March 24, 2011

Air Docket Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460

RE: **Comments to Docket ID EP** **A**

**- HQ** 

**- OAR** 

**- 2003** 

**- 0167** 

To Whom It May

Concern:

82.152 Definitions: In the definition of “Full Charge”, bullet (3) allows the use of actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant evacuated from the appliance.

Comment: This change removes the reference to the amount added to the appliance . It is clear in the preamble that EPA intended to allow the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance in determining the “full charge”, however it was left out of the definition in the proposed rule. I recommend that bullet 3 of the definition should be updated to include the amount added to the appliance as in the current rule.

Use of the word “all” in 82.156 (i) and (j) States......appliances with a full charge greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant must have all leaks within the appliance repaired with in 30 days..........

Comment: I feel that the use of the word “all” is overly vague. Based on the preamble, EPA expects some level of leakage from seals, gaskets, and other fittings, however it is unclear whether EPA is referencing expected leaks from normal o perations, such as minor losses from shaft seals or referencing actual unintended leaks. I recommend that EPA clarify what it means to repair “all” leaks if some level of leakage is acceptable.

The use of the word “all” would also infer that once a le ak is found that the owner looks for additional leaks to ensure that all leaks have been repaired. Previously the rule just required bringing the currently leak rate below the repair threshold, which would typically mean repair of known leaks. Here is an example of my concern: When a packing leak is discovered on a valve, the repair quite often consists of simply tightening the packing to stop the leak. In this example, the repair is completed withoutevacuating the appliance since you are not violating the refrigerant circuit. You have

stopped the leak but this does not mean that “all” leaks have been repaired. Other leaks could be present that you might not know about unless you evacuate the unit and do a complete system leak test. I believe that the use of the word “all” in the proposed rule would now require that owners always completely shutdown every appliance, evacuate the refrigerant and do a full system leak test in order to verify that “all” leaks have been repaired. Unnecessary refrigerant e vacuations can lead to an increase in emissions and would significantly increase the cost of maintaining equipment. I recommend that the rule be updated to say “all known” leaks.

Use of the word “immediately” in 82.156 (i) and (j) States...The leak rat e must be calculated immediately upon each addition of refrigerant.......

Comment: The use of the word “immediately” is unnecessarily stringent. The addition of “immediately” means that the technician or someone at the facility would have to calculate the le ak rate at the time of the service. In some cases, the data needed to properly calculate the leak rate may not be immediately available to the technician. For example, a contractor is called in over the weekend to service an appliance. The contractor fi nds out that parts will have to be ordered to make the repair, however since the appliance is critical to production the technician adds some refrigerant to keep it operating unit the parts can be obtained to make the repair. Under this circumstance,

use of the word “immediately” would potentially require plant personnel to be called for the sole reason of calculating the leak rate, since a contractor would not typically have the required information available. Realistically, the only important thing abou t calculating the leak rate is to make sure that you do it soon enough to ensure that you meet any required repair timelines. The use of the word “immediately” places unnecessary burden on the regulated community and should be updated to simply require th at the leak rate to be calculated with sufficient time to make all required repairs.

82.156 (i)(4) and (j)(4) Requires retiring or retrofitting the appliance if the appliance has experienced three failed verification tests within a consecutive six

- month period.

Comment: My understanding of the intent behind this change is to reduce emissions by requiring equipment that experiences frequent leak repair failures to be replaced or retrofitted to a lower ODP refrigerant. This goal seems very reasonable, how ever I do not believe that the failure of an initial verification test should be considered as part of a requirement to replace or retrofit the unit. Simply stating three failed verification tests would include either initial or follow

- up verification te sts. The failure of an initial verification test is not as significant as the failure of a follow

- up verification test nor does it necessarily meanthat a failed initial test results in an increase in emissions. Initial verification tests are

quite often done when the unit has been evacuated and does not contain any refrigerant. In this circumstance a failed test does not do any harm to the environment since the unit does not contain any refrigerant and therefore should not be included in the three faile d attempts. The second example is when a valve packing leaks and the technician makes a repair attempt by tightening the valve packing and then does an initial leak test to see if adjusting the packing stopped the leak. If that leak test fails the techni cian would typically proceed with replacing the valve. In this circumstance, the failed initial test in which the technician tried to stop the leak by tightening the packing would count toward the three failed tests. This could discourage early repair at tempts to stop or minimize emissions by encouraging putting off repairs until the technician can ensure that the repair will be successful. I recommend that initial verification tests should not be included in the three failed test requirement to replace or retrofit.

82.156 (l) The proposed changes will only allow a maximum of 7 months to retire or retrofit an appliance if required.

Comment: Previously the owner could have up to 3 years in some circumstances. I recommend that EPA should allow case b y case exemptions beyond the 7 months for special circumstances. For example, other government agencies may be required to approve a change in refrigerant type for certain validated products that are manufactured. Seven months would likely not be suffici ent time to replace or retrofit the appliance and have the revalidation of the change approved other agencies.