### 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 R ulemaking 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 maintaine d in accordance with Sec. 82.166(o). **Comment(s)**

- Eastman support s 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 u nder 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]], S** **ection 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 do es 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. I n many instances, the refrigeration appliance could be returned to service and the person(s) repai ring the refrigeration appliance could remain on site until the unit is at normal operating characteristics and condition s 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 7856 6**  **]] & [[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 successf ul 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 prove n 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]] Sec**  **tion 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 he ld the appliances refrigeration charge and install a newer appliance and recharge the new appliance. When the appliance is evacuated and removed, the r emoved appliance and/or sections ma y 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 happen s 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 o f 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] TP15DE10.01 5 **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. E astman has dis cussed 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 operator s 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 repai r 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 ra te 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 fitt ings 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 ” leak s rep aired, 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 no t 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 location s other than the appliances compressor seal and the seal is operating per its design specifications, a s 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 r equirement to replace the component(s) that is leaking would be costly if the component(s) i s repair ed 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 follow

up 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 subs equent 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 ope rators 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 six

month p eriod.” **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 c an 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 comp letely repair the appliance via a component replacement. **Comment(s)**

- Eastman support s 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. T he 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 air

conditioning sectors. Therefore, EPA proposes to remo ve 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 applian ce owners or operators have the option of mothballing their appliances. ” **Comment(s)**

- EPA should not remove the current regulation which allow s 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, therefor e, 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. I t is true that mothballing could occur, but th is does not address the ne ed for process refrigeration to continue manufacturing , when an industrial process shutdown is needed to repair the appliance . T he Chemical Manufacturers Association and other groups worked years ago with EPA to develope the 1 20 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 applian ce 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 chan ge 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 complete ly 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 re trofitted or retired if the follow
- up verification test f ails and the 30

- day or 120

- day time period has expired withou t successful follow
- up repairs , not the initial test repairs . In many instances, the initial follow up may reveal repair was unsuccessful , but s ubsequent 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 sho u ld not require retrofit or retirement when successful repairs are made . Example: One refrigeration appliance

- On e 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. E PA 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 th e 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/reti rement 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 follow

up verification tests are unsuccessful during the allowed repair period, not initial repair failure efforts.