# ...= :. .4



### ~ 

# - :. 

# .... 

# -

**~---**

**~** 

# -

**~.,---** 1 11 11 111 1

1111 ® 

# . ., 

# ·-- ., ,. 

# --. . FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE

E n v ironm enta l Protection Agency 

### 40 I M S tr eet, SW W as hin gto n , DC 

### 20460 ATTN: A ir Do cket No
. A -92-01 

### VIH.H

Dear Sir o r Mada m : August 3 1 , 1 998 

# /1
-- 

# y L 

# -u; 

# rrrr- iJ - 

# ' :J

**~** 800 CONNECTICU T AVE

.. N.W

. WASH I NGTON. D

. C. 20006 - 2701 TELEPHONE : 202/452-8444 FAX : 202/429-4519 E - MAIL: FMI@FMI.ORG WEBSITE : HTIP :I/WWW.FMI.ORG



## - ..,

RE: 40 CF R Par t 

### 822 Protec tion of Stratospheric O z on e; R e fri ge ra nt R ecyc lin g; Substitute R e fri ge ra nt s; Proposed Rul e

The Food Market in g Institute (FM I) is pleased to sub mit these comments in response to th e n otice of propos ed mlemaking on Protection of Stratospheric O zo n e; Refri ge rant Recycling; Substitute R efrigerants. FM l i s a nonprofit association conducting programs in r esearch , education, indu s try relations and public affair s on b e half o f its I 

### ,500 memb e rs including their s ub si di a ri es - food retailers and who l esalers and th e ir c u s tom e rs in the Un ited States a nd around the world. FM I' s domestic member companies operate approx im ately 

### 21,000 re ta il food sto res w ith a combined a nnu a l sa l es vo lum e of 

### $22 0 bi lli on - more than half of a ll g r oce ry store sales in the United States . FM l 's r etai l m e mb e rship is composed of large multi -s tore cha in s, sma ll regional firms a nd ind e p e nd e nt supem1arkets. Its int e rn at io n a l m e mb e r s hip in cludes 

### 200 memb e r s from 

### 60 co untri es . In preparing this response to the EPA's n ot i ce , FMI so licited and recei ved comme nt s from its membership, includin g m e mb e rs of th e FMI Energy and Technical Services Comm ittee which i s tasked with providing th e associatio n w ith technical expertise in m onitori n g leg i s lati ve and regu latory po l icies impacting th e food distribution industry. Our members noted specific problems with the proposed rul e that wou ld ha ve neg a ti ve impacts on their businesses. In this su bmi ss ion , FM I seeks to convey the specific concerns of o ur membership to a ll ow the agency to understand the impac t th e standards i nc lud ed in this proposed rule wou ld have on the food retail and wholesale industries. Th e mo st common concern is that the targeted leak rates of 

### 15 perc e nt and 

### 1 0 percent for e quipm e nt built before and after 1992, res p ect ive ly, was unattainabl e. S eve ra lA ir Dock e t No. A-92-0 1 VIII.H 2

reasons we re cited for tills with the most common ly noted o ne being the lack of adequate methods and equipme nt for d etec tion leaks that would a ll ow for immediate repair. A leak that wou ld amou n t to a n annual1 oss of 15 percent fo r some low-charge sys tem s would be so slight as to only be detectable when th e system is recharged. We believe that rates of 25 percent for equipmen t manufactured before 1992 and 20 p ercent for equipment manufactured afte r 1992 are more realistic. Specific comments from FMI members are co n so lid ate d and listed below. They include both concerns as we ll as r ecomme ndation s:
• As note d above, current l eak det ec tion equipment is not re liable or sensitive e nou g h to id e ntif y ref ri ge rants escaping a system at a rate that , over th e course of a year, would amount to 10 percent of its capacity. • By us in g a perce n tage of refrigerant lost versus measu rin g the total quantity io st, th e proposed rule wou ld have an uninte nd e d impact of puni s hin g e quipm e n t owners who pu rposefully take advantage of systems that u se lower than average amounts of refrigerant an d/or d es ign their stores to r equ ire less ref ri ge rant. When leaks occur wit h suc h systems, the loss may rep r ese nt a large percentage of the total c harge yet be a re lat i vely sma ll amount of refrigerant. T he agency shou ld take this into consideratio n so as to not discourage the in sta ll ation of lo w - charge systems. • The proposed rule seems to indi cate that the age ncy is in correct 

### in its und e rstanding. of how refrigerant is lo s t in a

**supermark~t.** FM I interprets the pro po sa l to e nv i sio n supermarket refhgeration sys tems suffering a number o f s mall leaks at an annual r ate of 35 percent and that a supermarket can reduce its leak rate to 10 p er cent b y simply repairing those leaks. 

### ln fact, a system can b e v irtu a ll y lea k-free until th e time of a leak in c id en t at w ruch point a charge lo ss of as much as 50 perc en t may occur before the leak is de t ec te d. It should be remembere d that in s uch a situation, not only doe s the s up e rm arke t op e rator face the costs of replacin g th e lo st refr igerant but also is faced with th e loss ofthe food products held in th e failed e quipment. • The de finition of " appliance" seems to assume that on ly one compressor is be ing u sed. Th is may cause a problem wh e n d e te m1inin g th e year of manufacture if the appli an ce h as more than one compressor. This prob le m also hold s true for singl e co mpressor units where the original compressor has b ee n r ep laced. Would the date of manufacture the n be the date that the latest compresso r was in sta!led? If so, that co uld c h ange the acceptable leak rat e from 1 5 percent to 10 p e rc e nt for certain appliances. System upgrades or re p a irs shou ld not have th e effect of red ucing the allowab le rate of leakage. • FMJ be li eves the effective date of30 days after the publi cati o n date of the final ru le is imp ractical as it does not take into consideration the work load and schedu li ng of refrigeration con tracto r s nor do es it take into consideration th e cost and imp act on the budgetary process of th e equipm ent owner. T hi s rapid implementation would be most harmful to small businesses that would be less of a priority to contractors than th eir larger co mp etitors and likely not as fin anciall y prepared to bear s u ch an immed iate cost burden. • Any ru les gove rnin g the usag e of refr ige rant s sho uld b e b ased on sound, verifiable sc ie nce a nd not spec ulation
.A ir Docket No. A-92-01 VI II .H 

### 3

• We recommend that the rate of allowable loss be reflectiv e of the environmental impact of a give n refrigerant. P ena lties for leaks of refrig erants that have little or no impact on the envi ronment should be dist inguishable from penalti es fo r CFC or CFCtype refrigerants. • Performanc e s tandards for equipment manufacturers should b e estab lished. Store owners should not be responsible for l eaks from manufactured equipment due to manufacturing defects or damage from s hippin g. • T h e agency should co nsider advocating tax incentives for companies that have proactive leak mitigation programs. A key point for the agency to consider as it moves toward i ss uance of the final rule on refrigerant leak control i s that supermarkets are not sitt in g idly by whi l e l eaks occur under th e ex isting regulations
. It is in ou r members best financia l interest to control and r ed uc e leaks as best as is pos sib le. The agency shou ld also take heed of the disproportionately negative impact this rule will have on smaller food retailers. These independent operators are more likely to have older equipment th at would be in need of retrofitti ng or replacing. They are also more apt to be reliant on outside contractors to manage and service their refrigeration equi pment. This leaves smaller retailers fac in g higher than average comp li ance cos t s as well as being at the mercy of thei r co ntractor and at a disadvantage to the ir chain store compet it ion. Finally, th e industry has a lon g-stand in g commitment to food safety and food retai lers have little choice but to utili ze refrigeration equ ipme n t for the storage and display of products. In addition, states and localities have strict laws and regulations governing the handling, storage and display of food items. Consequently, any increase in the cost of operating refrigeration equipment wi ll hav e th e effect of increa s ing a stores operat ing costs and , therefore, be reflected in the pr ice of the prod ucts consumers purchase. Whateve r steps the agency can take to minimize the finan c ial costs of these regulatio n s will not only be beneficial to food distributors but also t o consumers . Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue of great importance to the food retail and wholesale indu stries. Fi\til and its memb e r companies iook forward to a continuing dialogue with the agency on this and other issues. 

### ;:cerely,



# I~ **/1---..........,~~ ~**  T im Hanunonds President and CEO