Sent electronically

February 14, 2011

EPA Air Docket

Mailcode 6102T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

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

Requirements [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167; 75 Fed. Reg. 78558, December 15, 2010]

The American Chemistry Council (ACC)1appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Proposed Amendments to the Section 608 Leak 

Repair Requirements (75 Fed. Reg. at 78558, December 15, 2010). 

Our detailed comments are attached for your review. If you would like to discuss any of the 

comments in more detail, please contact me at (202) 249-6411 or 

lorraine_gershman@americanchemistry.com.

Very truly yours,

Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Director, American Chemistry Council

 

1

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. 

ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people's lives 

better, healthier and safer. ACC is committed to improved environmental, health and safety performance through 

Responsible Care®, common sense advocacy designed to address major public policy issues, and health and 

environmental research and product testing. The business of chemistry is a $674 billion enterprise and a key 

element of the nation's economy. It is one of the nation’s largest exporters, accounting for ten cents out of every 

dollar in U.S. exports. Chemistry companies are among the largest investors in research and development. Safety 

and security have always been primary concerns of ACC members, and they have intensified their efforts, working 

closely with government agencies to improve security and to defend against any threat to the nation’s critical 

infrastructure.
Comments of the American Chemistry Council

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 February 14, 2011

1

Executive Summary

EPA has proposed a number of changes to the leak repair provisions of the ozone-depleting substances 

(ODS) regulations at 40 CFR Part 82. Based on EPA‟s estimates, ACC believes that these changes will 

result in significant costs with little related benefit. 

We are concerned that many of the proposed changes in the name of “streamlining” the process actually 

result in less flexibility and higher costs to industry. This proposal emphasizes the use of substitutes 

rather than on reducing emissions. These two goals are not necessarily the same. 

We are concerned that EPA has added additional costly requirements, while removing some requirements 

that have already been widely adopted by industry. These costly requirements include removing the 

annualized method (Method 1) for calculating emissions leaks, adding a requirement that a follow-up 

verification test take place at least 24 hours after repairs have been made, removing the 120-day 

exemption for when an industrial process shutdown is required to repair a leak, and adding a requirement 

to retrofit or replace the entire industrial process refrigeration system after 3 failed leak verification 

attempts within six months. All of these changes come with additional costs to owners/operators. 

We urge EPA to remove some of the complexity from the final rule to continue to allow industry to 

minimize emissions in a cost-effective manner. 

Preamble

At page 78,560 of the preamble to the December 15, 2010 Federal Register notice, EPA states:

EPA stated in Section F.—Required Practices of the original refrigerant recycling final rule (May 

14, 1993; 58 FR 28660) that „„knowingly venting is any release that permits a class I or class II 

substance to enter the environment and that takes place during the maintenance, service, repair, or 

disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment.‟‟ In other words, the leak repair 

requirements do not allow owners or operators to ignore leaks from appliances just because the 

leak repair trigger rate has not been breached. The aim of the leak repair requirements is to reduce 

emissions of refrigerants from appliances by mandating repairs that adequately address the leaks 

within the appliance as a whole, within a set period of time (i.e., 30 days). 

Similarly, on page 78,570, EPA states:

The proposed 10 and 20 percent leak rates are not viewed by EPA as the optimal leak rate that 

can be achieved by appliances at the point of original installation or as the appliance ages. Nor 

does the Agency view the leak repair trigger rates as an exemption to the CAA statutory venting 

prohibition.

EPA appears to be 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. In other words, using a 

leaking appliance that is not required to be repaired under Subpart F violates the CAA‟s venting 

prohibition. 
Comments of the American Chemistry Council

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 February 14, 2011

2

However, EPA is mistaken. Section 608(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act provides that “... it shall be unlawful 

for any person, in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or 

industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release or dispose of any class 

I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in such appliance (or industrial process refrigeration) in a 

manner which permits such substance to enter the environment.” (emphasis added). 

The statute refers only to maintaining, servicing, repairing, and disposing; it does not address “using” a 

refrigerant. Thus, the statute does not address leaking that may occur during the mere use of an appliance. 

Accordingly, EPA‟s preamble statements are inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and are 

incorrect.

EPA‟s proposed changes to the purpose and scope provision of Subpart F (§82.150(a)) appears to be an 

effort to import its misinterpretation into the regulatory leak repair requirements. EPA proposes to adopt 

the following language (proposed additions underlined and proposed deletions strikethrough): 

The purpose and scope of this subpart is to reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting 

substances class I and class II refrigerants and their substitutes to the lowest achievable level and 

encourage the use of substitutes, by maximizing the recapture and recycling of such ozonedepleting substances refrigerants during the use, service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of 

appliances and by restricting the sale of refrigerants consisting in whole or in part of a class I and 

class II ODS in accordance with Title VI of the Clean Air Act.

EPA‟s proposed addition of “use” in two places in §82.150(a) is an acknowledgement that the current 

language of the rule does not support its interpretation. However, it lacks the statutory authority to make 

this change. As discussed above, the statutory venting prohibition does not apply to “use.” 

Thus, 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.

§82.150 – Purpose and Scope

In proposed §82.150(a), EPA changes 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.” This restatement loses sight of one of the original purposes of Section 608, which was not 

only to reduce emissions of ODS but also to minimize emissions of their substitutes, unless the substitutes 

did not pose a threat to the environment.
Comments of the American Chemistry Council

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 February 14, 2011

3

§82.152 - Definitions

Definition of component: EPA has replaced “critical component” with “component” but in the process 

has, as it explains in the preamble, eliminated considerations of safety in the definition. The new 

definition replaces “...will not function, will be unsafe in its intended environment, and/or will be subject 

to failures that would cause the industrial process served by the refrigeration appliance to be unsafe...” 

with “...will not properly function and/or will be subject to failures.” We suggest 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.”

Definition of follow-up verification test: The proposal requires that follow-up verification must be 

conducted no earlier than 24 hours after completion of repairs, which means that facilities must pay the 

additional cost of a separate service call. This is a change from the previous regulatory language, which 

only specified that the verification test occur within 30 days of the completion of repairs. 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. To justify the additional cost and the administrative complexity 

that the source must then manage for a follow-up verification test, EPA provides no data 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 they are found immediately after the appliance 

has returned to “normal operating conditions.” 

The phrasing regarding the methods of performing the tests could be interpreted to suggest that each of 

the verification tests listed be used. We suggest that EPA rephrase this as “Follow-up verification test 

methods which may be used include, but are not limited to,...”

Finally, EPA has omitted from the new definition a good deal of clarifying material, without any 

explanation as to why it is now obsolete. 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. We encourage EPA to retain the language found in the current definition 

of follow-up verification tests in §82.152 that states:

Follow-up verification tests for appliances from which the refrigerant charge has been evacuated 

means a test conducted after the appliance or portion of the appliance has resumed operation at 

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. A follow-up verification test 

with respect to repairs conducted without evacuation of the refrigerant charge means a 

reverification test conducted after the initial verification test and usually within 30 days of normal 

operating conditions. Where an appliance is not evacuated, it is only necessary to conclude any 
Comments of the American Chemistry Council

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 February 14, 2011

4

required changes in pressure, temperature or other conditions to return the appliance to normal 

operating characteristics and conditions.

Definition of full charge: EPA‟s statement that it is reducing complexity by removing only an optional 

approach for determining a full charge is incorrect. No one is required to use a combination of methods 

for determining full charge. Anyone who does so probably concluded that the complexity involved was 

worth the effort, based on their own individual circumstances. EPA does not reduce the complexity of a 

regulation, as far as the regulated community is concerned, by removing optional alternatives. 

EPA‟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. This repeats the entire cost of 

determining the full charge, plus adds a recordkeeping requirement. Further, the records will need to be 

kept for the life of the equipment, a point EPA does not clarify. 

Definition of leak rate: We believe that the "annualizing method" (Method 1) to determine leak rate 

should remain an option. 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. 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. To 

calculate the leak rate using Method 1, only two pieces of data are needed: the amount of refrigerant that 

was just added to the machine, and the date of the most recent previous addition. To use Method 2 is 

functionally more complex, requiring a rolling 365-day window with a total of all refrigerant additions 

from within that window. That total changes as refrigerant additions "roll" in and out. The complexity 

increases as repairs are made (and verified), initially shrinking the size of the window to 1 day. It is not 

clear that required use of Method 2 will result in any environmental benefit, but it will certainly result in 

an increase in leak rate calculation errors and associated non-compliances.

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] which should be used in both options.

Definition of retrofit: We do not believe that EPA‟s proposal that all appliances be retrofitted with 

refrigerants with a lower ozone depleting potential (ODP) makes sense at this point in time. EPA should 

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, 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. 
Comments of the American Chemistry Council

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 February 14, 2011

5

§82.156 Required practices

Industrial process refrigeration shutdown

EPA proposes to remove the 120-day exemption when owners or operators of industrial process 

refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial process shutdown (see existing Section 82.156(i)(3)(iv)). 

The chemical industry operates many comfort cooling systems and industrial process refrigeration 

systems. These systems are fundamentally different and EPA should continue to regulate them in a 

different manner. The Agency‟s stated efforts 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. Our 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. 

Therefore, based on the inherent difference between comfort cooling and industrial refrigeration systems, 

as well as the complexity of industrial refrigeration systems, EPA should continue to allow a minimum of 

120 days to repair leaks when undergoing industrial process shutdowns. 
Comments of the American Chemistry Council

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 February 14, 2011

6

Industrial Process Refrigeration Replacement

We 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, and offer alternative 

solutions to this onerous and very expensive part of the proposed rule language. 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. Alternative ways to achieve the environmental 

protection goals are noted below: 

1. In these cases, 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. 

2. 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." 

3. 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 requests 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. 

Other specific comments are provided on the proposed changes to § 82.156 below: 

Industrial Process Refrigeration

§82.156(i) and (j): We are concerned with the requirement that all leaks must be repaired once the leak 

repair threshold has been reached. It is not always feasible to find, let alone repair, all of the leaks. We 

suggest that, rather than requiring all leaks to be repaired, EPA instead require facilities to “make a goodfaith effort to repair all leaks” and keep documentation of such repair efforts. 

§82.156(j)(1) - EPA should revise the sentence to remove the word "immediately" from the regulatory 

requirement. A suggested revision is: "Owners and/or operators shall conduct an initial verification test 

as soon as practicable after conclusion of the repairs.” This provides the owner/operator flexibility as to 

when the initial verification test is conducted. 
Comments of the American Chemistry Council

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 February 14, 2011

7

§82.156(j)(2) - EPA should remove the requirement to conduct a follow-up verification test no sooner 

than 24 hours after repair and recharge of the appliance. Although we support a small time gap between 

the initial verification and the follow-up verification, this requirement should be modified to allow the 

owner/operator to conduct the follow-up verification test as soon as the appliance has achieved normal 

operating conditions after a repair. 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 later 

during the same work day by maintenance personnel who are familiar with the repairs to the equipment. 

This also allows owners/operators to perform the necessary verification of repairs while minimizing 

additional costs associated with extra service fees. In addition, 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. 

§82.156(l)(1) - Since 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, the schedule portion of the dated 

retrofit and retirement plan should be revised back to a 1-year time frame to either permanently retire the 

entire appliance from operation or retrofit the appliance for use with a substitute with a lower ozonedepleting potential

Therefore, 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. 

Comfort Cooling Appliances 

§82.156(i) - The leak rate should not be lowered from 15 percent to 10 percent 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. In many cases, 

we would not notice degraded performance until the system has lost more than 15% of its charge. 

§82.156(i)(1) - EPA should revise the sentence to remove the word immediately from the regulatory 

requirement. A suggested revision is: "Owners or operators shall conduct an initial verification test as 

soon as practicable after conclusion of the repairs." This language provides the owner/operator with 

flexibility as to when the initial verification test is conducted. 

§82.156(i)(2) - EPA should remove the requirement to conduct a follow-up verification test no sooner 

than 24 hours after repair and recharge of the appliance. Although we support a small time gap between 

the initial verification and the follow-up verification, this requirement should be slightly modified to 

allow the owner/operator to conduct the follow-up verification test as soon as the appliance has achieved 
Comments of the American Chemistry Council

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 February 14, 2011

8

normal operating conditions after a repair. 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 personnel who are familiar with the repairs to the 

equipment. This also allows owners/operators to perform the necessary verification of repairs while 

minimizing additional costs associated with extra service fees. 

§82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

We strongly urge 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.

The language needs to be clear throughout the recordkeeping requirements that they are only applicable 

when the maintenance or repair of an appliance involves the addition of refrigerant. Maintenance, service 

or repair where the refrigerant is removed and replaced without addition is not included. Maintenance, 

service or repair where the refrigerant is untouched is not included. §82.166(k) should therefore not 

require records of “refrigerant recovered from the appliance” but records of “refrigerant recovered from 

but not returned to the appliance.” 

§82.166(m): This requirement should be clarified such that only the refrigerant recovered greater than 50 

pounds is subject to recordkeeping. Also, the rule should explicitly permit that records required by RCRA 

for disposal of hazardous wastes satisfy the requirement. 

§82.166(u): The sale or distribution of used refrigerant records should not apply to transfers governed by 

§§82.154(g)(4) or (5). 

§82.166(v): The preamble states that records should be kept at the “physical location” of the refrigeration 

system, which could be misinterpreted to mean at the chiller. Many facilities utilize contractors that are 

responsible for maintaining the equipment, and keep the records off-site at the contractors‟ places of 

business. The preamble language should 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.