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 paper, 

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. Our members have numerous pieces of equipment that 

hold a refrigerant charge greater than 50 pounds, 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 appreciates this opportunity to offer comments on the proposed December 

15, 2010 regulations that would revise in significant ways1

 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 by 
Flexible 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 leak 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 these 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 appliances and from 20% to 10% 

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

verification of the 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 other 

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 develop a dated and written retrofit 

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 in place.

FPA’s members believe that it is unreasonable to shorten the time it takes to 

implement a plan to retrofit 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. If a significant industrial refrigeration

unit or an air conditioner must be retrofitted 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 integrated 

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 intended with 

the process. Many manufacturers are constrained by capital budgets and 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, fabrication 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. 

In 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 for 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 projects. 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. 

If you have further questions or need additional information 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