The National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project 

Members: 

ALCOA Inc. 

March 25,2011 

Tho Boeing Company 

ConocoPhllllpa Company 

Chrysler Group LLC 

Ell Lilly & Company 

Exxon Mobil Corporation 

Georgla·Pacific LLC 

Intel Corporation 

lnvisUI S.a·r.l. 

Koch Industries, Inc. 

Merck & Co., Inc. 

NewPage Corp. 

Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Occidental Petroleum Corporation 

Procter & Gamble Company 

Weyerhaeuser Corporation 

Office of Atmospheric Programs: Mail Code 6205-J Counsel: 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Leslie Ritts. Esquire 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 

Leak Repair Requirements; Proposed Rule: 75 Fed. Reg. 78558 (Dec. 15. 

2011): Reopening of Comment Period: 76 Fed. Reg. 9987 (Feb. 23, 2011). 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

NEDA/CAP appreciates this opportunity to offer supplemental comments on 

the proposal to revise in significant ways the existing regulations for repairing, 

replacing, and retrofitting covered refrigeration equipment including industrial 

process refrigeration appliances and comfort cooling appliances (i.e. air 

conditioners). NEDA/CAP is a coalition of major American manufacturers from 

many industrial sectors. 

As part of this rulemaking, NEDA/CAP requests 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. 

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. The 1995 

Notice of Final Rulemaking clarified the applicability of the rule by explaining: 

"One commenter requests that EPA clarify that 50 pounds refers to the refrigerant in 

one refrigerant circuit. The commenter states thnt where huo separate, wholly 

independent refrigeration circuits that are not interconnected, each having a normal 

refrigerant capacihJ of no more than 50 pounds, the leak repair provisions should not 

apply. EPA agrees with this conzmenter. Through this action, EPA would like to 

The Carriage House, 620 Fort Williams Parkway Alexandria, Virginia 22304 

Phone: 703.823.2292 Fax: 571.970.3721 
NEDA/CAP Supplemental Comments on Refrigerant Leak Detection Rule 

Ma rch 25,2011. 

clarifi; that if the refrigerant circuits do not interconnect, and if each wholly 

independent circuit has a capac in; of no more than 50 pounds of refrigerant, the leak 

repair provisions promulgated under§ 82.156(i) do not apply. However, if the 

refrigerant circuits are connected, and the combined circuits luwe a normal capacity 

of more than 50 pounds of refrigerant, the leak repair provisions do apply." 

60 Fed. Reg. 40420,40425 (August 8, 1995) Final Rule.1 Therefore, 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." This addition to the regulations will further streamline and 

clarify an essential component of the refrigerant leak repair rule. 

Further NEDA/CAP urges EPA to 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. It is our view 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. Moreover, from a streamlining and 

policy perspective, it would seem to make sense for the two requirements to reflect 

the same applicability threshold. Recordkeeping for circuits not subject to the leak 

repair requirements are not necessary to support the other provisions of the rule. 

Thank you for tlus opportunity to submit supplemental comments on 

behalf of NEDA/CAP. If you have questions, please contact me at 703/823-2292 

or send me an email at lsritts@gmail.com. 

Sincerely, 

~~ 6---9-Tfr Leslie Ritts, Counsel, NEDA/CAP 

1 See: http:/(www.gpo.gov /fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-08-08/ pdf/95-18999.pdf; see also EPA 

"Complimzce Guidance For Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under 

Section 608 Of The Clean Air Act, EPA. Doc. # 300-B-95-010 (Oct. 1995)."0n Page C-1, of 

this Guidance EPA sta tes: "The leak repair requirements of this law do not apply to any 

system whose full charge is 50 pounds or less of refrigerant in any independent refrigerant 

circuit." On page B-3, the Guidance responds to the following question, "What if my 

industrial process refrigeration system has two independent refrigeration circuits, one 

with a full charge greater than 50 pounds, the other with a full charge less than 50 

pounds?" EPA responds "The circuit whose full charge is greater than 50 pounds would 

be subject to leak repair requirements. The circuit whose full clrarge is less than 50 

pounds would not be subject to leak repair requirements." (emphasis added) 

21 P age