**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC**  **TION AGENCY**

**COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN COMPANY** 

**on EPA’S**  **NOTICE OF PROPOSED R ULEMAKING**  **PROTECTION OF STRATO SPHERIC OZONE:**  **AMENDMENTS TO THE SE CTION 608 LEAK REPAI**  **R REQUIREMENTS**

**75 Fed. Reg. 78,558 (Dec. 15, 2010)**

**Docket ID No. EP** **A -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2003 -**  **016 7** 

**February 14,**  **2011 COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN**  **COMPANY on**  **EPA’S NOTICE OF PROPOSED R** **ULEMAKING PROTECTION OF STRATO**  **SPHERIC OZONE: AMENDMENTS TO THE SE**  **CTION 608 LEAK REPAI R REQUIREMENTS** 

**75 Fed. Reg. 78,558 (Dec. 15, 2010)** Southern Company

appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ’s notice of proposed rulemaking for prote ction of stratospheric ozone. 75 Fed. Reg. 78,558 ( Dec
. 15, 2010 )
. **I. Follow**  **- Up Verification No Sooner**  **Than 24 -**  **Hours A fter Initial Ver**  **ification Could Double the Cost**  **of Repairs for Facilities in Remote Locations**  **.** The Agency is proposing a requirement that all owners or operators of commercial, industrial process refrigeration, and comfort cooling appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds that leak above the annual leak repair trigger rate repair all leaks within 30 days of discovery ... and perform both initial and follow
- up verification, where the follow
- up verification occurs no sooner than 24 hours after repairs have been made. EPA requests comment on the clarification that follow
- up verification testing take place at least 24 hours after repairs have been made and the appliance has operated under typical conditions. 75 Fed. Reg. at 78572. Southern Company

agrees that thirty day s is a reasonable length of time to complete repairs on equipment that is leaking above the leak repair trigger rate. Repairing equipment quickly not only reduces emissions but also lowers costs. The requirement for follow
- up verification testing no sooner than 24 hours after repairs , however, will increase the costs associated with leak repairs, particularly for companies like Southern Company that have several facilities in remote locations. For example, certif ied service personnel must drive four hours to reach one of the facilities owned by a Southern Company operating company . Requiring a second verification no sooner than 24 hour s after the first verification would essentially require the certified service personnel to either spend the night near the facility or complete a second 8
- hour round trip the next day , which could double the cost of the repair
. Southern Company

also believes that a 24
- hour gap between initial and follow
- up verifications is unnecess ary

because appliances generall y return to normal operating characteristics and conditions in much less time. As such, a more appropriate requirement would be to allow follow
- up verifications to be made “ as soon as the equipment returns to normal operatin gcharacteristics and conditions,” which might be as soon as a few hours after the repair or even

less. Such a requirement would provide sufficient opportunity to ensure a repair has been successful within in a single, extended service call, thus avoiding the costs that would otherwise be associated with a second service call
. **II. Southern Company**  **Supports EPA ’s Proposal to**  **Require the Rolling Average (**  **Method 2) in**  **Calculating Leak Rate .** 

“ In an effort to provide greater clarity to the leak repair requirements, EPA is proposing to change the definition of leak rate by removing the annualizing method (i.e., Method 1).

... EPA requests comment on the exclusive use of the rolling average method in defining the term ‘leak rate .’” 75 Fed. Reg. 78566. Southern Company supports EPA proposal to change the definition of leak rate b y removin g the annualizing method ( Method 1). Although Southern Company agrees with EPA that there are advantages and disadvantages with both the annualizing and rolling average approaches, Southern Company

is prepared to ado pt the rolling average approach ( Method 2 )
. **III. A**  **Change in the Leak Rate Trigger for Repairs Could Result in A dditional**  **Unnecessary**

**Costs .**  “[T ] he Agency has decided to propose a reduction of the leak repair trigger rate for comfort cooling appliances from 15 to 10 percent and for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process refrigeration appliances from 35 to 20 percent.
... EPA also estimates that a reduction of the leak repair trigger rate for comfort c ooling appliances from 15 to 10 percent and for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process refrigeration appliances from 35 to 20 percent will result in the lowest costs at $ 38.2 million ....” 75 Fed. Reg. 78570. L owering the leak rate thres hold from 15% to 10% will require more service calls and require more repairs and replacement s of existing equipment across the country , which will entail significant additional costs . I f EPA decides to finalize its proposal to lower the leak rate trigger , the new requirements should be phased in over a period of several years to allow for reasonable opportunity

to replace or retrofit existing equipment over time , rather than potentially requiring numerous replacements at once
. **IV. Southern Company**  **Suppor ts EPA** **’s Decision to A llow** **A ppliance Owners**  **and Their Certified Service Personnel the Flexibility to Determine When To**  **Repair and When to Replace a Leaking Appliance.**

“ In order to provide a greater level of flexibility, EPA has considered several options that would trigger the requirement to retrofit or retire a leaking appliance. The firstproposed option would require owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial

refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances to replace a leaking com ponent in its entirety upon failure of an initial or follow
- up verification test. Such a proposal would be a departure from the current requirement for owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration appliances to retire or retrofit the appliance u pon such a failure.
... EPA is considering a second option that would allow owners or operators to decide on a case
- by
- case basis if a component or its subassembly requires replacement in order to completely repair the appliance.
.. . EPA is selecting this o ption as its lead proposal to amend the required practice, by removing the requirement to retrofit or retire an industrial process refrigeration appliance upon failure of an initial or follow
- up verification test. ” 75 Fed. Reg. 78573. Southern Company

sup ports EPA’s “lead proposal ” to allow appliance owners the flexibility in each instance of a leak to determine whether the leak is best addressed b y a repair of the leaking component or through its replacement. Not all circumstances will be similar, and re quiring a component replacement where a simple repair would suffice will res ult in unnecessary costs with no benefit to the environment
. **V. Southern Company**  **Supports the Second Option of EPA ’s Proposed “Worst**  **Leaker” Requirements, as it A llows Sources t**  **he Greatest Flexibility in**  **Selecting the Most Appropriate Means of A ddressing A**  **Leaking A ppliance.**  “... EPA is proposing two options as possible changes to the required practices at § 82.156(m). The first proposed option would require the retrofit to a refrigerant or substitute with a lower ODP or retirement of the entire appliance if it experiences three component replacements during a consecutive six
- month period, that occur as a result of a failed initial or follow
- up verification. This proposal would be linked to the aforementioned option of requiring a complete component change within 30 days of a failed initial or follow
- up verification tests. The second proposed option would require the retrofit to a refrigerant or substitute with a lower ODP, or retirement of the entire appliance, if it fails three initial or follow
- up verifications during a consecutive six
- month period. The second option is linked to the previously discussed proposal allowing owners or operators to decide on a case - by
- case basis if a component or its subassembly requires replacement in order to c ompletely repair the appliance .” 75 Fed. Reg. 78575. Like EPA, Southern Company would prefer O ption 2 for the same reasons described above

– the additional flexibility

it would allow appl iance owners in determining the most appropriatemethod for addressing a leak on a case - by
- case basis . However, Southern Company generall y disagrees with EPA’s “worst
- leaker” proposal because it could require retirement or retrofit of an entire appliance even under circumstances in which it may be clear that only

component replacements are needed. The “worst leaker” proposal fails to take into account the likelihood that leaks on separate components are likel y to be entirely unrelated to one an other. The proximity in time of three unrelated leaks does not necessaril y suggest that an entire appliance is in need of replacement, particularl y if the appliance has neither experienced leaks in the past nor would be expected to leak again in the future following the replacement of a certain component. Moreover, under Option 1 described b y EPA, sources would be required to replace an entire appliance that had just received several new components, which would clearly not be a cost
effective means of addressing leaks. As an alternative to EPA’s “worst leaker” proposal, Southern Company

would recommend that onl y component replacement be required after three failed verifications within six months
. **VI. Shortening the Repair or Retrofit Timeframe from One Year to Six**  **Months Could Place an Unreasonable Burden on Southern Company**  **Facilities with Very**  **Large Custom Appliances.**

“ EPA also proposes to shorten the one
- year timeframe that is currently granted to owners or operators to complete appliance retrofit/retirement pla ns .... EPA proposes a six
- month timeframe to complete retrofit/retirement plans for appliances that have encountered three failed verification tests (either initial or follow
- up) within a consecutive six
- month period. ” 75 Fed. Reg. 78573. Many of the s ys te ms operated by Southern Company

are very large and very

costly (at least several hundred thousand dollars). These s ys tems would require an extended period of time for design, budgeting, and installation of new equipment, which c ould be very disruptive to operations. Certain larger sy stems could not be retired and replaced in the six months EPA has proposed as the new timeframe for completing repairs or retrofits. **V I**  **I .**  **Maintaining Service Records at the Site of the A ppliance Will Interfere with**  **the A bilit** **y of Southern Company to Coordinate and Manage Compliance**  **Am ong**  **its Many**  **Facilities.**

“[T ] he Agency is proposing a requirement that all service records pertinent to the leak repair required practices at § 82.156 be maintained on
-site, at the physical location, of the appliance undergoing servi ce for a minimum of three years
. ” 75 Fed. Reg. 78576. Requiring records to be maintained at the site where ref rigerant equipment is located will not provide better oversight , but rather may actuall y interfere with th e efficient and effectivemanagement of appliance maintenance . For most of Southern Company ’s operations, appliance

maintenance is managed by a corporate or regional facilities department that is centrally located. Although s ome invoices and records are maintained at the facility , all official records are kept centrall y in the corporate /regional offices files by the staff that uses them to budget for expenses, track any possible leaks, and ensure proper maintenance is performed in a timely manner . Personnel at the facility

operate and observe the equipment at their site , but generall y are not trained for equipment maintenance and instead depend on the certified corporate or regional staff for maintenance and compliance with regulatory requirements. I f EP A finalizes its proposal to require all records be maintained at each individual facility , the records needed by our centralized facilities department s could be widel y dispersed across an entire state. While companies with a single facility or that rel y o n on - site expertise to maintain appliance s , EPA’s proposal may

not have a significant impact, but it will directly interfere with Southern Company ’s efforts, and those of its operating companies, to manage compliance over its widespread fleet of facilities
.