1

Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations 

Comments for EPA’s December 15, 2010

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608

Leak Repair Requirements

40 CFR Part 82, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

1. [[Page 78564]] 

EPA states’ EPA believes that owners or operators of comfort cooling and commercial 

refrigeration appliances should be granted the same flexibility as owners of 

industrial process refrigeration appliances when requesting additional time to make 

repairs due to the unavailability of components

[[Page 78573, Section 82.156(i)(5)(ii) 

The necessary parts for an appliance component(s) are unavailable, and the owner or 

operator maintains a written statement from the appliance or component manufacturer 

or distributor stating the unavailability of parts, and where such records are 

maintained in accordance with Sec. 82.166(o).

Comment(s) - Eastman supports EPA’s proposal to allow comfort cooling appliances to 

be granted the same flexibility for repairs due to unavailable components. 

2. [[Page 78564]] 

EPA states “The intent of the follow-up verification is for appliance owners or 

operators to conduct verification of repairs after the appliance has operated under 

normal conditions over an extended period of time (but no longer than 30 days), in 

order to ensure that the repairs hold under normal operating conditions.

[[Page 78582]], Section 82.152 Definitions

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, electronic or ultrasonic leak detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, 

fluorescent dye and black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas 

detection devices.

[[Page 78583]], Section 82.156(i)(4)

Owners or operators shall conduct a follow-up verification test within 30 days of 

completing but no sooner than 24 hours after repair and recharge of the appliance. 

The follow-up verification test shall be conducted at normal operating 

characteristics and conditions. Methods and results of all follow-up verification 

tests must be maintained in accordance with Sec. 82.166(k).

Comment(s) – Eastman does not believe EPA should require owners/operators to wait 

at least 24 hours to conduct follow-up monitoring. The time period for each 

appliance to reach normal operating characteristics and conditions of temperature 

and pressure does not always take 24 hours. The owner/operator will know when the 

appliance has resumed operation at normal operating characteristics and conditions 
2

of temperature and pressure and in many instances could conduct the follow-up 

monitoring at that time, even if that time period is less than 24 hours. Waiting 

at least 24 hours will result in increased operating costs by requiring personnel 

to return the next day or return within 30 days. In many instances, the 

refrigeration appliance could be returned to service and the person(s) repairing 

the refrigeration appliance could remain on site until the unit is at normal 

operating characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure and conduct 

the follow-up checks before leaving the site, which would eliminate another trip by 

personnel to the appliance location. 

[[Page 78566]] & [[Page 78583]], Section 82.152, Definition of Leak Rate 

Method 2- The Rolling Average Method. EPA states “EPA believes that such rationale 

is found in the verification of repairs. The leak repair clock for a leak event 

should be stopped after successful initial verification and follow-up verification 

and documentation of repairs for all leaks. EPA is proposing to amend the leak rate 

definition such that it is dependent upon the successful completion of a follow-up 

verification test.”

Comment(s) – EPA should allow the period of days regarding the number of pounds of 

refrigerant added under the “Rolling Average Method” calculation to use the initial 

date of the initial successful repairs if the follow-up leak monitoring of the 

repaired locations were found to not be leaking. 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. 

3. [[Page 78567]] 

EPA states “EPA considers retirement of appliances to mean the disassembly and 

retirement of the entire appliance including its major components, such that the 

appliance as a whole cannot be used by any person in the future.”

[[Page 78583]]

Section 82.152 Definitions.

Retire means the permanent removal from service of the entire appliance, rendering 

it unfit for use by the current or any future owner or operator.

Comment(s) – The proposed regulatory definition does not mention “major components”

as does the preamble wording. 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. 

When 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. The owner/operator should only be required to 

properly evacuate the unit being removed/retired and not have to worry about 

proving no future owner or operator used any of the retired equipment. 

4. [[Page 78567]] 

EPA states “EPA seeks proposed that only Method 2 - The Rolling Average Method be 

allowed for leak rate calculation.” 

[[Page 78583]], Section 82.152 Definitions
3

Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing refrigerant, calculated at 

the time of refrigerant addition. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the 

percentage of the appliance's full charge that has been lost since the last 

successful repair over a consecutive 12-month period, and is calculated by:

 (1) Step 1. Take 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);

 (2) Step 2. Divide the result of Step 1. by the number of pounds of refrigerant 

the appliance contains at full charge;

 (3) Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 2. by 100 to obtain a percentage. This 

method is summarized in the following formula:

GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.015

Comment(s) – EPA’s Method 2 calculation, Step 1., is not sufficiently self 

explanatory. EPA should clarify with examples 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 has discussed this proposed calculation 

with several people and those people were not definitively clear on what exactly 

how the calculation would be made. Many facilities will have to purchase upgraded 

software for inclusion in their refrigeration programs to implement the Rolling 

Average Method. In the calculation above, 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. 

5. [[Page 78568]] 

EPA states “Since selective repairs can result in excessive refrigerant emissions 

to the atmosphere, with associated human health and environment impacts, and have 

the potential to hinder compliance with the leak repair requirements, EPA is 

proposing that owners or operators of comfort cooling, industrial process 

refrigeration, or commercial refrigeration appliances with a full charge greater 

than 50 pounds of refrigerant repair all leaks within the appliance within 30 days, 

if the leak rate exceeds the applicable leak repair trigger rate.

This proposal, if promulgated, means that appliance owners or operators cannot be 

selective about repairs made to appliances that leak in excess of the leak repair 

trigger rate, since the leaks would have to be repaired within 30 days of the date 

that the appliance's leak rate exceeds the leak repair trigger rate. EPA believes 

that this proposal will remove ambiguity concerning compliance with the leak repair 

requirements by requiring the repair of all leaks once the leak repair trigger rate 

has been breached; thereby removing any question as to whether a repair attempt was 

sufficient. EPA understands that some level of refrigerant leakage from appliance 

valves, seals, gaskets, and other fittings occurs. By requiring owners or operators 

to repair ``all'' leaks once the leak repair trigger rate has been breached, it is 

not EPA's intent to require that owners or operators address leaks from such 

fittings. However, EPA strongly encourages appliance owners or operators to address 

leaks from fittings as an additional means of reducing emissions, especially if 

addressing such leaks will reduce the leak rate of the appliance.”

[[Page 78583]], Section 82.156(i)
4

Owners or operators of comfort cooling appliances with a full charge greater than 

50 pounds of refrigerant must have all leaks within the appliance repaired within 

30 days, if the leak rate exceeds 10 percent. The leak rate must be calculated 

immediately upon each addition of refrigerant to the appliance, unless the addition 

is required to recharge the appliance immediately after repair or retrofit or the 

addition is due to a seasonal variance where records justifying the addition due to 

a seasonal variance are maintained in accordance with Sec. 82.166(r). The 

determination of the leak rate must be maintained in accordance with Sec. 

82.166(k).

Comment(s) – It is unclear exactly what EPA intends in the above paragraphs. It 

appears EPA wants “all” leaks repaired, but then EPA states “it is not EPA’s intent 

to require that owners or operators address leaks from such fittings.” EPA should 

stay with the current requirement at section 82.156(i)(2), which requires “Repairs 

must bring annual leak rate to below 35% during a 12-month period.” Also, repairs 

to “all” leaks is very subjective. Many seals in refrigeration equipment rely on 

the oil barrier that forms with the seals 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 appliances oil against that seal and under the 

right conditions the seal could show signs of refrigerant vapors, but only in de 

minimis quantities. If an appliance had three leak locations other than the 

appliances 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. 

6. [[Page 78569]] 

EPA states “Within each option, EPA has considered whether additional emissions 

reduction is gained by requiring: (1) the replacement of leaking appliance 

components after the failure of repair verification; or by (2) maintaining the

existing regulatory flexibility allowing owners/operators to make unlimited 

attempts at repair (followed by subsequent refrigerant recharges) without a mandate 

to actually replace a leaking component

Comment(s) – Eastman believes EPA should not make it mandatory that leaking 

components be replaced if a verification repair(s) is/are unsuccessful. A facility 

should be allowed an unlimited number of repairs attempts to equipment within the 

30 day time period. 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. 

7. [[Page 78573]] 

EPA states “The Agency seeks comment on the effectiveness and 

feasibility of requiring owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial 

refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances to replace leaking 

components in their entirety upon failure of an initial or follow-up verification.

Comment(s) – EPA should only require that a component(s) be replaced if the followup verification test fails and the 30 day or 120 day time period has expired, not 

the initial test. In many instances, the initial follow up may reveal repair was 

not made, but the subsequent repair efforts could result in successful repair

efforts within the 30 day or 120 day repair requirement, thus the component(s) 

should not be required to be replaced. 

8. [[Page 78573]] 
5

EPA states “EPA also proposes to shorten the one-year timeframe that is currently 

granted to owners or operators to complete appliance retrofit/retirement plans. The 

Agency does not wish to allow refrigerant emissions from faulty equipment by 

allowing an extensive amount of time to pass before appliance owners or operators 

complete required retrofit/retirement plans. EPA proposes a six-month timeframe to 

complete retrofit/retirement plans for appliances that have encountered three 

failed verification tests (either initial or follow-up) within a consecutive sixmonth period.”

Section 82.156(i)(4)

Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration appliances must 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 three failed verification tests within a consecutive six-month 

period.

Comment(s) – EPA should continue to allow up to one year to retrofit/retire 

industrial refrigeration appliances. 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. 

9. [[Page 78573]] 

EPA states “EPA is considering a second 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. EPA recognizes that this 

option would allow a greater level of flexibility to owners or operators of 

impacted appliances; however, the Agency is concerned that such flexibility could 

allow increased refrigerant emissions by allowing appliance owners or operators to 

make multiple repair attempts to an appliance or a specific appliance component in 

lieu of taking action to completely repair the appliance via a component 

replacement.

Comment(s) - 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. 

10. [[Page 78575]] 

EPA states “EPA also proposes to remove the 120-day exemption when owners or 

operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial 

process shutdown. EPA believes that, under the proposed approach, the 120 day 

delay is no longer justified. All impacted appliance owners or operators have the 

option of system mothballing their appliances, which temporarily suspends all leak 

repair related timeframes. The Agency sees no reason why owners or operators of 

industrial process refrigeration appliances should be singled out for an 

additional exemption that is not also provided in other refrigeration and airconditioning sectors. Therefore, EPA proposes to remove the definition of 

industrial process shutdown and all references to the definitions in the required 

practices of Sec. 82.156. EPA requests comment on the regulatory simplicity 

gained by such an approach and the need for such exemptions when all appliance 

owners or operators have the option of mothballing their appliances.”

Comment(s) - EPA should not remove the current regulation which allows up to 120 

days to repair an appliance when an industrial process shutdown is required. To 

only gain regulatory simplicity is not significant reason to eliminate the 120-day 
6

repair period exemption. 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. 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. The Chemical Manufacturers Association and other groups worked years 

ago with EPA to develope the 120 day exemption and the 120 day exemption should 

not be eliminated for industrial process refrigeration appliances. 

11. [[Page 78575]] 

EPA states “The first proposed option would require the retrofit to a refrigerant 

or substitute with a lower ODP or retirement of the entire appliance if it 

experiences three component replacements during a consecutive six-month period, 

that occur as a result of a failed initial or follow-up verification. This 

proposal would be linked to the aforementioned option of requiring a complete 

component change within 30 days of a failed initial or follow-up verification 

tests. 

The second proposed option would require the retrofit to a refrigerant or 

substitute with a lower ODP, or retirement of the entire appliance, if it fails 

three initial or follow-up verifications during a consecutive six-month period. 

The second option is linked to the previously discussed proposal allowing 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. EPA prefers this 

second option, and believes that this second option provides the greatest level of 

flexibility to appliance owner or operator, while addressing the unwanted 

environmental consequences of cyclic repair attempts that may not adequately 

address the underlying cause of the appliance leak/s.”

Comment(s) - 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, not the initial test repairs. 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 retrofit the appliance to a refrigerant of 

substitute with a lower OPDP or retire the appliance. 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. Example: 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. EPA should not required retrofit to a lower ODS refrigerant and or 

retirement when such repairs can be made. Larger capacity appliances could be 

required to be retrofitted and/or retired when then actual need is unneeded and 

costly. 

12. [[Page 78576]]

EPA states “In this scenario, any combination of three failed initial or follow-up 

verifications during a consecutive six-month period, regardless if the appliance 

leaked at the identical component, would trigger the requirement to develop and 

implement the six-month retrofit or retirement plan. The owner or operator must 

make plans to either retire or retrofit the appliance, in accordance with the 
7

proposed Sec. 82.156(m). The owner or operator would be required to maintain a 

written and dated retrofit/retirement plan that provides a six-month schedule to 

complete retrofit or retirement of the leaking appliance, in accordance with Sec. 

82.166(n).”

Comment(s) – EPA should only require a retrofit or retirement plan if the followup verification tests are unsuccessful during the allowed repair period, not 

initial repair failure efforts.