March 24, 2011

 

Air Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 6102T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20460

RE: Comments to Docket ID EPA-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 within 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 operations, 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 leak 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 without 
evacuating 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 evacuations 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 rate 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 leak 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 finds 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 about 

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 that 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, however 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 tests. The failure of an initial verification test is not 

as significant as the failure of a follow-up verification test nor does it necessarily mean 
that 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 failed 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 

technician 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 attempts 

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 by 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 sufficient time to replace or retrofit the appliance and have 

the revalidation of the change approved other agencies.