PDepartment of Energy

Washington, DC 20585 -7 ~

August 10, 199 8

Air Docket No, A - 92-01 VI I I . H

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

Gentlemen:

The U .S. Department of Energy (DOE) has reviewed the June 11, 1998, proposed rule,

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling ; Substitute Refrigerants",

(63 FR 32044 ) that implements and clarifies the requirements of Section 608(c)(2) of

the Clean Air Act, which extends the prohibition on venting to substitutes for

chloroflurocarbon (CFC) and hydrochiorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants .

The enclosed two copies of comments and recommendations on the proposed rule

reflect concerns raised by DOE program and field organizations . The principal theme

of these comments relates to the stringency of the proposed, lower-permissible, annual

leak rates of refrigerants for commercial and industrial process refrigeration, an d

chillers.

DOE appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. If there are any

questions concerning these comments, please contact Emile I. Boulos of my staff at

202-586-1306 .

Sincerely,

Raymond P. Berube

Acting Director

Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance

Enclosure

® <<, . . . , ., . . ..
p. 2

Department of Energy ( DOE) comment s

on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule :

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone ; Refrigerant Recycling ; Substitute

Refrigerants"

(Federal Register Vol. 63, No 112, June 11, 1998)

The following is a consolidated response from the U .S . Department of Energy (DOE),

prepared by the DOE Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, to the proposed

rule "Protection of Stratospheric Ozone ; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants .

Our comments fall under two categories, comments on specific issues, and responses

to questions in the preamble.

For your convenience, the appropriate Federal Register page citation precedes each

comment .

Specific comments:

The principal theme of these comments relates to the stringency of new proposed lower

permissible annual leak rates of refrigerants for commercial refrigeration, commercial

and industrial process refrigeration, and chillers .

i . Page 32066, Section IV, B.3 :

DOE supports the concept of separate leak rate requirements for new and old

comfort cooling chillers, but believes that the proposed permissible leak rate for

older (i .e., 1992 and earlier) chillers should remain at the current 15% rate . It

should not be lowered to 10% . A 10% rate would impose a financial and

operational burden on owners .

ii . Page 32066, Section IV, B .3 :

While recognizing that EPA has proposed a 20% permissible leak rate for

industrial process equipment, and has proposed four criteria allowing

continuance of a permissible 35% leak rate for such older units, DOE believes

that different criteria for permissible leak rates of at least 15% should be created

for new site-assembled refrigeration units and chillers versus such equipment

assembled in factories . These site-assembled refrigeration units or chillers

would be subject otherwise to proposed 10% or 5% permissible leak rates.

Factory assembled units tend to have lower leak rates, whereas site-assembled

units cannot be guaranteed by contractors to DOE to meet the lower 10% or 5%

proposed permissible leak rates . Due to some of the unique aspects of DOE

defense related work, some refrigerant units must be configured and assembled
p. 3

2

on-site . To this end, and to help simplify the number of permissible leak rate

categories, DOE suggests that equipment that must be assembled on-site be

considered as generic "industrial process equipment" and hence subject to the

associated proposed 20% permissible leak rate, or be separately categorized as

subject to at least a 15% permissible leak rate .

Response to specifically solicited comments :

iii . Page 32067, Section IV 3.b:

In response to comment sought on whether low leak rates from new equipment

will persist throughout the lifetime of the equipment, or will increase as the

equipment ages, DOE observes that new equipment will probably have lower

leak rates, but that these rates will likely increase due to normal wear and tear

over time.

iv. Page 32067, Section IV 3.b:

In response to comment sought on whether higher or lower leak rates might be

appropriate for different types of commercial equipment--given that compressor

rack systems, single compressor systems and self-contained units may have

significantly different leak rates--DOE believes that EPA should propose

different leak rates for different refrigerant equipment designs . Typically, the

release of refrigerant occurs at seals and 0-rings . Accordingly, hermetically

sealed units can be expected to leak less than single compressor units .

v . Page 32068, Section IV 3 .c:

In response to comment sought on the interchangeableness of leaky and nonleaky designs, DOE believes that EPA should modify the Proposed Rule to

provide two different leak rates, one for open drive systems, and one for

hermetically sealed units . Users of refrigeration equipment should be required

to use hermetically sealed units .

vi . Page 32069, Section IV 3.d:

In response to comment sought on the basis of the 1992 dividing line between

old and new units, DOE believes that the basis for doing so was not clear .

There was no measurable breakthrough in design of refrigeration units after

1992 . It would be more appropriate to use a later dividing line (as intimated in

the preamble), and 2000 is so suggested, a date by which new designs,

improved manufacturing practices, and new materials will be available to this

industry.

vii . Page 32069, Section IV 3.d :

In response to comment sought on the possibility of distinguishing between slow

leakage, servicing emissions, and catastrophic emissions, DOE believes that it
p. 4

3

would be difficult to do so . Some refrigeration units do not manifest any sign o f

leakage until one third of their charge has been lost . The only way to determine

each type of leakage would be to install individual monitoring devices or monitor

each unit every day with a portable leak detector . This would be extremely

burdensome .

viii . Page 32072, Section IV, 3.F .iv:

The proposed 30 days to prepare, and one year to execute, a retrofit / retirement

plan following unsuccessful repair, if implemented, would result in significant

expense to critical on-going programs which would be able to be budgeted for

better if extended over a period of several years .
p. 5

Department of Energy ( DOE) comment s

on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule :

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone ; Refrigerant Recycling ; Substitute

Refrigerants"

(Federal Register Vol. 63, No 112, June 11, 1998)

The following is a consolidated response from the U .S . Department of Energy (DOE),

prepared by the DOE Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, to the proposed

rule "Protection of Stratospheric Ozone ; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants .

Our comments fall under two categories, comments on specific issues, and responses

to questions in the preamble.

For your convenience, the appropriate Federal Repister page citation precedes each

comment.

Specific comments:

The principal theme of these comments relates to the stringency of new proposed lower

permissible annual leak rates of refrigerants for commercial refrigeration, commercial

and industrial process refrigeration, and chillers .

i. Page 32066, Section IV, B.3:

DOE supports the concept of separate leak rate requirements for new and old

comfort cooling chillers, but believes that the proposed permissible leak rate for

older (i .e., 1992 and earlier) chillers should remain at the current 15% rate . It

should not be lowered to 10% . A 10% rate would impose a financial and

operational burden on owners .

ii . Page 32066, Section IV, B.3 :

While recognizing that EPA has proposed a 20% permissible leak rate for

industrial process equipment, and has proposed four criteria allowing

continuance of a permissible 35% leak rate for such older units, DOE believes

that different criteria for permissible leak rates of at least 15% should be created

for new site-assembled refrigeration units and chillers versus such equipment

assembled in factories . These site-assembled refrigeration units or chillers

would be subject otherwise to proposed 10% or 5% permissible leak rates .

Factory assembled units tend to have lower leak rates, whereas site-assembled

units cannot be guaranteed by contractors to DOE to meet the lower 10% or 5%

proposed permissible leak rates . Due to some of the unique aspects of DOE

defense related work, some refrigerant units must be configured and assembled
p. 6

'

on-site. To this end, and to help simplify the number of permissible leak rate

categories, DOE suggests that equipment that must be assembled on-site be

considered as generic "industrial process equipment" and hence subject to the

associated proposed 20% permissible leak rate, or be separately categorized as

subject to at least a 15% permissible leak rate .

Response to specifically solicited comments :

iii . Page 32067, Section IV 3.b:

In response to comment sought on whether low leak rates from new equipment

will persist throughout the lifetime of the equipment, or will increase as the

equipment ages, DOE observes that new equipment will probably have lower

leak rates, but that these rates will likely increase due to normal wear and tear

over time.

iv . Page 32067, Section IV 3.b-.

In response to comment sought on whether higher or lower leak rates might be

appropriate for different types of commercial equipment--given that compressor

rack systems, single compressor systems and self-contained units may have

significantly different leak rates--DOE believes that EPA should propose

different leak rates for different refrigerant equipment designs . Typically, the

release of refrigerant occurs at seals and 0-rings . Accordingly, hermetically

sealed units can be expected to leak less than single compressor units .

v. Page 32068, Section IV 3.c:

In response to comment sought on the interchangeableness of leaky and nonleaky designs, DOE believes that EPA should modify the Proposed Rule to

provide two different leak rates, one for open drive systems, and one for

hermetically sealed units . Users of refrigeration equipment should be required

to use hermetically sealed units .

vi . Page 32069, Section IV 3.d :

In response to comment sought on the basis of the 1992 dividing line between

old and new units, DOE believes that the basis for doing so was not clear .

There was no measurable breakthrough in design of refrigeration units after

1992 . It would be more appropriate to use a later dividing line (as intimated in

the preamble), and 2000 is so suggested, a date by which new designs,

improved manufacturing practices, and new materials will be available to this

industry.

vii . Page 32069 . Section IV 3.d:

In response to comment sought on the possibility of distinguishing between slow

leakage, servicing emissions, and catastrophic emissions, DOE believes that it