recognize the unique situation in nuclear
industry where planned outages are typically scheduled on an 18-24 month
cycle. [0163]

A private citizen strongly supports the retrofit time reduction.  The
commenter believes that it is a much-needed change that will prevent the
worst-leaking systems from continuously exceeding leak rate limits,
while still providing a more economical option to the operator than
requiring the decommissioning and replacement of a system. [0124]

Requirement to replace leaking components

EPA sought comment on the effectiveness and feasibility of requiring
owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and
IPR appliances to replace leaking components in their entirety upon
failure of an initial or follow up verification. EPA proposed a second
option whereby owners and operators may decide on a case by case basis
if a component or its subassembly requires replacement in order to
completely repair the appliance. EPA received five comments in support
of option 2, rather than option 1.

Eastman believes EPA should not make it mandatory that leaking
components be replaced if a verification repair(s) is/are unsuccessful.
The commenter states that a facility should be allowed an unlimited
number of repairs attempts to equipment within the 30 day time period.
Eastman notes that many items can ultimately be repaired and the
requirement to replace the component(s) that is leaking would be costly
if the component(s) is repaired and the leak is stopped. Eastman
supports EPA’s proposed option that would allow owners or operators to
decide on a case-by-case basis if a component or its subassembly
requires replacement in order to completely repair the appliance. [0137]

CIBO supports EPA's assertion that industry should not be forced to
retrofit or replace equipment when a simple leak repair will address the
issue at hand, and conclusion that it is appropriate for appliance
owners or operators to decide how to repair leaking appliances and when
replacement or retrofit is the best solution, as is existing practice.
[0145]

Southern Company supports EPA’s proposal to allow appliance owners the
flexibility in each instance of a leak to determine whether the leak is
best addressed by a repair of the leaking component or through its
replacement. Southern Company maintains that not all circumstances will
be similar, and requiring a component replacement where a simple repair
would suffice will result in unnecessary costs with no benefit to the
environment. [ 0135]

FMI comments that if EPA decides to move forward in extending
retrofit/retirement requirements to commercial refrigeration and comfort
cooling appliances, FMI prefers the second option proposed by EPA that
would allow owners or operators to decide on a case-by-case basis if a
component or its subassembly requires replacement in order to completely
repair the appliance because it will reduce the odds that replacement of
a component is required in circumstances where it is not necessary or
warranted. [0150]

Safeway Inc disagrees that if a component (evaporator) keeps leaking it
should be replaced, rather than continually repaired. [0136]

Minimum requirements for a retrofit/retirement plan

EPA sought comment on the minimum requirements for retrofit/retirement
plans.  EPA received two comments concerned that the required details
are unlikely to be available so early in the retrofit/retirement
process.  These two comments also maintain that EPA should not require
the plan to be kept at the physical location of the appliance.

The Auto Industry Forum is concerned that the details of a retirement or
retrofit plan will not be known at the time a decision is made to either
retire or retrofit an appliance. The Auto Industry Forum comments that
typically, an engineering evaluation and project will have to be
undertaken to assess which option makes the best business sense. The
Auto Industry Forum states that it will take time to investigate the
costs and timing associated with both options. The Auto Industry Forum
states that should a retrofit program be ultimately decided, then the
details and procedures will be developed in conjunction with the
contractor/supplier retained to perform the work. The Auto Industry
Forum comments that if it is decided to retire the appliance, then
documentation of that decision should be all that is necessary, together
with a record that the appliance was retired within 6 months after
accounting for any system mothballs. [0148]

CIBO comments that EPA’s proposed minimum requirements for retrofit
and replacement plans are excessively detailed, particularly given that
a plan must be completed within 30 days of discovering a leak, when
details are unlikely to be available. In particular, CIBO points to the
procedures for flushing old refrigerant and lubricant, changes in
lubricants, filters, gaskets, orings, or valves; the plan for the
disposition of the recovered refrigerant the plan for the disposition of
the appliance, if retired, and a six-month schedule for the complete
retrofit or retirement of the appliance. [0145]

The Auto Industry Forum comments that EPA should not require the plan to
be maintained with the appliance itself or even at the facility.  The
Auto Industry Forum believes flexibility should be provided such that it
could be maintained at the facility, typically in the maintenance office
where the evaluation and ordering of equipment would occur, or at
another facility or office and made available within a reasonable time
to EPA when requested. The Auto Industry Forum notes that in some cases,
multiple offices and buildings are managed by another centralized
administrative office. The Auto Industry Forum believes that the plan
should be maintained at the location where it is being managed so long
as it is readily accessible to the facility, and believes that having
the plan attached to the appliance serves no purpose. The Auto Industry
Forum proposes text edits to subsection (n.) [0148]

CIBO does not believe it is EPA’s intent to require that a retrofit
plan be kept near the physical location of the appliance and urges EPA
to revise the language of 82.156 (l)(1) to delete the “at the physical
location” phrase making it consistent with the provisions of 82.166
(n).  CIBO comments that if it was EPA’s intent for owners to keep a
retrofit plan at the physical location of the appliance, CIBO urges EPA
to reconsider and suggests instead requiring owners to keep the plan
with the other records for the program at the site. [0145]

Extension to Repair and Retrofit/ Retirement Timelines

Proposal to remove the 120-day exemption when owners or operators of
industrial process refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial
process shutdown

EPA proposed to remove the 120 day exemption when owners or operators of
industrial process refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial
process shutdown. EPA received five comments in opposition to this
proposal, which emphasize that industrial process refrigeration systems
are fundamentally different and more complex than comfort cooling
systems. Commenters note that the shutdown of an industrial process
refrigeration unit will in many cases result in the need to shut down an
industrial manufacturing process, and must be coordinated with other
activities at a site.

Eastman believes that gaining regulatory simplicity is not sufficient
reason to eliminate the 120-day repair period exemption. Eastman
explains that industrial process refrigeration units may in some
instances supply refrigeration for more than one industrial
manufacturing process; therefore, jumping straight to mothballing an
appliance because the 120-day requirement is eliminated will in some
instances stop manufacturing from one or multiple manufacturing
processes. The commenter notes that it is true that mothballing could
occur, but this does not address the need for process refrigeration to
continue manufacturing, when an industrial process shutdown is needed to
repair the appliance. Eastman states that the Chemical Manufacturers
Association and other groups worked years ago with EPA to develop the
120 day exemption, which should not be eliminated for industrial process
refrigeration appliances. [0137]

ACC disagrees with EPA’s proposal to remove the 120-day exemption when
owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances
undergo an industrial process shutdown. ACC comments that the chemical
industry operates many comfort cooling systems and industrial process
refrigeration systems, that these systems are fundamentally different
from one another, and that EPA should continue to regulate them in a
different manner. ACC believes that EPA’s stated effort in this
proposal - to provide regulatory simplicity and to harmonize the
requirements between comfort cooling systems and industrial process
refrigeration - fails to recognize the complexity of industrial process
refrigeration systems and the complex production processes that they
support ACC’s experience is that these systems are different in a
number of ways, including:

Industrial process refrigeration units have a much higher level of
integration with chemical production plants and, thus, cannot be
isolated, mothballed, and repaired in the same manner as comfort cooling
systems. In many cases, planned shutdowns and associated repairs must be
coordinated among the other production activities at a given site. This
level of coordination and maintenance planning may require, in some
cases, up to 120 days to make the repairs on larger systems without
excessive disruption to interdependent manufacturing activities. 

The time required to procure a large replacement unit can extend up to a
year in some cases, given the need for specialized site-specific design
for a specific industrial process in a specific location, and the
planning timelines associated with the high cost of replacing a large
unit.

Comfort cooling systems can be shut down for repairs and in some cases
can be replaced with rental units within a matter of hours. This option
does not exist for most industrial process refrigeration units as these
are typically "one of a kind" custom designed systems. Repairs for
comfort cooling systems are also different because repairs do not
typically include the engineering oversight that comes with the repair
of industrial process refrigeration units due to their direct
integration into the manufacturing process.

The shutdown of an industrial process refrigeration unit will in many
cases result in the need to shut down a chemical manufacturing process.
The shutdown of a process may lead to increased emissions of criteria
air pollutants and resulting re-start emissions, some of which may or
may not be authorized by existing State air permitting programs and
regulations. The ability to coordinate repairs of the industrial process
refrigeration system with other planned shutdowns was a critical
consideration in the original provision of a 120-day repair period
allowed for industrial process refrigeration, and remains a concern
today.

Industrial process refrigeration systems are typically larger and
contain more refrigerant than typical comfort cooling systems. Thus,
maintenance repairs and follow-up leak verification tests typically are
more complex, which drives the need for more time to make these repairs.
[0139]

 

OCC comments that EPA should retain the 120-day exemption when owners or
operators require an industrial process shutdown to complete a repair.
OCC believes that in order to clearly define repair obligations when a
shutdown is required, the amendment should address the timeline
activities required when a shutdown of a process is needed with adequate
time built in for acquiring the requisite parts and providing for a safe
and cost effective shutdown within the time period allowed. OCC states
that the argument for the elimination of the 120 day delay for
industrial process refrigeration versus other air conditioning sectors
ignores the reasoning and arguments that were brought forward in the
original rulemaking, which is that industrial process refrigeration
systems are integrally connected to a major process and may be more
complex and larger than their counterparts in other segments such as in
the comfort cooling area. [0144]

CIBO comments that EPA should not eliminate the 120-day provision for
repairing industrial process equipment that requires process shutdown to
repair. CIBO states that in making these changes and eliminating the
definition of “industrial process shutdown,” EPA is removing
important repair provisions needed by industrial process equipment. CIBO
states that the amount of time allowed for repairs in current
regulations is critical for certain units and urges EPA not to eliminate
it. CIBO notes that there are a range of possible repair problems that
must continue to be accounted for in the rule; for example, repairs may
be needed for certain industrial process equipment that are integral
components of a manufacturing process that cannot be taken off line
without significant economic penalties. CIBO states that EPA should not
constrain repair provisions for facilities running highly complex
manufacturing processes. CIBO recommends that the definition of
“industrial process shutdown” be retained as well as the provisions
that allow industrial process equipment to have up to 120 days to repair
units when repairing those units requires an industrial process
shutdown. [0145]

NEDA/CAP believes EPA’s proposal is unreasonable because industrial
refrigeration systems are fundamentally different from cooling systems
and as a general matter require shutdown of manufacturing processes in
order to dismantle the equipment. NEDA/CAP notes that air conditioning
equipment can be more or less swapped out and piping changes if they are
necessary do not generally require interruption of most manufacturing
process units for long periods of time, but industrial refrigeration
units are integrated into process equipment, generally at several
production steps on a manufacturing line. NEDA/CAP urges EPA to leave
the existing 120 day exemption in place for leaks from industrial
refrigeration systems so that losses from production that must be
interrupted to remedy a leak can be minimized, reducing ancillary
significant costs to businesses and potential resulting losses to
employees and communities.  [0151]

Proposal to allow extensions

EPA received six comments regarding the proposal to allow extensions to
the requirement to repair leaks within 30 days, and to grant similar
exemptions to all appliance owners or operators who cannot complete
required retrofit/retirement plans in the proposed 6 month time frame,
provided that recordkeeping requirements are fulfilled. One comment
supports this additional flexibility as written. Three comments
recommend that EPA broaden the automatic extension to cover additional
possible causes for delay and to increase the amount of time provided in
the extension. Two comments maintain that EPA should continue to allow
case-by-case extensions for one to three years for certain conditions.

FMI applauds EPA for granting owners or operators of comfort cooling and
commercial refrigeration equipment this additional flexibility. [0150]

FPA comments that it does not appear that an automatic extension is
available for engineering or delays in seeking and obtaining approval
for capital expenditures in the normal course of business. FPA’s
members are concerned that less than one year is not sufficient time for
retrofit or replacements of industrial refrigeration equipment to be
implemented. [0152]

CIBO notes that while EPA will allow more time in cases where a quoted
deliver time is more than 12 weeks, the provisions allow for only 12
weeks after the date of delivery to complete installation. CIBO believes
this may be insufficient in many cases, particularly when a scheduled
industrial process shutdown with downtime is needed for installation of
industrial process equipment which is integral to the process.  [0145]

NEDA/CAP supports the automatic extension due to the unavailability of
parts within 12 weeks of the 6 month period to complete retrofit plans,
but believes that it is not broad enough to cover shutdowns, engineering
delays due to design and fabrication of equipment, delays that result
from capitalization justifications and other related corporate
procedures, and other production and business delays. NEDA/CAP
recommends that as long as these justifications are documented with
supporting information, EPA should broaden the bases for automatic
extensions and extend these to six additional months. [0151]

An anonymous commenter recommends that EPA should allow case-by-case
exemptions for special circumstances. The commenter states that
previously, the owner could have up to 3 years in some
circumstances. The commenter provides the example that other government
agencies may be required to approve a change in refrigerant type for
certain validated products that are manufactured, and states that seven
months would likely not be sufficient time to replace or retrofit the
appliance and have the revalidation of the change approved by other
agencies. [0162]

TVA recommends that EPA retain the current one year or two year
extensions provided in the current regulations for certain conditions.
[0163]

Worst Leaker Provision

The worst leaker provision

EPA received 12 general comments about the worst leaker provision. 
Eleven comments were submitted in opposition to the worst leaker
provision, while one comment was submitted in support of the worst
leaker provision. Of the comments opposing the worst leaker provision,
seven comments (from Eastman, DoD, ACC, Supervalu, Inc., TVA, FMI, and
OCC) maintain that the provision should not be applicable to three
unrelated leaks, which could result in retrofitting and/or retiring
appliances when the actual need is unnecessary and costly. Three
comments state that the provision is a disincentive to repair leaks for
fear of failing verification tests. Three comments maintain that the
regulations should allow an operator a full 180 days to address leaks
and implement additional repairs without fear of failing to repair the
leak during one of the first three leak repair attempts. Three comments
are regarding clarification for ambiguous language. Lastly, two comments
state that EPA has not properly quantified the costs associated with
these new requirements. 

Eastman comments that EPA should only require that a component(s) be
retrofitted or retired if the follow-up verification test fails and the
30-day or 120-day time period has expired without successful follow-up
repairs. Eastman notes that in many instances, the initial follow up may
reveal repair was unsuccessful, but subsequent repair efforts could
result in successful repair within the 30 day (120 day) time period,
thus the component(s) should not be required to be replaced, and the
appliance should not be required to be retired or retrofitted. Eastman
believes that if an owner/operator has more than three component
replacements during a six month period, but repairs the appliance
successfully, EPA should not require retrofit or retirement when
successful repairs are made. Eastman provides the following example for
one refrigeration appliance: one compressor seal fails but is
successfully replaced, a small valve fails and is successfully replaced,
and a refrigerant line develops a split but is successfully repaired.
Eastman believes that EPA should not require retrofit to a lower ODS
refrigerant and/or retirement when such repairs can be made.  Eastman
notes that larger capacity appliances could be required to be
retrofitted and/or retired when the actual need is unnecessary and
costly. [0137]

The Department of Defense (DoD) comments that the proposed worst leaker
provision is overly prescriptive and may result in the replacement of
appliances before they reach end-of-life. DoD provides an example of a
six-year old R-22 appliance in overall good condition that is shown to
be leaking above the allowable annual leakage rate:

The owner calls in an outside service technician to locate and repair
the leak. The technician locates a leak in piping in the area of a
refrigerant charging valve, brazes the pipe to repair the leak, and then
conducts an initial verification test. The appliance fails the test
because there is another leak from a valve that was not identified
during the initial leak investigation (strike 1). The technician repairs
this additional leak and the appliance passes an initial verification
and is returned to service. Twelve days later the technician returns to
conduct a follow-up verification and the appliance fails this test
because the technician did a poor brazing job and vibration caused a
failure (strike 2). The appliance is then repaired properly and passes
all verifications. Two months later, refrigerant is added to the
appliance and calculations show that it has again exceeded the maximum
annual leakage rate. It is determined that the compressor shaft seal is
faulty. A replacement shaft seal is installed and the appliance once
again passes initial verification. Twenty days later when the technician
returns for a follow-up verification, oil is observed coming from the
replaced shaft seal indicating a refrigerant leak (strike 3). It is
determined that the replacement shaft seal was a faulty part that failed
after a few hours of operation. At this point the owner is now forced to
replace or retrofit the appliance. In this case, the causes of the
failed verifications are likely an inept outside service technician and
a faulty replacement part. However, the owner is now faced with the
requirement to replace an appliance at the cost of over $100,000 even
though the overall condition of the appliance is very good. [0133]

DoD notes that One Military Service surveyed a few of their
installations on potential costs to comply with the worst leaker
provision and developed a cost assessment for 127 installations. This
cost assessment showed an initial first year capital cost for equipment
retrofits and replacements of $39 million and recurring annual
operational and capital costs of over $18 million. DoD notes that if
these estimates are accurate, then the cost for this service alone
exceeds the low end of the NPRM estimated costs for the entire nation.
DoD recommends that EPA eliminate the worst leaker provision or consider
a revision to make it more flexible and reduce its overall cost. DoD
suggests that EPA might consider allowing owners or operators an option
to document the causes of the failed verifications and actions being
taken to prevent or reduce future leaks and failed leak repair attempts
via an appliance leak management plan in lieu of requiring the
replacement or retrofit of the overall appliance; if after developing
this plan the appliance again fails three verifications in 6 months, DoD
believes the owner should then be required to replace or retrofit the
appliance. [0133]

ACC and NEDA/CAP object to the requirement in proposed § 82.156(j)(4)
to replace an entire industrial process refrigeration system after three
failed leak verification attempts within 6 months. They believe the
proposed requirement is a disincentive to try to repair leaks in the
most expeditious manner for fear of failure of three verification tests
within a 6-month timeframe. They believe this is an onerous and very
expensive part of the proposed rule language. ACC and NEDA/CAP maintain
that the owner/operator should be provided a full 180 days to address
leaks that are technically difficult to resolve without being subject to
penalty for failing to repair the leak during one of the first three
leak repair attempts. This would allow additional repair attempts to be
made during the 180-day period without a mandatory requirement to retire
or retrofit the appliance after three failed verification tests. This
time period would also minimize the potential misconduct of repair
companies from making inferior repairs in an attempt to sell new units
instead. ACC and NEDA/CAP request that the proposed rule text be
modified as follows: “Owners and/or operators of commercial
refrigeration or industrial process refrigeration appliances must repair
the leaking component or retire or retrofit the appliance to use a
refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone depleting potential (ODP),
in accordance with paragraph (l) of this section, if the appliance has
experienced at least three failed verification tests within a
consecutive six-month period and the owner/operator has not been able to
repair the existing leak(s) within 180 days of a failed verification
test.” [0139, 0151]

Supervalu, Inc. comments that the requirement to replace or retire the
appliance if any individual component had three leak events within a
six-month period appears to be applicable notwithstanding that the leaks
within a component may be unrelated. Supervalu, Inc. notes that if three
unrelated leaks occurred within a six-month period, the owner or
operator would be required to retire or replace the component
(condenser) or the entire appliance. Supervalu, Inc. believes these
requirements would be overly burdensome. Supervalu, Inc. does not oppose
the rule applying to three leaks in the same location or causally
related, but does not believe it should be applicable to unrelated
leaks. [0143]

TVA has concerns with the “worst leaker” provision because, by
failing to take into account the cause of the leak, the provision would
force the retirement or retrofitting of an entire appliance even under
conditions in which it is clear that only certain isolated components
need to be replaced. TVA notes that the straight count of failed
verification tests does not to take into account the likelihood that
leaks on separate components may be unrelated. TVA believes that
retirement of an otherwise robust and functional unit merely because a
certain component needs replacement would be a waste of resources.
According to TVA, there is always a point in the lifecycle of a chiller
or other HVAC equipment at which a decision must be made to replace or
repair the unit. The appropriate decision model would dictate the
balancing of criteria developed by authoritative sources such as
American Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers that incorporate expected remaining service life, refrigerant
management considerations (including ODS management) and energy usage
(reducing emissions from power generation) in the model. This approach,
based on best professional judgment, is a better decision tool for
retrofit/retirement decision than using failures as the sole decision
mechanism.  [0163]

FMI has serious concerns with this provision of the rule as written and
believes the “three strikes rule” should be removed from the
Proposed Rule.  FMI states that if EPA does decide to craft a final rule
with this provision, unless the definition of appliance is significantly
changed, this provision will impose enormous—and unnecessary—burdens
on the supermarket industry. [0150]

OCC comments that the proposed language should be rewritten to align
with information contained in the preamble. In particular, OCC believes
clarification is needed between pages 78563: “Later in this action,
EPA proposes changes to the leak repair requirements that will allow
changes to the individual refrigeration appliance components in lieu of
retirement of an entire appliance. In addition, EPA is seeking a
consistent set of regulations for all types of appliances,” which
seems to indicate that the EPA proposes changes to the leak repair
requirements that will allow changes to the individual refrigeration
appliance component in lieu of retirement of an entire appliance, and
page 78576 which covers worst leaker provisions mandating a retirement
or retrofit of the entire appliance if the appliance experienced three
failed verification tests within a consecutive six-month period,
regardless of whether the appliance leaked at the identical component.
OCC believes the cause related to failures must be taken into account,
since a straight test count would unduly require expensive (and
wasteful) retirement or retrofit activities. OCC provides an example of
a component that is repaired but fails the follow-up repair test
verification and is subsequently replaced, requiring another initial and
verification test, which would bring the test count to two. OCC notes
that if the component itself was later found to be defective from the
factory (or is found to be improperly installed) and is discovered
within the 6 months, necessitating another repair, one component would
have caused the worst leaker provision to apply to an otherwise usable
and tight system. OCC states that retirement of a fully functional unit
would be a costly waste of resources. [0144]

The Auto Industry Forum comments that the provision does not state
clearly that the 3-failed test requirement applies to a single leak
rather than another leak discovered as part of the test or all other
leaks. The Auto Industry Forum provides an example that if a facility
repairs one leak, and the verification test discovers another leak, that
should not be considered a failed verification test for the first leak
because the first leak did not cause the failure. The Auto Industry
Forum believes that this is particularly confusing with EPA’s addition
of the requirement to “repair all leaks” and contrasts the preamble
discussion that the Auto Industry Forum believes more appropriately
focuses on components and failures of tests for the particular component
repaired or replaced. The Auto Industry Forum states that the rule
cannot drive replacement of units simply because an owner conducts
testing and learns of additional leaks through that testing, even if the
repair is valid, or could be made valid through additional efforts or a
component replacement. The Auto Industry Forum also notes that the rule
provides no explanation as to why “three” is the correct number of
failed tests that indicates an appliance needs retrofitting or
replacement. The Auto Industry Forum believes this is particularly true
if EPA intends the three failed test requirement to apply across
multiple leaks. The Auto Industry Forum comments that EPA should not be
establishing policies that discourage people from testing for fear of
triggering a retrofit/replacement requirement. The Auto Industry Forum
recommends that EPA clarify that plans to retire or retrofit can only be
triggered if there are three failed tests for the same leak. [0148]

Southern Company generally disagrees with EPA’s “worst-leaker”
proposal because it could require retirement or retrofit of an entire
appliance even under circumstances in which it may be clear that only
component replacements are needed. Southern Company believes that the
“worst leaker” proposal fails to take into account the likelihood
that leaks on separate components are likely to be entirely unrelated to
one another. Southern Company states that the proximity in time of three
unrelated leaks does not necessarily suggest that an entire appliance is
in need of replacement, particularly if the appliance has neither
experienced leaks in the past nor would be expected to leak again in the
future following the replacement of a certain component.   [0135]

CIBO comments that the worst leaker requirement provides a disincentive
for owners or operators to try to fix leaks as quickly as possible when
these leaks may be technically difficult to repair, for fear of having
to replace the entire appliance. CIBO also comments that EPA has not
properly quantified the costs associated with these new requirements.
CIBO does not believe these costs warrant such drastic measures. CIBO
suggests that EPA modify the proposed rule text at: 82.156 (j) (4) to
read: “Owners and operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial
process refrigeration appliances must repair the leaking component or
retire or retrofit the appliance to use a refrigerant or substitute with
a lower ozone depleting potential (ODP), in accordance with paragraph
(l) of this section, if the appliance has experienced at least three
failed verification tests within a consecutive six-month period and the
owner/operator has not been able to repair the existing leak(s) within
180 days of a failed verification test.” [0145]

NEDA/CAP comments that the proposed requirement is a potential
disincentive to try to repair leaks in the most expeditious manner (for
fear of failure of three verification tests within a 6 months), and that
there are other alternatives that are less costly and equally effective.
NEDA/CAP also believes that the regulations should allow an operator a
full 180 days to address leaks and implement additional repairs, without
fear of failing to repair the leak during one of the first three leak
repair attempts.  [0151]

AT&T comments that the use of the term "tests" in 40 C.F.R. §
82.1560)(4) -- which requires retirement or retrofit if an appliance has
experienced "three failed verification tests within a consecutive
six-month period" -- is different from the preamble's reference to 
"verifications", and so creates some potential ambiguity. AT&T believes
that EPA should clarify that the proposed §82.l 56(j)(4) refers to
three different repair attempts, not to individual tests that may be
conducted during a single repair attempt. [0154]

ESS is concerned that the language starting on page 78575 is confusing
to industry as it relates to 3 failed verification tests in 6 months.
The commenter is concerned that, for example, if a major leak on a
condenser coil is repaired 3 times in 6 months with clear evidence that
each event was in a different location and each repair passed the
initial and follow-up test, EPA may choose to fine the organization for
failure to replace or retrofit the system. ESS suggests that EPA revise
the worst leaker section with support from industry and the other
commenters to language that is clearly understood by all sides. [0140]

EPA received one comment in support of the worst-leaker provision. 

A private citizen strongly supports the worst-leaker provision, and
comments that it is much more helpful in regulating ODS releases.  The
commenter notes that the provision as revised would target the highest
polluting systems for regulation.  [0124]

Two proposed options for the worst leaker provision

EPA received five comments related to the worst leaker provision
options. Of these five commenters, two expressed support for Option 2. 

Southern Company comments that they support Option 2, as it allows
sources the greatest flexibility in selecting the most appropriate means
of addressing a leaking appliance.  Southern Company notes that under
Option 1, sources would be required to replace an entire appliance that
had just received several new components, which would clearly not be a
cost-effective means of addressing leaks. [0135]

One private citizen states that Option 2 would provide for more
flexibility for the system operators, while also providing higher levels
of regulation for systems that repeatedly leak ODS. [0124]

Two commenters raised concerns about both proposed options, and one
commenter requested further clarification.

AT&T comments that for either option, the question arises how EPA would
treat a system with more than one refrigerant circuit. Whichever option
EPA chooses, AT&T requests that EPA make it clear that each circuit
should be considered separately. With regard to Option 1, AT&T comments
that the replacement of components on one refrigerant circuit should not
be combined with replacement of components performed on separate
circuits, for purposes of triggering the system retrofit requirements.
With regard to Option 2, AT&T comments that a failure on one refrigerant
circuit should not be combined with a failure on a separate circuit, for
purposes of triggering the system retrofit requirements. [0154]

Perkins Coie, LLP believes both options are rather extreme measures that
will, in certain circumstances, impair the viability of a company using
regulated comfort cooling appliances. Perkins Coie, LLP  notes that
under the first option, for example, an owner or operator that receives
defective components on a new appliance (i.e. condenser coils) from the
manufacturer resulting in either a failed initial verification test or
follow-up verification test within a consecutive six-month period would
be required to retire or retrofit the entire appliance. Perkins Coie,
LLP states that in this scenario, the defective component(s) will most
likely be covered by a warranty and, therefore, replacement of the
component would have little or no impact to the business; however,
replacement or retrofitting the entire appliance (particularly a new
appliance) as a result of a manufacturer's defect would require the
business to incur a significant expense. Perkins Coie, LLP notes that
the capital cost to replace a regulated comfort cooling appliance can be
$500,000 to $750,000 or more; by comparison, a successful repair of an
appliance with warranted components would likely cost less than $5,000.
The commenter states that the same analysis holds true for the second
option described in EPA's Proposed Rule: an owner or operator, or the
manufacturer under warranty, can typically repair leaks or replace
defective components on an appliance with little impact to the business,
but requiring the owner or operator to retrofit or retire the entire
appliance after the failure of three initial or follow-up verification
tests in any combination on any part of the appliance could be
devastating to the business. Perkins Coie, LLP believes that the
proposal will not result in the measurable reductions of refrigerant
emissions, and EPA should not pursue the "worst leaker" provision
because it is too drastic a remedy and too costly for businesses. [0160]

An anonymous commenter requests further clarification on the specifics
of the two options:

Regarding Option 1 and the requirement for retrofit or retirement of an
entire appliance if “it experiences three component replacements
during a consecutive six-month period,” the commenter requests
clarification regarding if this means that (1) any three component
replacements would trigger this requirement, or (2) if it is only
triggered if a specific component is replaced three times.

Regarding Option 2 and the statement that the retrofit/retire
requirements would be triggered if “the entire appliance fails three
initial or follow-up verifications during a consecutive six-month
period,” the commenter requests clarification regarding if this means
any three failed verification tests or if all three failed tests have to
be for the same leak location (i.e. a specific valve). [0141]

Concerns about requiring the retrofit/retirement of an appliance based
upon the failure of an initial verification test

EPA received seven comments expressing concern about the requirement to
retrofit or retire an appliance based upon the failure of an initial
verification test.

LCRA has serious concerns requiring the mandatory replacement of
appliances as proposed in 82.156(i) and (j). LCRA believes it is
unreasonable to require the replacement based upon the failure of
initial leak tests because initial leak tests are used to immediately
verify the success of a repair to the appliance or appliance component
and may indicate that further actions are required to accomplish the
specific repair.  LCRA comments that a failed follow-up verification
test is a better indicator of possible systemic issues in an appliance
or appliance component that may require replacement. LCRA suggests that
40 CFR 82.156(i)(4) and (j)(4) be modified to clarify that only the
failure of three follow-up verification tests would trigger the
replacement or retrofit requirement. [0146]

CIBO comments that they would want to ensure that failure of an initial
verification test, where refrigerant is not involved in the test, is not
considered to be one of these three “failures”. [0145]

The Auto Industry Forum does not agree with the new requirement that an
appliance be retired or retrofitted if it has failed three verification
tests, especially three initial verification tests, in a six-month
period. The Auto Industry Forum states that as proposed, this new
requirement appears to include any verification test – an initial
verification or a follow up verification. The Auto Industry Forum states
that it also ignores the fact that a large appliance may have more than
one leak, such that if the technician repairs one leak adequately, he or
she may find that there is still a leak elsewhere in the system that he
or she discovers when performing the initial leak verification test for
the first repair. The Auto Industry Forum believes that requiring
appliances to be retired or retrofitted after 3 initial leak
verifications is inappropriate as there is no harm to the environment
when there has been no refrigerant added. The Auto Industry Forum notes
that these types of tests are often used to diagnose and locate leaks
within the appliance, especially when there is more than a single leak. 
The Auto Industry Forum notes that follow-up verification tests, on the
other hand, are the tests for confirming that the leaks were repaired as
expected once the appliance is charged and operated at it normal
temperature and pressure, validating the result of a successful initial
verification test. [0148]

An anonymous commenter does not believe that the failure of an initial
verification test should be considered as part of a requirement to
replace or retrofit the unit. The commenter notes that by simply stating
three failed verification tests, the proposal would include either
initial or follow-up verification tests.  The commenter notes that
initial verification tests are quite often done when the unit has been
evacuated and does not contain any refrigerant. The commenter states
that in this circumstance a failed test does not do any harm to the
environment since the unit does not contain any refrigerant and
therefore should not be included in the three failed attempts. The
commenter provides a second example of when a valve packing leaks and
the technician makes a repair attempt by tightening the valve packing
and then does an initial leak test to see if adjusting the packing
stopped the leak. If that leak test fails, the technician would
typically proceed with replacing the valve. The commenter notes that in
this circumstance, the failed initial test in which the technician tried
to stop the leak by tightening the packing would count toward the three
failed tests. The commenter believes this could discourage early repair
attempts to stop or minimize emissions by encouraging putting off
repairs until the technician can ensure that the repair will be
successful.  The commenter recommends that initial verification tests
should not be included in the three failed test requirement to replace
or retrofit. [0162] 

Eastman comments that EPA should only require a retrofit or retirement
plan if the follow-up verification tests are unsuccessful during the
allowed repair period, not initial repair failure efforts. [0137]

Two commenters (ACC and TVA) comment that the failure of an initial
verification test, where refrigerant is not involved in the test, should
not be considered as one of the three failures.  [0139, 0163]

Replacement of components rather than the entire appliance

EPA received seven comments proposing that EPA consider requiring the
replacement of the specific component(s) at which leaks are occurring
instead of requiring the retrofit or replacement of the entire
appliance.

LCRA comments that it is unreasonable to require the replacement of the
entire appliance that has failed three verification tests when the
replacement of individual components may effectively reduce emissions. 
LCRA notes that EPA acknowledged that this requirement would present a
significant burden, and LCRA therefore believes that an owner or
operator should have the flexibility of replacing a component rather
than the entire appliance.  LCRA suggests that 40 CFR 82.156(i)(4) and
(j)(4) be modified to include “appliance or appliance component” in
lieu of “appliance.” [0146]

CIBO comments that in most cases, retrofit or replacement of the entire
unit is unnecessary where replacing the component that causes the leak
will address the problem. [0145]

NEDA/CAP urges EPA to consider requiring the replacement of the specific
component or components at which the leaks are occurring instead of
requiring the retrofit or replacement of the entire industrial process
refrigeration system. [0151]

FMI believes a significantly more cost effective approach would be to
require only the problematic component be replaced. FMI believes that
mandating the scrapping or retrofitting of an entire system that could
function properly within the leak repair thresholds for many years
because of one leaky component imposes enormous costs with very limited
benefit.  FMI notes that the Proposed Rule is crafted in such a manner
where there will be unnecessary conversions and retirements. FMI
provides the following example: “A condenser in a system is leaking,
and a technician attempts to repair it. He checks the repair and it
fails the initial verification test. Strike one. The next day he works
on the condenser again and makes another attempt to repair it. The
repair is tested and again fails. Strike two. The retailer decides to
replace the condenser with a new device. The replacement condenser is
installed the following week and the leak is eliminated. Three weeks
later, a valve leaks elsewhere in the system because of a faulty gasket.
The technician attempts to tighten the connections but the leak
continues. An initial verification test is failed.  If the gasket had
been replaced the repair would have held. The whole system must now be
retrofitted or replaced because of a faulty gasket.” FMI notes that
under the existing rules the technician could have reexamined the issue
and replaced the gasket, but under the Proposed Rule, the whole system
must be replaced, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. FMI
believes that much less costly alternatives, such as requiring the
replacement of components that leak repeatedly, rather than requiring
the entire replacement of a system, should be incorporated into the
Proposed Rule. FMI believes that components that repeatedly fail
verification tests should be required to be replaced.  FMI recommends
that EPA strike paragraph (i)(4) and replace it with: “(4) Owners or
operators of comfort cooling appliances must retrofit the appliance to
use a refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone depleting potential
(ODP) in accordance with paragraph (l) of this section, or replace any
component, if the component has experienced three failed verification
tests within a consecutive six month period.”  FMI also recommends
that EPA strike paragraph (j)(4) and replace it with: “(4) Owners or
operators of commercial refrigeration appliances must retrofit the
appliance to use a refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone
depleting potential (ODP) in accordance with paragraph (l) of this
section, or replace any component, if the component has experienced
three failed verification tests within a consecutive six month
period.” [0164]

As an alternative to EPA’s “worst leaker” proposal, Southern
Company would recommend that only component replacement be required
after three failed verifications within six months. [0135]

Two commenters (ACC and TVA) believe that the rule should require the
replacement of the specific component(s) that causes the leak, not the
retrofit or retirement of the entire industrial process refrigeration
system. [0139, 0163]

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

EPA received 19 comments on recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
Comments were in reference to the following categories:

  REF _Ref380578000 \r \h  5.1 	Service Records

  REF _Ref380420763 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  5.1.1 	Requirement to keep
records on-site

  REF _Ref380420775 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Electronic Reporting

  REF _Ref380420796 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  5.1.2 	Recordkeeping
requirements for persons servicing appliances

  REF _Ref378777772 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  5.2 	Records Documenting the
Fate of Recovered Refrigerant

  REF _Ref380578012 \r \h  5.3 	Documenting the Determination of the
Appliance Full Charge

  REF _Ref379552264 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  5.4 	Other Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Rasma I. Zvaners	American Bakers Association (ABA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0142

2	Lorraine Krupa Gershman	American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

3	Paul Shorb	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

4	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

5	David P. Hutchison	CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0155

6	I. Herbold Miller	Cornell University Environmental Health & Safety
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0132

7	Robert D. Bessette	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

8	Donald R. Schregardus	Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0133

9	Randy Stocker	Emerson Climate	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0099

10	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

11	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

12

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0165

13	Anonymous	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0141

14	Rob Uhl	Safeway Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0136

15	Christianna Papazahariou	Shecco	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0149

16	Anonymous	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

17	Ronald T. Mendes	Supervalu, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0143

18	Brian A. Bell	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

19	Kathleen Tobin	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129

Service Records

Requirement to keep records on-site

EPA received nine comments related to the requirement to keep records
on-site. Eight commenters state that these requirements would be a
significant burden, especially for those with several facilities in
various locations, and propose modifications to the requirement. One
commenter supports the requirement, but proposes that EPA requires
records to be kept at a second physical location as well. EPA received 6
comments requesting that the Agency allow records to be maintained
electronically.

Verizon and AT&T comment that while the requirement to keep records
on-site may not place undue burdens upon parties with relatively few
locations, the costs and burdens will be significant for businesses like
Verizon and AT&T which have many locations due to the physical nature of
the national telecommunications systems they operate. The commenters
note that these costs and burdens are exacerbated when applied to
facilities that are normally unoccupied and do not have a dedicated
certified technician on-site. The commenters stated that these costs and
burdens can be greatly reduced by allowing businesses with multiple
small locations to keep files in a central location, provided that
copies can be quickly produced electronically or by facsimile at the
local facility upon request. The commenters believe that this change
would not compromise the benefits of the proposed rule and note that the
EPA has already recognized the advantages of allowing for centralized
record maintenance under other rules promulgated under the authority of
the CAA. For example, final regulations for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines require that records be "readily accessible" with reference to
specific location. AT&T believes that adopting similar regulator
language would satisfy EPA’s concern that records be "immediately
available upon request." Verizon specifically notes that allowing the
records to be centralized has potential benefits; for instance, keeping
records in a centralized location greatly reduces the possibility of
accidental disturbance of records kept in many local offices through
which various employees may pass. Verizon believes that by centralizing
the records it becomes far easier for a business to perform audits and
assure that the records are being properly maintained. [0129, 0154]

One commenter states that there are several requirements in the proposed
revisions to the regulations requiring records or plans be maintained
“at the physical location of the affected appliance.”  The commenter
states that maintaining records and plans “on‐site” is likely
practical for smaller, less geographically diverse facilities; however,
larger geographically diverse facilities need the option to maintain
records and plans in centralized location(s) that may be physically
separate from the location of a piece of equipment. The commenter also
notes that not requiring the records and plans be maintained at the
physical location of the equipment will allow affected parties to
maintain records and plans electronically. The commenter believes it is
sufficient to require owners or operators to maintain plans and records
for the specified record retention period without specifying that those
records be maintained at the physical location of the piece of
equipment. [0132]

DoD notes that the proposed rule requires that service records be
maintained on-site for a minimum of three years, and the preamble
indicates that on-site is at the physical location of the appliance
undergoing service. DoD comments that keeping records at the physical
location of the affected appliance may subject them to weathering or
loss, and is not compatible with many electronic record-keeping systems.
DoD notes that appliance servicing records are currently maintained at
the facility/installation, where they can be properly controlled,
stored, protected, retrieved, and disposed. DoD recommends that EPA
allow service records to be maintained on-site or at prescribed
locations at a facility or installation where the affected equipment is
physically located. [0133]

Southern Company comments that maintaining service records at the site
of the appliance will interfere with the ability of Southern Company to
coordinate and manage compliance among its many facilities.  Southern
Company believes that requiring records to be maintained at the site
where refrigerant equipment is located will not provide better
oversight, but rather may actually interfere with the efficient and
effective management of appliance maintenance. For most of Southern
Company’s operations, appliance maintenance is managed by a corporate
or regional facilities department that is centrally located. Although
some invoices and records are maintained at the facility, all official
records are kept centrally in the corporate/regional offices files by
the staff that uses them to budget for expenses, track any possible
leaks, and ensure proper maintenance is performed in a timely manner.
Personnel at the facility operate and observe the equipment at their
site, but generally are not trained for equipment maintenance and
instead depend on the certified corporate or regional staff for
maintenance and compliance with regulatory requirements. Southern
Company notes that if EPA finalizes its proposal to require all records
be maintained at each individual facility, the records needed by the
centralized facilities departments could be widely dispersed across an
entire state. [0135]

ACC comments that the statement that records should be kept at the
“physical location” of the refrigeration system could be
misinterpreted to mean at the chiller. ACC notes that many facilities
utilize contractors that are responsible for maintaining the equipment,
and keep the records off-site at the contractors‟ places of business.
ACC suggests that the preamble language be revised in the final rule to
reflect that the records should be “made available upon request” and
not necessarily kept at the “physical location” of the refrigeration
system. [0139]

Supervalu, Inc. comments that they have no objection to the proposed
provision requiring more detailed written verification of all repair
attempts. However, Supervalu, Inc. believes it would be burdensome to be
required to maintain these records on site. Supervalu, Inc. notes that
many supermarkets maintain service records electronically in a
centralized database that are readily available (i.e., generally
available within a one or two hour window, if requested). Supervalu,
Inc. contends that maintaining records in a central database should be
an alternative to requiring that physical records be maintained on site.
[0143]

CWI comments that in some situations, area hazards such as radiation or
restricted access conditions make it impractical to maintain records at
the physical location of the appliance. CWI notes that service records
may also be accessible utilizing a variety of methods, including
electronic copies of service records which can be viewed at multiple
computer station locations. The commenter suggests that EPA eliminate
the phrase, "at the physical location of the appliance" from the
requirement to maintain service records and just state that these
records need to be made available to EPA for review upon request, and
maintained where they may be easily retrievable for refrigeration
technicians who service appliance(s) subject to the required practices.
[0155]

Shecco agrees in principle that records are being kept at the physical
locations of the appliances, but invites the Agency to consider the
possibility of requiring additional record keeping of basic information
at a second physical location to account for the cases of catastrophic
events that the industry reports to be an often cause of leaks, and when
there is a high risk of the record being destroyed. [0149]

Verizon believes it should be clarified that records may be kept in hard
copy or electronic form. [0129]

AT&T requests that EPA modify the proposed requirements contained in 40
C.F.R. §82.166 to allow records to be maintained in either paper form
or electronically. The commenter believes that doing so would be more
consistent with normal business practice, less burdensome, and fully
consistent with EPA’s enforcement needs. [0154]

Safeway Inc comments that it would be beneficial to all involved if
electronic record keeping was mentioned and allowed. [0136]

FMI requests that EPA clarify the recordkeeping requirements of §82.166
to confirm that it is acceptable for the full system charge, leak rate
calculations, leak verification tests, etc. to be summarized or
transcribed from original service records and available on-site in
electronic format, provided that the source documents can be made
available to EPA within some reasonable period of time (e.g., 30 days).
FMI believes that requiring the maintenance of paper records would be
unnecessarily burdensome.  FMI states that it would unnecessarily
consume staff time and lead to redundant recordkeeping.  FMI also notes
that allowing records to be available electronically would lead to
environmental benefits by reducing paper consumption. [0150, 0164]

NEDA/CAP comments that two aspects of recordkeeping seemed peculiar. 
NEDA/CAP notes that EPA’s rules at 82.156 (l) (1) would require leak
records to be maintained at the physical location of an appliance, and
retrofit plans would be required to be maintained “on-site at the
physical location of the affected appliance in accordance with 82.166
(n).  NEDA/CAP suggests that a better alternative might be to maintain
electronic centralized recordkeeping because of the detail that will be
involved, with minimum logs or even “tagging” regarding service at
the “actual” location of the appliance. [0151]

Recordkeeping requirements for persons servicing appliances

EPA received two comments on the proposed recordkeeping requirements for
persons servicing appliances.  ABA supports the proposed change, while
CIBO believes these additional recordkeeping requirements are too
burdensome.

ABA notes that EPA’s proposed changes would apply to bakeries’
in-house personnel that service the equipment. ABA supports the proposed
change to the recordkeeping; as bakers continue to monitor their
refrigeration equipment and have it repaired as necessary, it is
necessary that service and repair companies be required to provide
proper documentation to the equipment owner. ABA believes that equipment
owners should not be held responsible if vendors fail to properly
document their servicing activities. [0142]

CIBO notes that EPA proposes minimum recordkeeping requirements for
persons servicing appliances [[82.166 (j)] and for owners or operators
of appliances [82.166 (k)], which include much more detail than has
previously been required]. CIBO states that while many of these details
are valuable to owners of appliances, EPA fails to appreciate how much
effort is required to ensure that every single item EPA proposes is
recorded. CIBO comments that currently, getting the more modest records
required of owners and operators often requires substantial follow-up
effort. CIBO urges EPA not to add to the current burden by adding
substantial new records for each and every service call on appliances.
CIBO recommends that EPA maintain the current requirements and not
require substantial additional details for these service records. CIBO
notes that owners/operators must keep these records for many years, and
the additional recordkeeping requirements proposed are simply too
burdensome. [0145]

Records Documenting the Fate of Recovered Refrigerant

EPA received two comments on records documenting the fate of recovered
refrigerant.

ACC comments that in §82.166(u), the sale or distribution of used
refrigerant records should not apply to transfers governed by
§§82.154(g)(4) or (5). [0139]

An anonymous commenter requests further clarification on what is meant
by the “Ultimate fate” of recovered refrigerants. Specifically the
commenter asks about the level of detail that would be required for
recovered refrigerant that is kept on site for use at a later date.  For
example, the commenter states that if a store has three refrigeration
racks and one is converted from R22 to R407A, typically the R22 would be
recovered, the amount recovered would be documented, that amount would
be added to that specific store’s refrigerant inventory records, and
the store would have a form on file showing the removal of the
refrigerant and that the refrigerant was kept on site for future use in
one of the other R22 rack systems. The commenter inquires if that is an
appropriate level of detail.  The commenter notes that if a technician
decides to move some of that recovered refrigerant to another store in
the area, the store would track an inventory transfer in their software
for the amount (in lbs) that was moved from the old inventory location
to the new inventory location. The commenter inquires if that is
specific enough, or if actual cylinder numbers would need to be tracked.
[0141]

Documenting the Determination of the Appliance Full Charge

EPA is proposing to require owners or operators to maintain records
documenting the full charge determination, regardless of the means used
to calculate or determine the appliance full charge.  EPA received two
comments regarding these recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

CWI comments that, according to EPA, the full charge determination is
required in order to calculate the leak rate upon addition of
refrigerant. CWI believes this implies that the additional recordkeeping
requirement only applies to refrigeration units with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant. CWI requests that further
clarification be provided on whether this proposed recordkeeping
requirement only applies to refrigeration units with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant. [0155]

The Auto Industry Forum comments that the proposed rule does not allow
any time for owners to implement these new recordkeeping requirements.
The Auto Industry Forum believes that generating and/or updating the
full charge records and related documentation for every appliance will
take a significant amount of time for owners. [0148]

Other Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

EPA received six other comments that relate to recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. Three commenters request clarification regarding
when recordkeeping requirements are applicable, and three commenters
request time to phase in the recordkeeping changes. One commenter
proposes that EPA require additional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, while another states that the proposed changes in
recordkeeping and reporting should be excluded from the final rule
altogether.

NEDA/CAP and ACC urge EPA to clarify that the proposal’s recordkeeping
requirements are only applicable when the maintenance or repair of an
appliance involves the addition of refrigerant. The commenters state
that maintenance, service or repair where the refrigerant is removed and
replaced without addition is not included, and maintenance, service or
repair where the refrigerant is untouched is not included. Therefore,
§82.166(k) should not require records of “refrigerant recovered from
the appliance” but records of “refrigerant recovered from but not
returned to the appliance.” Also, the commenters believe the proposed
section 82.166(m) should state that the requirement for refrigerants
disposal is satisfied by manifests and related records required to be
maintained by the operator under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. [0139, 0151]

ACC also states that the requirement in §82.166(m) should be clarified
such that only the refrigerant recovered greater than 50 pounds is
subject to recordkeeping. Further, ACC strongly urges EPA to provide at
least a 2-year phase-in to the recordkeeping changes to allow owners and
service companies to modify data systems and retrain technicians. [0139]

NEDA/CAP comments that EPA should clarify that the same approach to
determining the applicability threshold for leak repairs (based on the
capacity of each circuit in an appliance) applies equally with respect
to recordkeeping requirements for appliances “with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds” such that for appliances with multiple
circuits, each with a capacity of no more charge of 50 pounds, these
recordkeeping provisions do not apply. NEDA/CAP believes that there is
no basis in the regulations for treating recordkeeping any differently
from leak repair with respect to the “greater than 50 pound” test.
NEDA/CAP states that from a streamlining and policy perspective, it
would seem to make sense for the two requirements to reflect the same
applicability threshold.  NEDA/CAP believes that recordkeeping for
circuits not subject to the leak repair requirements are not necessary
to support the other provisions of the rule. [0165]

NEDA/CAP notes that EPA is proposing significant changes in
recordkeeping – so much so that  they are surprised that this proposal
does not qualify as a major regulatory action because of the impacts for
operators which will need to keep full documentation of how full charges
were determined, detailed service records including initial verification
and follow-up verification tests based on minimum recordkeeping
requirements detailed in the proposal and detailed records of
refrigerants that are transported off site.  NEDA/CAP urges EPA to
provide at least a 1 year from the effective date of the final rule to
phase in to the recordkeeping changes, due to the significant changes
that EPA proposes. NEDA/CAP believes this time will allow owners and
service companies to modify data systems and retrain technicians, and
additional time will also accommodate technician training providers
which NEDA/CAP believes will be required for both onsite maintenance and
off site service providers to be updated regarding the additional
requirements. [0165, 0151]

The Auto Industry Forum recommends that EPA provide a 2 year transition
period for facilities to implement the new recordkeeping requirements in
Section 82.166.  The Auto Industry Forum comments that these
requirements will require training and gathering of information that may
not be readily available. The Auto Industry Forum also recommends that
EPA make these requirements prospective and not require that historic
records, which may not be available, be generated. [0148]

Emerson Climate comments that EPA should require quarterly reporting of
1) leak rate by asset with refrigerant type and asset capacity; and 2)
maintenance (repair) events and service (fill) events with technician
EPA number. Emerson Climate believes this serves the purpose of
proactively policing the leak rate but also provides valuable and actual
data to the EPA of refrigerants in use, location of failures and how
much refrigerant is being vented that has mostly been anecdotal
information to date.  Emerson Climate comments that EPA should also
require fill events to be auditable through two way comparison of
service event record against invoice (for 3rd party service), or weighed
cylinders log (internal service); this would not be submitted but
records must be on file.  The commenter notes that this provides on-site
data that can be audited. The commenter notes that the entities that
fall under EPA 608 regulation already have several mandatory monthly,
quarterly and annual reporting requirements to municipal, county, state
and federal agencies (e.g., Labor Dept., Dept. of Ag, Waste Water
Treatment, Landfill, etc.) so the infrastructure to collect this data
and the staff to prepare it already exists. [0099]

USEC comments that the proposed changes to reporting and record-keeping
requirements are not necessary and place additional burdens on both the
servicing personnel and the appliance owner or operator. USEC notes that
while EPA believes the current practices may not provide sufficient
information for owners or operators to make decisions on the fate of
their appliances, the appliance owner or operator is capable of
obtaining this information as necessary without an EPA mandate. The
commenter states that appliance owners and operators have a vested
interest in the cost and operation of their equipment, and EPA should
let them use their best professional judgment to make independent
inquiries of the servicing technician to obtain the information they may
require including replacement costs. USEC comments this is especially
true for appliance owners or operators who use in-house service
personnel. The commenter states that the additional requirements will
increase burdens on the regulated community through costs associated
with implementation, changes to recordkeeping activities, retraining of
servicing personnel, etc. [0125]

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

EPA received five comments on Statutory and Executive Order Reviews,
specifically related to Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and
Review, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Rasma I. Zvaners	American Bakers Association (ABA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0142

2	Paul Shorb	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

3	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0164

4	Brian A. Bell		United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

5	Kathleen Tobin	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129



ABA, AT&T, Verizon, and FMI comment that the rule is unnecessarily
burdensome and may not be in accordance with President Obama’s
Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”
ABA contends that the rule’s costs exceed benefits. USEC believes that
EPA has underestimated compliance costs. FMI holds that EPA has
incorrectly certified that the rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. 

 

ABA is concerned that the estimated costs of the proposal ($135 million)
far outweigh its benefits ($2.5 million). While ABA recognizes that the
EPA proposed its amendments prior to President Obama’s January 2011
executive order that aims to promote economic growth, ABA is nonetheless
concerned that this proposal contradicts the President’s stated desire
that agencies, including EPA, not place “unreasonable burdens on
industry.” Additionally, ABA believes the EPA hasn’t undertaken a
study of the effect of the proposed regulation and attendant costs on
jobs and employment in the baking industry, as required by section 321
of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7621.  [0142]

AT&T is concerned that some aspects of the proposed rulemaking would be
overly burdensome and EPA may be able to apply less burdensome
requirements in accordance with President Obama’s recent executive
order, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”  [0154]

Verizon is concerned that certain aspects of the proposed rule are
unnecessarily costly and burdensome and requests that the final rule be
modified to address these concerns. Verizon is primarily concerned about
the costs and burdens that would be placed on businesses with multiple
office facilities with cooling units primarily used to control
temperature and/or humidity in those facilities. Verizon believes that
some of the administrative and regulatory burdens that would be created
by the proposed rule are unnecessary and easily avoidable by following
their suggestions. [0129]

USEC believes that compliance costs are grossly underestimated. USEC
notes that the proposed rule estimates 133,777 appliance owners or
operators will be affected at an annual cost of $139,803—amounting to
$1.05 per appliance owner or operator. Given that an hour wage rate
equals $25/hour, EPA predicts each owner or operating spending 3 minutes
per year in implementing the new requirements. USEC believes that an
appliance owner or operator will more realistically spend many hours per
year in new compliance activities: new record-keeping, technician
retraining, procedure rewriting, and other administrative costs. USEC
assumes that each appliance owner or operator will spend 4 hours/year,
at $25/hour, resulting in an annual cost of $100/owner or operator. USEC
then multiplies this rate by the 133,777 owners or operators to yield an
annualized cost of $13.4 million. USEC states that if 1 hour is expended
each month, the annualized cost exceeds $40 million.  [0125]

FMI agrees with EPA’s goal of breaking the cycle of repeat repairs and
recharges on refrigeration or comfort cooling appliances, and suggested
alternatives to the Proposed Rule which will achieve this goal, without
placing unnecessary—and very costly—burdens on food retailers and
wholesalers. FMI cites E.O. 13563, 42 U.S.C. § 7617 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act as an impetus for EPA to consider less burdensome
alternatives and tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on
society.  

FMI states that EPA is required to consider the impact of the Proposed
Rule on small businesses, and believes that the Administrator is
mistaken in certifying that the Proposed Rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
FMI believes that the Proposed Rule will have a very significant impact
on thousands of small business grocers, costing them hundreds or
thousands of more dollars per repair. The commenter holds that EPA
should conduct a proper initial regulatory flexibility analysis which
fully considers the impact of the Proposed Rule on small firms and
considers less burdensome alternatives. [0164]

General Comments and Other Issues	

EPA received 19 comments concerning other issues associated with the
proposed rule. Comments were in reference to the following categories:

  REF _Ref380421726 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.1 	General Support for the
Proposed Regulations

  REF _Ref380421744 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.2 	General Opposition to
the Proposed Regulations

  REF _Ref379891265 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.3 	Applicability to systems
with a charge less than or equal to 50 lbs

  REF _Ref380421784 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.4 	Preamble discussion of
“knowingly venting”

  REF _Ref379891269 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7.5 	Other Issues

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	James D. Jones	Alcoa Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0134

2	David P. Hutchison	CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0155

3	I. Herbold Miller	Cornell University Environmental Health & Safety 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0132

4	Christina Schwerdtfeger	Coto Consulting, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0161

5	Robert D. Bessette	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

6	Steven Ehrlich	Environmental Support Solutions (ESS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0140

7	Ram Singhal	Flexible Packaging Association (FPA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0152

8	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

9	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

10	David D. Doniger 	Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0147

11	Frederick G. Fedri	Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0144

12	Reid Jennings	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0124

13	Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0098

14

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0157

15	Anonymous	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

16	Jon M. Loney	Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0126

17	John Myers

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0163

18	Brian A. Bell 	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

19	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

General Support for the Proposed Regulations

EPA received three comments stating general support for the proposed
regulations.  

NRDC generally supports the proposed revisions because they strengthen
the effectiveness of refrigerant leak prevention safeguards.  [0147]

An anonymous commenter wishes to protect the ozone and supports the
proposed regulations.  [0157]

One commenter states that the benefits of minimizing the use of ODS are
worthwhile and obvious. The commenter believes that the proposed
modifications to 40 C.F.R. § 82 would further the purpose of minimizing
the use of class I and class II substances as stated in § 608 of the
CAA, and emphasizes the need for HVAC and industrial maintenance
industries to keep pace with the design and new construction industry as
they move towards more sustainable refrigerant technologies. The
commenter believes that any move towards the standardizing of
maintenance procedures and the decommissioning of cooling systems that
leak substantial levels of refrigerant is a step in the proper
direction. The commenter also describes a major corollary benefit
resulting from the decommissioning of repeatedly-leaking systems: the
replacement of those systems with more efficient systems, decreasing
industrial and commercial energy usage for HVAC and industrial
processes.  [0124]

General Opposition to the Proposed Regulations

EPA received seven comments stating general opposition to the proposed
regulations. Five commenters (USEC, FPA, CIBO, Alcoa Inc., and NEDA/CAP)
posit that the emission reduction benefits associated with the proposed
rule are not enough to justify the new requirements. Two of these five
commenters (USEC and FPA) question the cost-effectiveness of the
proposal. Three commenters (FPA, CIBO, and NEDA/CAP) are concerned that
the proposed regulations will add significant compliance costs and
impose a significant burden on the industry.  Three commenters (USEC,
FPA, and NEDA/CAP) state that EPA has failed to clarify, simplify, or
streamline existing regulations. One commenter believes that voluntary
partnerships (e.g., GreenChill) and other business incentives are the
way forward instead of regulations. Lastly, one commenter believes EPA
is overstepping its bounds by regulating GHG emissions.

USEC opposes the proposed changes and believes that EPA has not
clarified, simplified, or streamlined existing regulatory requirements.
USEC finds this this to be the case in several instances, including the
proposed changes to record-keeping requirements, full charge
determination methodology, leak rate calculations, etc. The commenter
asserts that many of the issues identified as requiring clarification
have already been addressed with the 1995 issuance of EPA 300-B-95-010,
Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair
Regulations under Section 608 of the CAA. Further, USEC states that many
of the current proposals conflict with information in the Compliance
Guidance which will make it of limited value if the proposals are
finalized. USEC questions what will replace the simple and
straightforward Compliance Guide, and raises issue with making changes
to practices that have been in place and accepted for over 15 years.
USEC conservatively estimates total costs for the proposed changes to be
$80 million, which is over double the amount of the cost of the
proposal’s preferred scenario (i.e., $38.2 million).  USEC’s
estimates include both a negative learning curve (incurring costs of up
to $27.6 million) and administrative expenses (incurring $13.7 million
across affected appliance owners/operators). Therefore, USEC states that
the proposed changes are not cost effective, especially considering the
current U.S. economic climate.  [0125]

FPA believes that some of the changes in the proposed rule clarify
requirements by eliminating phrases that may be confusing, while other
changes may add significant costs to compliance by adding new
requirements. Additionally, FPA believes that the proposed rule does not
“streamline” the leak detection and repair regulations at 40 CFR
Part 92, Subpart F. FPA asserts that the proposed regulation imposes
significant costs on certain FPA members who would be affected by lower
leak rates, repairs, and potential for appliance retrofits or
replacements.  Further, FPA opposes the proposed rules because they
believe EPA has not provided proper justification and because EPA’s
cost benefit analysis does not support the proposal.  [0152]

CIBO states that EPA’s proposed changes would make the current leak
detection and repair procedures even more burdensome and costly. Rather
than “simplifying” and “clarifying” the current rules, CIBO
believes that EPA is reducing flexibility for compliance. The commenter
believes that while EPA has done some work to try to quantify the costs
and benefits associated with revisions to leak rate trigger revisions,
EPA has not demonstrated benefits associated with the majority of the
changes proposed that are sufficient to justify proposed revisions, and
the revisions should, therefore, not be made. The commenter also
believes that the proposed regulations will impose a substantial burden
to the community that has adjusted to regulations that have been in
place for a substantial amount of time. CIBO asserts that industry will
continue to make significant investment in refrigerants with lower
ozone-depleting substances into the future.  [0145]

Alcoa Inc. strongly disagrees with EPA’s proposal to change well
established, long standing leak repair requirements via this rulemaking.
 The commenter believes that the relatively small reduction in
refrigerant emissions does not warrant the proposed change and states
that the more appropriate action would be to restate the regulatory
interpretation regarding leak repairs found in EPA’s final rule that
was published in the January 11, 2005 Federal Register. [0134]

NEDA/CAP does not support finalizing the proposed revisions to Section
608.  The commenter finds EPA’s statement that the proposed rule would
merely “streamline” the leak detection and repair regulations at 40
CFR part 82, Subpart F to be misleading. While NEDA/CAP agrees that some
of the changes clarify requirements by eliminating phrases that may be
confusing, other proposed revisions are likely to add significant
compliance costs for manufacturers and blur important distinctions
between industrial refrigeration and air conditioning systems. The
commenter notes that these changes are predicted to result in costs
between 30 and 50 times higher than the monetized benefits they are
intended to drive (i.e., reduction of “leaks” of ODS). The commenter
also states that the agency has provided little evidence of a problem
that these extensive costs will solve. [0151]

FMI notes that the commercial refrigeration industry has a strong
business incentive to prevent leaks in the first place, and to detect
and repair leaks as quickly as possible. The commenter notes that leaks
may result in significant costs due to product losses, food safety
hazards, and fewer perishable product offerings for customers. FMI
believes that the industry is not incentivized to minimize leaks by
regulations, but rather by the desire to provide consumers with quality
products and uphold environmental values. The commenter believes that
voluntary partnerships like GreenChill and the implementation of
industry best practices are already achieving many of the goals EPA
seeks to attain in the Proposed Rule. FMI asserts that these means,
rather than burdensome regulations, are the way to move forward in
continuing to reduce the emissions of ODS.  [0150]

An anonymous commenter opposes the proposed regulations on the grounds
that EPA is overstepping its boundaries in regulating GHG emissions. 
[0098]

Applicability to systems with a charge less than or equal to 50 lbs

EPA received four comments requesting clarification on the applicability
of the rule to systems with a charge less than or equal to 50 lbs. Two
commenters (ESS and Occidental) believe there is some confusion around
using the language “greater than 50 lbs” instead of “50 lbs and
greater” per the 1993 rules. Similarly, one commenter seeks further
clarification on whether the requirements only apply to units with a
full charge greater than 50 lbs. One commenter seeks clarification on a
particular scenario that entails two independent refrigerant circuits,
each with 30 lbs of refrigerant.  

ESS notes that the 1993 rules used the language “50 lbs and
greater,” and this proposed rule switched to “greater than 50
lbs,” which leaves a 50 lb., 0 oz. system in question. The commenter
believes that EPA must return to the original 1993 “50 lb. and
greater” statement so a person is not temped to assume EPA is
exempting a 50 pound, zero ounce system to eliminate this loophole. 
[0140]

OCC states that EPA should confirm when issuing the final rule that
systems designed for a maximum of 50 pounds, are not subject to the leak
repair requirements of Section 608. In several sections of the rule and
in the proposal (FR Vol. 75, No. 240 Wednesday, December 15, 2010), the
requirements appear to apply only to units operating with charge levels
in excess of 50 pounds of refrigerant. Nonetheless, there has been some
confusion in the application of the rule concerning units with an exact
50 pound charge capacity. The commenter requests that the EPA confirm
that systems designed for no more than a 50 pound full charge are not
subject to the rule.  [0144]

CWI requests that further clarification be provided on whether this
proposed rule only applies to refrigeration units with a full charge
greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant. [0155]

One commenter would like to confirm that the threshold determination
should be made on a per circuit basis for systems that have multiple,
but independent refrigeration circuits. The commenter raises a
hypothetical example of a chiller that has 2 independent (physically
isolated from each other) refrigerant circuits, each with a charge of 30
pounds of refrigerant. The commenter presumes that because the circuits
are physically isolated from each other and the charge per circuit is
less than 50 pounds, the leak repair requirements for systems with a
charge greater than 50 pounds would not apply to this chiller.  [0132]

Preamble discussion of “knowingly venting”

EPA received two comments that disagree with EPA’s interpretation of
“knowingly venting” in the preamble. Bother commenters believe that
EPA’s interpretation is not authorized by Section 608 of the Clean Air
Act.

The Forum holds that EPA’s conclusion—that the mere existence or
knowledge of the existence of a leak below the leak trigger rate
constitutes a violation of the requirement not to knowingly vent—is
incorrect and is inconsistent with prior EPA guidance on the issue. The
commenter states that EPA is expanding the regulatory requirements by
inserting the word “all” in several places in front of the word
“leaks” to create a requirement that all leaks be repaired once an
appliance exceeds the applicable trigger rate. The Forum believes that
EPA’s guidance has long interpreted the regulations to require that
the leak rate be brought below the trigger level, not that every single
leak be discovered and repaired. The commenter points out that the
direct regulation of refrigerants during use also does not appear to be
authorized by Section 608, which refers to the use “during the
service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process
refrigeration” and in terms of prohibitions prohibits knowingly
venting or releasing/disposing “in the course of maintaining,
servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial process
refrigeration.” The commenter believes that the proposed construction
of the “purpose” and “scope” provision combined with the
statements in the preamble seem to: 1) go beyond EPA’s authority and
2) expand the requirements without providing adequate notice to the
public. Further, the Forum states that EPA’s explanation of the
provision at page 78,560 of the preamble does not alert the reader that
the Agency is departing from a previously published interpretation and
making regulatory changes to try to effectuate that change in policy.
Before the Agency can issue a final rule that would adopt this more
stringent view, it must provide clear and adequate notice to interested
parties. Lastly, the commenter notes that EPA goes back and forth
between the use of the term “refrigerant” and “substance.” For
consistency, EPA should select one term and if it uses a different term
should explain if there is an intended difference in meaning.  [0148] 

ACC believes EPA is mistaken in claiming that a failure to repair a
known leak from an appliance, when the leak rate is below the repair
trigger level, constitutes “knowingly venting” the refrigerant, or
that using a leaking appliance that is not required to be repaired under
Subpart F violates the CAA’s venting prohibition. ACC cites section
608(c)(1) of the CAA, which the commenter argues refers only to
maintaining, servicing, repairing, and disposing—not “using” a
refrigerant. ACC asserts that the statute does not address leaking that
may occur during the mere use of an appliance. ACC believes that in the
preamble to the final rule, EPA should disavow its interpretation of the
statute’s “knowingly vent” provision and acknowledge that it does
not apply to leaks during use of an appliance when the leak rate is less
than the repair threshold.  [0139]

Other Issues

EPA received seven comments on other issues related to the proposed
regulations.  Three comments (from Southern Company, TVA, and CIBO)
noted concern over the timing of implementing new leak rate
requirements.  NEDA/CAP is concerned with how EPA is considering ODS
substitutes with high GWPs. Coto Consulting requests that EPA hold a
webinar to summarize the public comments and discuss the final rule.
NRDC objects to the notion that it is appropriate to discount the
tonnage of GHG and ODS emissions emitted or avoided in the future. TVA
provided a copy of previous comments submitted August 31, 1998 regarding
Proposed Rule 63 FR 32043-32099; Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;
Refrigerant Recycling; and Substitute Refrigerants. 

 

Southern Company and TVA believe that if EPA decides to finalize its
proposal to lower the leak rate trigger, the new requirements should be
phased in over a period of several years so that the replacement or
retrofitting of equipment could occur over a reasonable time, rather
than forcing numerous replacements all at once. [0135,0163]

CIBO objects to the brevity of the period between finalization of rules
and rule effectiveness date, saying that it is unreasonable to expect
facilities to be able to complete compliance preparations within the
required 60 days. The commenter believes that facilities will need
sufficient time to review full charge calculations for each of their
units; revise calculations; put in new procedures; and establish new
recordkeeping. [0145]

NEDA/CAP states that EPA should examine the policies and goals of the
CAA (Title VI) with respect to GHG emissions. The commenter believes
that the GWP of an ODS substitute is a critical aspect to be considered
and is concerned that, under the ODS substitution program, a number of
replacement options have very high GWPs (e.g., R-134A). NEDA/CAP also
states that it is incongruent that EPA requires retrofits of
manufacturing equipment that emit carbon dioxide, which has a much lower
GWP than R-134A and R-22.  [0150]

Coto Consulting requests that EPA hold a webinar to summarize the public
comments and discuss the final rule, and provide an estimate of when
this webinar, or (should the webinar not be possible) when the final
rule will take place.  [0161]

NRDC objects to the notion that it is appropriate to discount the
tonnage of GHG and ODS emissions emitted or avoided in the future (see
footnote discussing “undiscounted avoided emissions” on page
78,561). NRDC states that a ton is a ton whenever it is emitted;
likewise, a case of fatal skin cancer, non-fatal skin cancer, or
cataracts is a case whenever it occurs. NRDC says that EPA guidelines
should apply a discount rate only to the monetization of the costs and
benefits.  NRDC notes that they recently filed comments on the EPA and
Department of Transportation joint rulemaking to set GHG emission and
fuel economy standards under the CAA and the Energy Independence and
Security Act, and NRDC has provided a copy of those comments as an
attachment. NRDC states that the comments are equally applicable to
ozone-depleting and heat-trapping substances, which share the common
characteristic that the impacts of emissions – and the benefits of
avoided emissions – unfold over very long time periods. NRDC notes
that the comments set forth the reasons why conventional approaches to
discounting of the monetary value of these kinds of benefits are
inappropriate and recommend alternative, much lower discount rates. NRDC
believes that EPA should reject the idea of discounting physical
quantities, like tons of emissions or cases of skin cancer, and that the
stratospheric ozone program should continue its past practice of
presenting the data as they are, without any such discounting.  [0147]

TVA provided a copy of previous comments submitted August 31, 1998
regarding Proposed Rule 63 FR 32043-32099; Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; and Substitute Refrigerants.  In the 1998
comments, TVA suggests that for the calculation of “leak rate,” EPA
should select the option that provides a choice of annualizing or
rolling average; TVA notes that it is of paramount importance that every
effort be made to assure that each specific appliance is classified into
the “Type” (commercial, industrial process, comfort cooling) that
most closely fits to assure that no undue burden is placed on an
owner/operator of an appliance, resulting in the application of an
inappropriately low leak-rate; TVA suggests that the criteria upon which
a multi-level leak rate system is based should be reformulated; and TVA
proposes that refrigeration systems that use river water to cool
condenser tubes be placed in a new special category that is allowed a 35
percent leak rate, due to the erosive nature of river water that results
in an inherently higher leak rate for such systems. [0126]

 FMI’s proposed definition for “Engineered System” reads as
follows: “A field-erected refrigeration or comfort cooling system
comprised of multiple appliances or Components interconnected by
refrigerant piping, forming a closed circuit in which refrigerant is
circulated between one or more evaporators and a central condenser.”

˜

é

¦

ࠆᔁ걨晰ᘀ뱨　᥊唀Ĉ䡭Ѐ䡮Ѐࡵἁ¦

§

¨

Ä

Å

Æ

Ç

Í

Î

j¸

j/

h

h^

h^

h^

h^

h^

h^

yt^

yt^

yt^

摧൞Ö

yt^

yt^

hŠ

hŠ

hd

h

h

h¯

  h¯

h¯

h¯

h

h¯

h

h

 h1

萏ӈ萑︈葞ӈ葠︈摧扻éЀ摧扻é

 h[

  h

 h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

hhb

 hhb

hhb

萏Ũꐓ<葞Ũ摧᧣᠎਀&䘋

 

t

u

h

h

 h1

 h1

摧扻éЀ摧扻é

Š

‹

ž

£

§

7

;

Y

 h

Š

‹

☊଀݆ༀ梄ጁ㲤㜀$␸䠀$葞Ũ摧䮅

hš

à

à

à

à

à

à

à

à

à

à

à

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

਀&䘋

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

hß

*嗢塚﵇ﵕ（ﾕﾖﾗﾮￖ￘￙￠￪￯

 hu

hŸN

hŸN

 hu

  hu

 hu

 hu

h³a

h³a

h³a

h v

h v

hŸN

hŸN

h³a

h³a

h³a

hŸN

hŸN

h v

h v

h v

h v

  h³a

h³a

  h³a

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

@ˆ

  hu

@ˆ

@ˆ

j

 h

 h

 h

h

 h

Fô

ô

摧▵×

ô

摧▵×

ô

摧▵×

ô

ô

Fš

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

\

 

î

\



²

Ô

EÔ

Û

,ystem that consists of two components connected by pipe or tubing.  The
length of the pipe or tubing varies from one installation to another. 
As a result the manufacturer has specified how much refrigerant is in a
full charge for the two components, but NOT for the pipe or tubing.  You
may calculate how much refrigerant is in the length of pipe or tubing
for your system and then add that amount to the manufacturers’
estimate for the two components.”

Draft Summary of Comments on HCFC Rulemaking 	-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT 
2 -				March 2014

