UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN COMPANY

on

EPA’S NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE: 

AMENDMENTS TO THE SECTION 608 LEAK REPAIR REQUIREMENTS

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

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167

February 14, 2011
COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN COMPANY

on

EPA’S NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE: 

AMENDMENTS TO THE SECTION 608 LEAK REPAIR 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 protection of stratospheric ozone. 75 

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

I. Follow-Up Verification No Sooner Than 24-Hours After Initial Verification 

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 days 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, certified 

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 hours 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 

unnecessary because appliances generally 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 operating 
characteristics 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 by removing 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 adopt the rolling average approach (Method 2). 

III. A Change in the Leak Rate Trigger for Repairs Could Result in Additional 

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 cooling 

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.

Lowering the leak rate threshold from 15% to 10% will require more service calls and require 

more repairs and replacements of existing equipment across the country, which will entail 

significant additional costs. If 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 Supports EPA’s Decision to Allow Appliance 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 first 
proposed option would require owners or operators of comfort cooling, commercial 

refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration appliances to replace a leaking 

component 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 upon 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 option 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 supports EPA’s “lead proposal” to allow appliance owners the flexibility in 

each instance of a leak to determine whether the leak is best addressed by a repair of the leaking 

component or through its replacement. Not all circumstances will be similar, and requiring a 

component replacement where a simple repair would suffice will result 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 Allows Sources the Greatest Flexibility in 

Selecting the Most Appropriate Means of Addressing A Leaking Appliance.

“... 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 

completely repair the appliance.” 75 Fed. Reg. 78575.

Like EPA, Southern Company would prefer Option 2 for the same reasons described above – the 

additional flexibility it would allow appliance owners in determining the most appropriate 
method for addressing a leak on a case-by-case basis. However, Southern Company generally 

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 likely to be entirely unrelated to one another. The

proximity in time of three unrelated leaks does not necessarily suggest that an entire appliance is 

in need of replacement, particularly 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 by EPA, sources would be required to replace an entire 

appliance that had just received several new components, which would clearly not be a costeffective means of addressing leaks. As an alternative to EPA’s “worst leaker” proposal, 

Southern Company would recommend that only 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 plans.... 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 systems operated by Southern Company are very large and very costly (at least 

several hundred thousand dollars). These systems would require an extended period of time for 

design, budgeting, and installation of new equipment, which could be very disruptive to 

operations. Certain larger systems could not be retired and replaced in the six months EPA has 

proposed as the new timeframe for completing repairs or retrofits.

VII. Maintaining Service Records at the Site of the Appliance Will Interfere with 

the Ability of Southern Company to Coordinate and Manage Compliance 

Among 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 service for a minimum of three years.” 75 Fed. Reg. 78576.

Requiring records to be maintained at the site where refrigerant equipment is located will not 

provide better oversight, but rather may actually interfere with the efficient and effective 
management 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 some invoices and records are maintained at the facility, all official records are kept 

centrally 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 generally are not 

trained for equipment maintenance and instead depend on the certified corporate or regional staff 

for maintenance and compliance with regulatory requirements. If EPA finalizes its proposal to 

require all records be maintained at each individual facility, the records needed by our 

centralized facilities departments could be widely dispersed across an entire state. While 

companies with a single facility or that rely on on-site expertise to maintain appliances, 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.