Representing the Interests of America’s Industrial Energy Users since 1978

CIBO, 6035 Burke Centre Parkway, Suite 360, Burke, VA 22015 – 703-250-9042

February 14, 2011 

VIA E-DOCKET

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Air & Radiation Docket 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 6102T 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 

Leak Repair Requirements 

75 Fed. Reg. 78558 (December 15, 2010) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed changes to Leak Repair 

Requirements for comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration and industrial process 

refrigeration and air conditioning equipment with ozone-depleting refrigerants. 

CIBO is a broad-based association of industrial boiler owners, architect-engineers, related 

equipment manufacturers, and university affiliates consisting of over 100 members 

representing 20 major industrial sectors. CIBO members own or operate facilities in every 

region and state of the country, with a representative distribution of almost every type of boiler 

and fuel combination currently in operation. CIBO was formed in 1978 to promote the 

exchange of information within industry and between industry and government relating to 

energy and environmental equipment, technology, operations, policies, laws and regulations 

affecting industrial boilers. Since its formation, CIBO has actively participated in the 

development of technically sound, reasonable, cost-effective energy and environmental 

regulations for industrial boilers. CIBO supports regulatory programs that provide industry 

with enough flexibility to modernize – effectively and without penalty – the nation's aging 

energy infrastructure, as modernization is the key to cost-effective environmental protection. 

CIBO members are directly affected by EPA’s proposed changes in that all CIBO members 

have comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration and industrial process refrigeration and air 

conditioning equipment which contains ozone-depleting refrigerants and members are subject 
2

to the current regulations for leak detection, maintenance, repairs and recordkeeping under 

current provisions of 40 CFR 82 Subpart F. 

I. Overview of the Proposal 

EPA proposes to amend the current requirements for maintenance, repairs and recordkeeping 

for equipment containing Ozone Depleting refrigerants in the following ways: 

• EPA proposes to revise the purpose of section 82.150 to make this applicable to those 

who use ozone-depleting refrigerants, 

• EPA proposes to revise definitions for “Follow-up verification test,” “Full charge,” 

“Initial verification test,” “Leak rate” and “Normal operating characteristics;” add 

definitions of “Comfort cooling appliance,” “Commercial refrigeration appliance,” 

“Component,” “Industrial process refrigeration appliance;” and delete the definition 

for “Commercial refrigeration,” “Critical component,” “Custom-built,” “Industrial 

process refrigeration” and “Industrial process shutdown.” 

• Within these definitional changes, EPA proposes to eliminate one of the two methods 

currently provided to calculate leak rate and to eliminate allowing a combination of 

methods for calculating full charge. EPA also proposes to require retired appliances 

be rendered unfit for use by the current or any future owner or operator. 

• EPA proposes to remove provisions for extensions of time to repair or retrofit 

industrial process equipment which requires a process shutdown to complete and to 

shorten the amount of time allowed for repairs and retrofits of all industrial 

equipment. 

• EPA proposes to require that initial and follow-up validation of repairs apply not only 

to industrial process refrigeration equipment but also to comfort cooling and 

commercial refrigeration appliances with charges of 50 lbs or more. 

• EPA also proposes to require that follow-up validation tests be conducted no sooner 

than 24 hours after the repair is complete but as required today no later than 30 days 

after the repair is complete. EPA seeks comment on the additional burden and costs of 

requiring a period of operation of at least 24 hours before follow-up verifications can 

be performed. 

• EPA proposes to reduce leak repair trigger rates from the current 35% for industrial 

process refrigeration and commercial refrigeration appliances to 20% and to reduce 

leak repair trigger rates from 15 to 10% for comfort cooling appliances with charges 

of more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. EPA also proposes that when these leak 

thresholds are reached, all leaks within that appliance must be repaired within 30 

days. 

• EPA proposes additional minimum notification elements for retrofits or retirement 

plans and additional reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 
3

II. Comments on the Proposal 

A. EPA’s proposed changes would make the current leak detection and 

repair procedures even more burdensome and costly. Rather than 

“simplifying” and “clarifying” the current rules, EPA is increasing 

burden and reducing flexibility for compliance. 

As described in more detail in the comments below, although EPA states that it is clarifying 

and simplifying leak detection and repair requirements, the majority of the changes proposed 

are unnecessary and would decrease flexibility and increase the current compliance burden 

associated with these regulations. While EPA has done some work to try to quantify the 

costs and benefits associated with revisions to leak rate trigger revisions, EPA has not 

demonstrated benefits associated with the majority of the changes proposed that are sufficient 

to justify proposed revisions, and the revisions should therefore not be made. 

The provisions of 40 CFR 82 Subpart F have been in place for a substantial amount of time 

and industry has established procedures to meet the current requirements. EPA's proposed 

revisions to the procedures will impose a substantial burden to the regulated community. 

Over time, industry's investment in refrigerants with lower ozone-depleting substances has 

been significant. CIBO expects this trend to continue under the current regulatory regime and 

believes that changes to the provisions in this subpart are unnecessary. 

B. EPA should not eliminate the 120-day provision for repairing industrial 

process equipment which requires process shutdown to repair. Similarly, 

EPA should not shorten the length of time allowed for completion of 

retrofit/retirement plans. 

EPA states that it is expanding some of the flexibility that is provided for industrial 

process equipment to comfort cooling and commercial cooling equipment. However, in 

making these changes and eliminating the definition of “Industrial process shutdown” 

EPA is removing important repair provisions needed by industrial process equipment. 

EPA is also proposing to shorten the amount of time allowed for retrofits and retirements 

of appliances. 

Current regulations permit owners and operators of industrial process equipment that cannot 

be repaired without an industrial process shutdown, up to 120 days to complete the repair. 

This amount of time for repairs is critical for certain units and we urge EPA NOT to eliminate 

this. This range of possible repair problems must continue to be accounted for in the rule, 

which may entail equipment that is very different from comfort cooling devices. For example, 

repairs may be needed for certain industrial process equipment that are integral components of 

a manufacturing process that cannot be taken off line without significant economic penalties. 

EPA should not constrain repair provisions for facilities running highly complex 

manufacturing processes. The definition of “Industrial process shutdown” should be retained 

as well as the provisions that allow industrial process equipment to have up to 120 days to 

repair units when repairing those units requires an industrial process shutdown. 
4

EPA also proposes to cut in half the current one-year timeframe for owners or operators to 

complete appliance retrofit/retirement plans. 75 FR 78573. Six months is an unreasonable 

amount of time in which to design, fund, order, obtain and install a new appliance. While 

EPA will allow more time in cases where a quoted deliver time is more than 12 weeks, per 

proposed 40 CFR 82.156 (l), the provisions allow for only 12 weeks after the date of delivery 

to complete installation. This may be insufficient in many cases, particularly when a 

scheduled industrial process shutdown with downtime is needed for installation of industrial 

process equipment which is integral to the process. EPA has no reason to cut in half the time 

period for sources to make needed repairs, not does EPA have record support, such as 

emission reductions based on the types of timeframes of repairs undertaken by the range of 

facilities that would be affected by this rule, to support the proposal. The amendment is 

arbitrary and lacks record support and should not be made. The current 1 year timeframe and 

provisions that allow for extensions when these extensions are warranted should be retained. 

C. EPA should not require replacement of an entire commercial refrigeration 

process or industrial process refrigeration system after three failed leak 

verification attempts within 6 months as proposed at 82.156 (j) (4) 

EPA proposes to require the retirement or retrofit of the entire appliance if an industrial 

process refrigeration appliance or a commercial refrigeration appliance has experienced three 

failed verification tests within a consecutive six-month period. This is inappropriate for 

several reasons. First, in most cases, retrofit or replacement of the entire unit is unnecessary 

where replacing the component that causes the leak will address the problem. Second, we 

would want to ensure that failure of an initial verification test, where refrigerant is not 

involved in the test is not considered to be one of these three “failures”. Finally, we believe 

that this requirement provides a disincentive for owners or operators to try to fix leaks as 

quickly as possible when these leaks may be technically difficult to repair, for fear of having 

to replace the entire appliance. EPA has not properly quantified the costs associated with 

these new requirements. We o not believe these costs warrant such drastic measures. 

For this reason, we ask that EPA modify the proposed rule text at: 82.156 (j) (4) to read: 

Owners and operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial process refrigeration 

appliances must repair the leaking component or retire or retrofit the appliance to use a 

refrigerant or substitute with a lower ozone depleting potential (ODP), in accordance with 

paragraph (l) of this section, if the appliance has experienced at least three failed verification 

tests within a consecutive six-month period and the owner/operator has not been able to repair 

the existing leak(s) within 180 days of a failed verification test. 

D. The leak rates should not be reduced from 35% to 20% for industrial 

process equipment as proposed. 

EPA proposes to reduce leak rate repair triggers for commercial refrigeration appliances and 

industrial process refrigeration appliances from 35% to 20% and to reduce the leak rate repair 

trigger from 15% to 10% for comfort cooling appliances. Even EPA has estimated the cost of 

this proposed change to be $38.2 million dollars and monetized benefit of this change would 
5

be $1.6 million. 75 FR 78570. This $38.2 million cost for $1.6 million benefits is arbitrary 

and not supported by the record. 

EPA sought input on the ability of owners or operators of commercial refrigeration, comfort 

cooling and industrial process refrigeration appliances to repair leaks within 30 days when 

appliances leak above these trigger levels. 75 FR 78571. 

EPA fails entirely to account for the complexities related to repair, replace or retrofit of 

industrial process equipment components for the many reasons described above. Recognizing 

those difficulties, CIBO members believe that reduction of the leak rates as proposed could 

trigger more repairs that would require facility or process downtime, which does not routinely 

occur. EPA must allow more time for repairs requiring process shutdown for industrial 

process refrigeration appliances in the first instance. However, even if EPA fails to provide 

more time for industrial process repairs requiring shutdown, the current 35% leak rate 

provides industry with much greater flexibility than afforded by the 20% leak rate trigger. In 

general, companies that discover slow leaks in industrial process equipment plan to fix those 

known leaks as soon as possible or when shutdown is required will fix those units during the 

first scheduled downtime. Given that these industrial process refrigeration units are integral 

parts of the production processes at facilities, failure to maintain this equipment could result in 

unplanned and costly downtime at a facility. Therefore, industry maintenance practices are 

sufficient to minimize leaks of ozone-depleting materials to the atmosphere. 

As for comfort cooling, the 10% trigger rate is very low and very small amounts of added 

refrigerant will trigger these requirements. While these units may be able to make repairs in 

most instances within 30 days, lowering the trigger to 10% may impose unnecessary burdens 

for these units. For these reasons, CIBO recommends that EPA retain the current leak trigger 

rates. 

CIBO supports EPA's assertion that industry should not be forced to retrofit or replace 

equipment when a simple leak repair will address the issue at hand, and conclusion that it is 

appropriate for appliance owners or operators to decide how to repair leaking appliances and 

when replacement or retrofit is the best solution, as is existing practice. 

E. EPA should not impose additional constraints on timing of follow-up 

verifications 

EPA proposes to expand leak repair verification requirements to comfort cooling units with 

charges of more than 50 pounds and to impose additional restrictions on the timing of followup verification testing. CIBO does not object to expanding the verification requirements to 

comfort cooling units with charges of more than 50 pounds, even though this will require 

some additional recordkeeping. 

However, CIBO opposes the proposal to impose timing limitations on follow-up verification 

testing. EPA proposes to require that the appliance operate at normal conditions for least 24 

hours before follow-up verification testing can be completed rather than simply requiring 

follow-up verification testing after repairs are complete when the appliance has achieved 
6

normal operating characteristics and conditions. EPA states that they are concerned that 

follow-up verifications do not appear to be part of the normal operating procedures for most 

service calls and they believe that these verifications require a technician to perform a test after 

the appliance has operated for an extended period of time. 75 FR 78572. This assertion, 

which lacks a supporting record or reasoned basis for requiring this extended amount of time 

or a 24 hour minimum following repair and operation at normal conditions, is arbitrary. EPA 

has provided no demonstration that this additional constraint on when follow-up verification 

can be performed is warranted. 

EPA has no basis for and should not impose an initial time constraint of 24 hours or any other 

minimum time period of operation before a follow-up verification can be done. This arbitrary 

constraint will require a service call on a second day, which often will be handled by a second 

technician who did not perform the initial leak repair work. This requirement in and of itself 

could double the cost of the repair and verification process. 

In addition to this concern, the proposed definition of “Follow-up verification test” EPA states 

that "[f]ollow-up verification tests include, but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles, 

electronic or ultrasonic leak detectors.... and handheld gas detection devices.” This phrasing 

should be revised. As written, it could be interpreted to mean that each of the verification tests 

listed must be done, rather than EPA’s intended meaning, as suggestions of some methods that 

may be used. 

To address these two concerns, we recommend that this definition be revised as follows: 

“Follow-up verification test means a test that validates the effectiveness of repairs within 30 

days of the appliance’s return to normal operating characteristics and conditions Follow up 

verification test include, but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles....and handheld gas 

detection devices."

F. EPA should not reduce flexibility and increase complexity for determining 

full charge or for calculating leak rate. 

EPA proposes to disallow use of a combination of methods for determining full charge and to 

disallow use of the most common and simplest method for calculating leak rates. CIBO 

opposes both of these changes. 

EPA should not modify the definition of full charge in a manner that disallows the use of a 

combination of methods for determining full charge. The current rules allow a combination of 

methods and EPA’s own guidance recognizes that use of more than one method may be 

necessary to calculate full charge in certain instances1

. If EPA disallows use of a combination 

 

1

 . See “Compliance Guidance For Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of 

the Clean Air Act” Prepared by The Chemical Manufacturers Association and The Environmental Protection 

Agency, October 1995, Page C 1-2, e. “Combinations of a through d. For example suppose you have a system 

that consists of two components connected by pipe or tubing. The length of the pipe or tubing varies from one 

installation to another. As a result the manufacturer has specified how much refrigerant is in a full charge for the 

two components, but NOT for the pipe or tubing. You may calculate how much refrigerant is in the length of pipe 

or tubing for your system and then add that amount to the manufacturers’ estimate for the two components.” 
7

of methods, which was previously allowed, owners will be forced to re-calculate full charge 

using one of the remaining methods, which in a number of instances will result in less accurate 

calculations of full charge. Not only does this proposed change result in less accurate full 

charge calculations, it also necessitates substantial review and revision to all previous full 

charge calculations and requires revisions to resulting leak rate calculation procedures. Given 

that there is no record support or legal justification for this change, that it will lead to 

inaccuracies and for other reasons as noted, this change is arbitrary and should not be made. 

Similarly, EPA proposes to require use of only a single method (Method 2) to determine leak 

rate. CIBO opposes this change. By disallowing use of Method 1 found in current definition 

of leak rate EPA is reducing flexibility and imposing new burdens on industry that are 

unnecessary and unwarranted by fact, EPA analysis or data, or law. Today, many of CIBO’s 

members use Method 1 for determining leak rate. If EPA adopts their proposed change, all 

facilities will be required to use a more complex approach to determining leak rate. This will 

require facilities to establish new compliance procedures. EPA fails to demonstrate benefit 

from this revision, or justify additional costs, and opposes EPA’s proposed changes to the 

current methods for calculating leak rate. 

G. EPA’s proposed changes to recordkeeping and reporting procedures are 

unnecessary and unjustified by the record or law. 

EPA proposes minimum requirements for retrofit and replacement plans at §82.166 (n). 

EPA’s minimum plan requirements are excessively detailed, particularly given that a plan 

must be completed within 30 days of discovering a leak. In particular, EPA requires the 

procedures for flushing old refrigerant and lubricant, changes in lubricants, filters, gaskets, orings, or valves; the plan for the disposition of the recovered refrigerant the plan for the 

disposition of the appliance, if retired, and a six-month schedule for the complete retrofit or 

retirement of the appliance. These requirements are excessive and overly detailed, particularly 

since the plan is required so soon in the replacement/ retrofit process, when these details are 

unlikely to be available. 

EPA proposes minimum recordkeeping requirements for persons servicing appliances [see 

new proposed requirement 82.166 (j)] and for owners or operators of appliances [see new 

proposed requirement at 82.166 (k) which includes much more detail than has previously been 

required. Specifically owners and service providers will need to document the quantity and 

type of refrigerant added to the appliance; the identity and location of the appliance; the date 

and type of service performed; the physical location of any leaks; the amount and type for 

refrigerant recovered from the appliance; and the date, method and results of initial 

verification and follow-up verification tests. While many of these details are valuable to 

owners of appliances, EPA fails to appreciate how much effort is required to ensure that every 

single item EPA proposes to require records for will require for owners of such equipment. 

Currently, getting the more modest records required of owners and operators often requires 

substantial follow-up effort. 

CIBO urges EPA not to add to the current burden by adding substantial new records for each 

and every service call on appliances. We urge EPA to maintain the current requirements and 
8

not require substantial additional details for these service records. Owners/operators must keep 

these records for many years. The additional recordkeeping requirements proposed are simply 

too burdensome. 

H. CIBO has several other concerns related to EPA’s proposal that we urge 

EPA to address. 

• EPA proposes to require in 82.156 (i) that when the leak rate exceeds trigger 

levels, “all” leaks must be repaired within 30 days. 75 FR 78568. As EPA points 

out – this is different than current requirements which simply require that leaks 

repaired within 30 days bring the leak rate below the 15 or 35% leak rate 

threshold. We believe that it is unreasonable to require “all” leaks to be repaired. 

First of all, if a leak exists but has not been identified and is not known by the 

service provider, how can that leak be repaired? Second, while certainly the goal 

would be to repair all leaks, some leaks may be difficult to repair within a 30 day 

timeframe for a variety of reasons. It makes little sense for owners not to try to 

repair all readily repairable leaks while the service provider is working on the 

appliance, so we believe that most owners/operators and service providers do try 

to fix all leaks when they are servicing appliances. However, we think it is 

unreasonable for EPA to require all leaks to be fixed within 30 days when not 

every leak may be known and where some leaks may be difficult to repair. We 

believe that EPA’s belief that owners don’t try to repair all leaks is unfounded. 

We therefore urge EPA not to require owners/operators to fix all leaks within 30 

days. Owners or service providers should not be penalized for their best efforts to 

reduce leaks. 

• In EPA’s proposed requirements at 82.156 (l) (1) EPA requires that the retrofit 

plan be maintained “on-site at the physical location of the affected appliance in 

accordance with 82.166 (n).” 82.166 (n) requires the plan be maintained “at the 

site”. We do not believe it is EPA’s intent to require us to keep a retrofit plan 

near the physical location of the appliance and urge EPA to revise the language of 

82.156 (l) (1) to delete the “at the physical location” phrase making it consistent 

with the provisions of 82.166 (n). If it was EPA’s intent for owners to keep a 

retrofit plan at the physical location of the appliance, we urge EPA to rethink this. 

We believe a better approach is to keep the plan with the other records for the 

program at the site. 

• In EPA’s proposed requirements at 82.156 (i) and (j) EPA requires that the leak 

rate be calculated “immediately” upon each addition of refrigerant to the 

appliance. We do not believe this is necessary or appropriate. It generally takes a 

little while for records get from service providers to owners of equipment, who 

perform leak rate calculations. It is unrealistic and unnecessary to require 

calculations to be completed immediately. We urge EPA to revise this 

requirement by deleting the term immediately from this provision. 
9

• Finally, in EPA’s definition of retire, EPA proposes to require that in the process 

of retiring an appliance the owner or operator must render the appliance unfit for 

use by the current or any future owner or operator. While we are sure that EPA’s 

intent is to ensure that when old units are retired because of leaks, that they are 

not used again. However, in most cases if a unit is being retired, it uses an older 

refrigerant that is no longer economical to purchase. Since different units are 

designed to use different refrigerants, this requirement seems unnecessary. Since 

this requirement imposes additional burdens on owners and service providers to 

ensure something special is done to make the appliance unfit for use, Since the 

benefit is unclear and this requirement imposes additional burden on 

owners/operators and service providers, we ask EPA not to impose this 

requirement. 

I. If EPA revises current requirements, EPA must allow transition time for 

facilities to conduct training, establish new procedures and obtain newly 

required documentation. 

EPA has proposed substantial changes to the current regulatory requirements. If EPA amends 

these requirements, it is unreasonable to expect facilities to be able to complete compliance 

preparations within the 60 days between finalization and the rule effectiveness date. For 

instance, if EPA were to disallow a combination of methods for determining full charge, 

facilities would need sufficient time to review full charge calculations for each of their units 

and to revise calculations that relied on a combination of methods. Similarly if EPA revises 

leak rate methodology or reduces the trigger leak rates, facilities will need time to put new 

procedures in place for compliance with the revisions. EPA has also proposed numerous 

changes to required elements of service records. It will take some time to train and establish 

procedures for service providers and facility management to meet these new recordkeeping 

requirements. In addition, EPA proposes to require follow-up verification for comfort cooling 

units that have not been previously subject to these requirements. For businesses that have not 

been required to conduct follow-up verification, this will be a substantial additional burden 

and new unfamiliar requirements for these entities. 

For these reasons, if EPA makes these changes, facilities will need a 1-year phase-in period to 

ensure complete transition to new procedures and records requirements. 

CIBO appreciates the opportunity to comment. CIBO would be pleased to provide 

clarification or additional information if that would be helpful. 

Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Robert D. Bessette

Robert D. Bessette 

President