971 Corporate Blvd., Suite 403 , Linthicum, MD. 21090 (410) 694

- 0800, Fax (410) 694

- 0900 www.flexpack.org February 14, 2011

A

- and

- R

- docket@epa.gov Docket ID. No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2003

– 0167

Julius Banks

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Atmospheric Programs

Mail Code 6205

– J

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. 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).

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Flexible Packaging Association was established in 1950 and is a national trade association comprised of manufacturers and suppliers of flexible packaging. The industry produces packaging for food, healthcare, and industrial products using pape r, film, foil, or any combination of these materials. Examples of flexible packaging include rollstock, bags, pouches, labels, liners, wraps, and tamper

- evident packaging for food and

medicine. Flexible packaging, a $26.4 billion industry, employs approximately 80,000 people in the United States and is now the second largest segment of the U.S. packaging market estimated at $ 143 billion

. O ur members have numerous pieces of equipment that hold a refrigerant charge greater than 50 p ounds, including both industrial appliances and environmental comfort units (i.e., air conditioners) and thus they would be affected by the proposed changes to the rule.

FPA appreciate s this opportunity to offer comments on the proposed December 15, 2010 regulations that would revise in significant ways 1

1 EPA’s characterizations that the proposed rule merely would “streamline ” the leak detection and repair regulations at 40 CFR part 92, Subpart F is misleading. Id at 78558. If finalized, there is no question that it imposes significant costs on certain FPA members who would be affected by lower leak rates, repairs , and potential for appliance retrofits or replacements. the existing regulations for repairing, replacing, and retrofitting covered appliances if they exceed the trigger leak

rate

. While FPA agrees that some of the changes clarify requirements by eliminating phrases that may be confusing, other changes may add significant costs to compliance byFlexible Packaging Association

Comments on Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements February 14, 2011

2 adding new requirements. FPA’s members are most concerned about the proposals (1)

to lower the le ak repair trigger rates for air conditioners and industrial process refrigeration equipment and (2) to shorten the current twelve month period for retrofit or replacement of appliances that trigger the leak trigger rate to six months. Our comments

on thes e two issues are presented below.

A.

EPA’s proposal would lower the leak repair trigger rates for covered equipment

from 35% to 20 % for industrial process refrigeration appliance s and from 20% to 10%

for air conditioners. T hese leak rates “trigger” regulatory requirements for repair,

verification of th e repair under normal operating conditions, and retrofit or replacement

of components and/or the appliance. EPA has estimated the cost of this proposed change to be $38.2 million dollars and the monetized benefit of this change would be $1.6

million

, See pages 78570

- 78571. While emission reductions are valuable, having a monetized benefit of only $1.6 million with a cost of $38 million does not appear to be a

reasonable trade off

, especially when the economy is struggling . For this and o ther reasons discussed below, FPA urges EPA to not change the current leak rate triggers. Not only is there little or no explanation for lowering the leak repair trigger for appliances, but EPA’s own analysis suggests that the costs of this proposed change far exceed the minimal benefits that it would

achieve.

A.

EPA proposes several changes to the requirements for operators of leaking equipment to develop and implement retrofit and retirement plans. Currently sources that trigger the requirement to retrofit or replace an appliance must dev e lop a dated and written r etrofit retirement plan and implement it within one year. EPA proposes that such plans should be implemented in the future within 6 months. The proposed rule requiring retrofits or replacements to be completed

within 6 months is unreasonable and we therefore belief that EPA should

leave the current rule i n place

.

FPA’s members believe that it is unreasonable t o shorte n the time it takes to implement a plan to ret rofit or replace an appliance for several reasons : First, most plants are constrained by corporate requirements for justifications of capital expenditures, which generally are approved at least a year in advance. I f a significant industrial refrigeration

unit or an air conditioner must be retrofit ted or replaced , it will therefore be difficult to obtain funding and implement a retrofit or replacement program. Second, if the appliance that must be replaced is an industrial refrigeration assembly that is i ntegrated into a process line, then production must be shut down to enable replacement, which may also require significant engineering time to ensure that the unit works as inten ded with the process. M any manufacturers are constrained by capital budgets an d will not be able to obtain funding for the replacement or retrofit of significant pieces of equipment. Third, many industrial process refrigeration units have to be specially fabricated and six

months is not a sufficient lead time for engineering

, fabri cation and installation

.Flexible Packaging Association

Comments on Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements February 14, 2011

3 EPA appears to suggest that an automatic 120 day extension for the inability to obtain parts will offset the shortened time period. FPA, however, submits that it does not appear

that these automatic extensions are available for engineering or delays in seeking and obtaining approval for capital expenditures in the normal course of business. Moreover, even if EPA were to include these conditions as warranting extensions, FPA ’s members are still concerned that less than one year is not sufficient time for retrofit or replacements of industrial refrigeration equipment to be implemented.

I n closing , FPA hopes that EPA will not finalize the proposed rule . Not only does it appear to us that the agency has not justified the need f or these proposed changes except on their “belief” that leaks are occurring, EPA’s cost benefit analysis does not support the proposal

– particularly in an economic downturn where freeing up capital must compete with other more productive manufacturing pro jects. FPA supports environmental protection, but we would suggest that there are probably better regulatory uses for this capital investment as well, based on the agency’s own cost benefit analysis.

I f you have further questions or need additional inf ormation on these comments from

FPA , please do not hesitate to call at 410

- 694

- 0823

.

Sincerely,

Ram Singhal VP Technology & Environmental Strategy Flexible Packaging Association