Mr. Luke Hall

- Jordon

Stratospheric Ozone Protection The United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Wa shington, DC 20460 December 15, 2014
**Re: Strengthen**  **the Current 608 Regulation**
Dear Mr. Jordon : New Era Group and its members want to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for convening a stakeholder meeting on the current state of 608 and 609 regulations. As you are aware, many members of New Era Group have recommended that this section of the rule be revisited. Expanding the scope of the rule is a critical part of developing the policy on reducing the effects of Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG), Global Wa rming Potential (GW P) and Ozone D epleting Chemicals (ODC). In order to comply with the Administration’s Climate Action Plan, EPA must have at the corner stone of this effort , a strong National recycling and emission reduction program as set forth in §7671(g) of the Clean Air Act. During t his stakeholder meeting, EPA heard the overwhelming consensus that what has been lacking in the success of 608 and 609 rules is enforcement and user accountability. New Era Group must stress that this is one of the major issues that our members have expres sed to EPA in numerous letters as well as the Public Hearing on January 27, 2014 for the rule making on HCFC phase

- out. The concept paper and hand out provided makes it clear that the Stratospheric Ozone Division is getting the same type of recommendations from other stakeholders on the changes that need to be implemented on the rule. These documents make it clear that the Clean Air Act is written in such a way to give EPA the ability to regulate all refrigerants. In Section §7671h, (b) (1) Definitions, the Law is clear that regulations pertaining to the release and containment of Class I and Class II “refrigerants” also apply **to substitute substances.** This being a fact of Law, we recommend that all refrigerants CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs and any future refrigerantsLuke Hall

- Jordon

Letter December 15, 2014 Page 2
must be contained to achieve the most effective environmental benefit and policy. The concept paper included nine bullet points. EPA is currently seeking input on these points: **1) Should 608 extend to HFCs?** 
In the Administration’ s Climate Action Plan, the importance placed on R

- 134a suggests that EPA more formally extend the prohibitions of venting, recovery, technician certification and most importantly of all leak detection to HFCs. For every pound of HFC that is contained the demand to produce a new pound is reduced. All refrigerants should be subjected to containment.
Wewould recommend that EPA consider other sections of environmental law:

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Emergency Planning and Co mmunity Right to Know . (EPCRA) Hazardous Chemical Storage Reporting Requirements (SARA 311 , 312 and 313
**2) A re some Sections of 608 more relevant to HFCs than others?**  As EPA looks at improving these sections of the rules we suggest that EPA reduce the number of exceptions to ensure the maximum and most effective rule possible. There is no technical reason that this class of the refrigerants, those currently in use and those being approved cannot be recovered and reclaimed under the same set of rules that apply to CFCs and HCFCs. **3) Should EPA**

**include other climate damaging substitutes (PFCs)?** In the interest of the environment and to best use the limited resources that EPA has to achieve effective rules, we again suggest that all refrigerants fall un der the 608 and 609 rules without exceptions

. **4) Would it be reasonable to apply 608 leak rates to HFCs?**  The short answer to this issue is “yes”. However, we feel that EPA must reconsider the policy on leak rates all together; the “50 pound or less rule”.Luke Hall

- Jordon

Letter December 15, 2014 Page 3
Consider the tremendous number of units in service across the country that have less than 50 pounds of refrigerant CFC, HCFC or HFC and the amount of refrigerant that is being released into the atmosphe re under this exemption is staggering. EPA could simplify the issue with a recordkeeping requirement on purchased and installed refrigerants. If a contractor buys 1,200 pounds of refrigerant a quarter and has 330 pounds left at the end of that period there would be a clear indication of the usage. A review of the service invoices for that same period of time would show where the refrigerant was used, quantity, and purpose. If the contractor operates in the same manner as is required in 609 , when a leak is found or a system requires the charge to be trimmed, a leak test must be performed. Once a leak is detected and repaired, the system can then be re

- charged. Setting high leak rates allows for too much refrigerant to be released

. In fact, over any perio d of time the allowed leak rate and impact of these releases represents a significant impact on the environment. Our recommendation is that EPA applies the same criteria for leaks that are currently used in Motor Vehicle Servicing. The current leak rate of 15% for comfort cooling is meaningless when you exclude units that contain less than 50 pounds of refrigerant. The Climate Action Plan made the phase

- out of 134a a major concern. W hile the ultimate goal may be to stop production of this HFC, containment of this and all refrigerant gasses must be part of the Agency’s Rule going forward. Developing a more consistent and uniform regulation for 608 and 609 will avoid confusion. Regulations should be consistent across all segments of the industry. **5) A re there**  **other ways to incentivize low er leak rates?**  Historically the attention to leak detection has been a function of economics. W hile there have been recent large cases that have been successfully prosecuted, those companies are under consistent decrease. The vast number of leaks in smaller systems go undetected simply because the enforcement effort has been nonexistent for years. Requiring greater record keeping of purchases and uses of refrigerant would be a first step.Luke Hall

- Jordon

Letter December 15, 2014 Page 4
Although incentives may be challenging to create, penalizing those that do not meet requirements may be an effective means of enhanced accountability standards. **6) Would it be reasonable to apply the existing standards for recovery and**  **reclaimed ozone depleting refrigerants to HFCs.** There is no reason that recovery equipment that has been used to recover CFC, HCFCs should not or cannot work to recover HFCs. There is a separate issue, regarding the lack of standards for reclamation. As cu rrently written, the rule provides that anyone may simply answer some questions and become a reclaimer. EPA has no oversight to verify that the applicant has the requisite knowledge to perform the duties of a reclaimer. The rule has a loophole which does n ot include all forms of reclaiming. To avoid oversight, a company can declare that they separate refrigerants and therefore they are not subject to the rule. New Era Group also suggests that reclaimer’s should not be granted the authority to reclaim in per petuity. The United States Department of Transportation, Motor Carrier Safety Administration does not grant tank certification without review. No jurisdiction in the United States issues a driver’s license in perpetuity. Yet under the current program, an E PA reclaimer’s certificate is good for life. It is critical that standards be set and followed to protect the integrity of the market and other programs such as SNAP Refrigerants. **7) How can Section 608 Technician certification be improved**  ? The current pro gram is severely inadequate. It does not require knowledge that will protect the environment nor does it make a technician competent to recover refrigerant in a manner that ensures environmental protection. The technician’s knowledge of the history of the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol is irrelevant to the proper recovery of refrigerants. The issue of pressure temperature is no longer a method to protect or identify refrigerant types. Issues with blends make this method obsolete. Blends can contain as many as five different compounds, used blends may fractionate and cross contaminate other refrigerant. Technology replaces a gauge set to identify the composition of refrigerant under strict laboratory condition analysis is default.Luke Hall

- Jordon

Letter December 15, 2014 Page 5 It is the position of New Era Group that additional requirements for technician certification, up to and including practical demonstration of proper recovery and containment techniques, be implemented in order to ensure responsible handling of these chemicals. **8) Is there a better way to ensure the recovery of refrigerants in small appliance at**  **end -** **of -**  **life?** The Responsible Appliance Disposal Program (RAD) should be used to encompass other sections of environmental regulat ion. W ithout coordination of existing regulations such as those addressing mercury, NAK and oil, to name a few, the effort will not be effective. Many of the big box stores have programs to collect used appliances and elect to use disposal companies to de

- commission this equipment. Unfortunately these companies do not fall under the watchful eye of Part 82. In fact, some of these companies not only remove refrigerant and other by

- products but also extrude the CFC, HCFC or HFC from the insulation. **9) Should EPA** 

**use this opportunity**

**to simplify**

**/improve/update this Section of 608?**  The issue of 608 revisions has long been an issue that New Era Group has talked about with EPA. EPA has had more than 21 years of operating under the current rule for reclaiming. It i s time to not only reevaluate the program but to raise entrance barriers to ensure compliance and to protect the integrity and sustainability of the program. Self

- certification of the ability to comply with the program is no longer adequate. EPA must stop trial and error on how proper reclaiming, repackaging and reselling refrigerants takes place in the United States. EPA can no longer rely on an application that starts out with the operator promising to comply with this section of the law.
EPA cannot assum e that just because the paper has serial numbers on it and a promise that an applicant has any technical ability at all.
Wh ile the issue of third party certification has been widely rejected, EPA must consider a third party audit procedure to aid compliance with the stated requirements of Subpart 82.Luke Hall

- Jordon

Letter December 15, 2014 Page 6

New Era Group hopes that we will be included in the process to expand and collaborate on this issue as this new rule is written.
Wefeel that the use of record keeping in conjunction with proper reporting should become part of all sections of Part 82. The Environmental Investigation Agency lets us know that stockpiles of HFC are being built. New Era Group has advocated the importance of an accurate knowled ge of inventories in assessing the impact and effectiveness of these regulations. Another issue that we feel the need to address is that EPA seems to promote select companies and products of select companies. To remedy this we believe that it should be man dated that if EPA names one company it has the obligation to name all companies associated with an area of these regulations. If EPA names one refrigerant product there must be the willingness to name all refrigerant products associated with a rule or acti on not just those of large business interests.
Wi th warmest regards and thanks,

Peter V. Wi lliams