### Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167 40 CFR 82 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements; Proposed Rule (75 FR 78557)

Page 1 of 8 Comment

Number Page Comment

1. 78562 EPA comment request – inclusion of “users” and “use” to the purpose and scope of Subpart F. It is not appropria te to add use to paragraph (a) of the Purpose and Scope section. The additio n of use implies mandatory appliance repair during normal use instead of being on applicable leak rate threshold exceedance. The leak repair provisions only apply once the applicable leak rate threshold is exceeded. Reference EPA 300-B-95-010, Compliance Guidance For Industrial Process Refr igeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 Of the Clean Air Act, (Compliance Guidance). The flow chart on page A-4 and the questions/answers on page D-3 clearly demonstrate leak repairs are only requir ed when the applicable leak rate threshold is exceeded. The page D-3 questi on is: “If the leak rate is less than the trigger rate (for example, a leak rate of 5 percent per 12-month period), am I required to fix the leaks?” The answer is: “No, action is required only when the trigger rate is exceeded.”

While Section 608 does discuss use it only applies “during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration.” It does not apply during operation. Adding the use to the definition goes beyond the legal authority of the Section 608 Clean Air Act Amendments. The proposal to include use goes beyond clear C ongressional intent and Section 608 language and should not be included in th e rule. The language should remain unchanged.

2. 78564

78572 EPA comment request – proposed amendment to the definition of follow-up verification. The follow-up verificatio n definition should not be amended to include a minimum amount of time after initial leak repair verification. The proposed 24 hours minimum is too restrictive and will lead to unnecessary costs and delays in returning equipmen t to service. For example, the delay will require a second service call to the appliance to perform the follow-up verification test and associated costs including scheduling and

remobilization. There is no reason to believe the equipment is more likely to fail the follow-up verification test after 24 hours than if the test was performed as required by the current fa irly lengthy definition. The current definition already generally requires the follow-up verification testing to occur “after the appliance or portion of the appliance has resumed operation at normal operating characteristics. . .” The current requirements adequately test the repairs a nd should not be changed.

### USEC Comments - Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167

Page 2 of 8 Comment

Number Page Comment

3. 78564

78565 EPA comment request – proposal to change § 82.152 full charge determination methods. The purported r eason to change the definition is to “create a streamlined set of regulatory requirements.” The current definition has been in place for an extended time. The regulated community is familiar with the current system and it should be allowed the most flexibility in determining full charge while still m eeting regulatory requirements. For some large and complex industrial process refrigeration (IPR), a combination of methods may be the most practical way to determine full charge determinations. An example of using a combination of methods comes from the Compliance Guidance:

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 manufacturer’s estimates for the tow components (pp. C-1, C-2).

In this example, the best full charge determination is achieved by a combination of methods. The regulated community should be allowed best professional judgment in determining fu ll charge capacity. The appliance owner knows the equipment best and is in the best position to determine the methodology used in determining full ch arge capacity. If a combination of methods has been previously used a nd documented, new resources will have to be unnecessarily expended in order to comply with the proposal and the determination may be less accurate. The proposed change is not necessary

and should not be made.

4. 78565 EPA comment request – assertion proposed definition of leak rate will not pose additional burden. It is reasonable for appliance owners to keep records documenting full charge capacity. As EPA states, this information is already required by regulation. First, the appliance owner must know the full charge capacity of the appliance in order to determine if the appliance is subject to the leak repairs requirements; the owner must know whether or not the appliance contains at least 50 pounds full charge capacity of a class I or class II ozone depleting substance. Second, to determine leak rate and compliance with the leak repair requirements, the full charge capacity of the appliance

must be known in order to calculate an annual leak rate.

### USEC Comments - Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167

Page 3 of 8 Comment

Number Page Comment

5. 78565

78566

78583 EPA comment request – proposed leak rate definition. The proposed leak rate definition is problematic in several areas. First, the proposed definition eliminates Method 1 of the current regulation. Method 1 is likely used by many IPR owners. Changing the definition in midstream would cause them to rework their current compliance methodology including retraining certified technicians, record-keeping practices, ch anges in written procedures, etc. All of this would be costly and increase th e likelihood of noncompliance until the new methodology is fully and completely implemented.

Second, the proposed leak rate definiti on is not practical for large systems that have a continuous leak repair pr ogram. A large IPR appliance may have numerous existing and emergent small leaks. In order to minimize emissions, the appliance owner may have an ongoing leak repair program. In these instances, leak rate would pote ntially have to be calculated and documented on a daily basis. This is impractical, unworkable, and could have the unintended consequence of dela ying leak repairs, thereby increasing

emissions.

Third, the proposed leak rate definition is not clear on when the leak rate must be calculated. The proposed § 82. 156 leak rate equation includes a term of “pounds of refrigerant added since l ast successful follow-up verification.” This implies a leak rate must only be ca lculated if there has been a successful follow-up verification. If the leak rate trigger has not been exceeded, a follow-up verification will never be requi red and subsequently a leak rate calculation will never be required. Is this the intent of the proposed definition? If so, this would stre amline and simplify compliance for those appliances that never trigger the leak repair requirements thereby reducing

associated costs. Clarification of the requirements is needed and if the leak rate calculations are only required afte r the addition of refrigerant since the last successful follow-up verification, it is strongly supported as a streamlining effort and as a burden reduction for the regulated community.

This would also address the second issue a bove in that leak rate calculations are not required for an ongoing leak repair program as long as the trigger rate

is not exceeded.

If the leak rate definition is changed to exclusive use of the rolling average method, the assertion the change will not impose additional burden is false and should not be implemented. The change will result in added costs for certified technician retraining, changes in recordkeeping, changes in written procedures, etc.

### USEC Comments - Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167

Page 4 of 8 Comment

Number Page Comment

6. 78566

78583 EPA comment request – exclusive use of rolling average method in defining leak rate. EPA proposes to require th e exclusive use of the rolling average Method 2 equation (p. 78566). The terms in the numerator of the equation on page 78566 are different than in the leak rate equation and wording in § 82.156. In the first equation, one of th e terms is “pounds of refrigerant added over past 365 days (or since leaks were last repaired, if that period is less than one year).” The numerator in the second equation (which will be the official regulatory language) on page 78583 is “pounds of refrige rant added since last successful follow-up verification (or during the past 365 days if that period is greater than one year)”. The § 82.156 leak rate text contains similar language for the numerator. For Step 1, it states “Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance since the last successful follow-up verification or the number of pounds of refrigerant added during the previous 365-day period (if the last successful follow-up verification occurred more than one year ago)”.

The numerator wording difference is signifi cant. In the first equation, a leak rate must be calculated every time a leak is repaired. This means a simple minor repair such as tightening a leaking gasket or repairing a minor valve leak would require calculation of the l eak rate and associated recordkeeping

activities. If several small leaks in different parts of the appliance are repaired in a single day, the current wording would require a subsequent number of leak rate calculations and associated records. This is not practical or workable for a complex IPR app liance with many small existing and emergent leaks, especially if there is a continuous leak repair program.

The numerator in the § 82.156 leak rate equation and wording in the definition are more workable if the requ irement is to calculate the leak rate only after triggering the leak repair requirements and associated initial andfollow-up verification testing. If this is the case, it will streamline recordkeeping activities for the regulated community.

Regarding the exclusive use of the rolling average method, it is recommended that appliance owners or operators are allowed the flexibility to choose either method. On page 78566, EPA acknowledges many appliance owners use the annualizi ng method; “EPA understands that many appliance owners or operators have chosen to use the Annualizing Method (emphasis added).” Requiring a change “in an effort to provide greater clarity to the leak repair requirements” is not supported unless there is a benefit to the change. Clarity is not a good reason if there is already a system in place that many appliance owners have incorporated into their refrigeration practices. These many owners alread y understand and have implemented the current requirements. Allowing the appliance owner flexibility and the opportunity to use either method is not a complex and confusing issue. Neither of the existing equations is complex or confusing. As discussed above, there is more confusion in the current proposal than either of the existing methods. The Method 1 annualizing method has been recommended

### USEC Comments - Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167

Page 5 of 8 Comment

Number Page Comment

since at least 1995 (EPA 300-B-95-010, Compliance Guidance For Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 Of the

Clean Air Act , p. D-1). In fact, the Compliance Guidance only uses Method 1. The Compliance Guidance was jointly developed by EPA and industry

and would seem to be the best overall approach. Many appliance owners and operators likely rely on the Complian ce Guidance for implementing their leak repair programs.

Another important point to remember is that the Section 608 leak repair requirements apply almost exclusively to existing owners or operators using class I or class II ODS. Presumably new owners or operators will be using new appliances that do not contain class I or class II ODS. Therefore the clarity of the leak repair requirements have no impact on these new owners or operators. Additionally, at existing s ources, as older appliances as replaced, the leak repair requirements disappear fo r that equipment. Since the impacts of the Section 608 leak repair requirements mainly affect sources already complying with the regulatory requirement s, a change to exclusive use of the rolling average method is not justified.

Based on these considerations, a change to the exclusive use of the rolling average method is not supported. The appliance owner or operator should be allowed the flexibility to choose the method that best fits their individual situation. Additionally, the rolling average method should be clarified to

address the issues discussed above. Clarification should be made that the leak rate calculation is only required if the applicable leak rate threshold has been triggered and that it does not require implementation for an ongoing program of repairing minor leaks.

7. 78568 EPA comment request – proposed definition of retire. Clarification is needed on the proposed definition of retire, not only in regards to repair but also in regards to system mothballing. Can an appliance undergo system mothballing for an indefinite period of ti me and then be subsequently retired?

### USEC Comments - Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167

Page 6 of 8 Comment

Number Page Comment

8. 78568 EPA comment request – proposal to repa ir all leaks. While EPA’s goal of fixing all leaks (achieve a zero percent leak rate) is commendable, it is not practical or possible for a large complex system with many components or refrigerant circuits. For some large systems, it would be impossible to leak rate the entire system. The best that ca n be achieved is to verify repairs to system components that are contribu ting to the excessive leak rate.

Clarification is needed for when repair s to “all” leaks is required. Language on page 78568 has the requirement to re pair “all leaks once the leak repair trigger rate has been breached.” Page 78566 discusses leak event which is not defined and requires repairs for all leaks. Is the all leak repair requirement only applicable to when the leak rate trigger rates are exceeded?

The “repair all leaks” requirement assumes all leaks have been and are possible to identify. This is not al ways practical. For large complex IPR appliances, it is not possible to identify numerous small leaks. The leaks may be internal to other equipment and not easily accessed without system shutdown. It is only the larger more substantial leaks that become event, identifiable, and repairable. Even wher e small leaks can be identified, it may not be practical to repair them because it robs resources that are better used for identifying and repairing more subs tantial leaks. The requirement also assumes no new leaks develop during the up to 30 day period allowed for repair. It is likely even if all exis ting leaks could be identified and repaired during the 30 day period, new leaks will have developed. A zero percent leak rate is not reasonable as evidenced by the current and proposed leak rate trigger thresholds. For example, for IPR appliances the current leak rate threshold is 35 percent with a proposed leak rate threshold of 20 percent.

While the repair all leaks requirement appear to be a good idea and may work on smaller, simpler appliances, it is not workable for large, complex appliances and should not be included in the final rule.

### USEC Comments - Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167

Page 7 of 8 Comment

Number Page Comment

9. 78576 EPA comment request – proposed changes in reporting and recordkeeping. The proposed changes to reporting an d record-keeping requirements are not necessary and place additional burdens on both the servicing personnel and the appliance owner or operator. EP A believes the current practices may not provide sufficient information for owners or operators to make decisions on the fate of their appliances. Certai nly the appliance owner or operator is capable of obtaining this information as necessary without an EPA mandate. Appliance owners and opera tors have a vested interest in the cost and operation of their equipment. Let th em use their best professional judgment to make independent inquiries of the servicing technician to obtain the information they may require including re placement costs. This is especially true for appliance owners or operato rs who use in-house service personnel. The additional requirements will increase burdens on the regulated community through costs associated with implementation, changes to recordkeeping activities, retraining of servicing personnel, etc.

The proposed changes in reporting an d recordkeeping should be excluded

from the final rule.

10. 78580 Costs associated with the NPRM. The co sts are grossly underestimated. The proposed rule estimates 133,777 applia nce owners or operators will be affected at an annual cost of $139,803. This amounts to $1.05 per appliance owner or operator. Calculating an ho ur wage rate using EPA’s estimated costs and annual hour burden, results in approximately a $25/ hour labor rate. Using the labor rate and the cost per appliance owner or operator means they will spend less than 3 minutes per year in implementing the new requirements. More realistically an appliance owner or operator will spend many hours per year in new complia nce activities: new record-keeping activities will have to be implemented, in-house service technicians retrained, procedures rewritten, and other administrative costs. Assuming the 133,777 appliance owners or operators spend on ly 4 hours/year (1 hour/quarter) at a labor rate of $25/hour, results in an annual cost of $100/owner or operator. Multiplying the 133,777 owners or operators by $100 results in an annualized cost of $13.4 million. If record-keeping activities are performed on a monthly basis and only 1 hour is expended each month, the annualized cost exceeds $40 million.

### USEC Comments - Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0167

Page 8 of 8 Comment

Number Page Comment

11. General On several occasions, EPA states it is clarifying, simplifying, and streamlining existing regulatory requ irements, for example see the first column on page 78561. This is not the case in several instances, including the proposed changes to record-keeping requi rements, full charge determination methodology, leak rate calculations, etc. Many of the issues identified as requiring clarification have already been addressed with the 1995 issuance of EPA 300-B-95-010, Compliance Guidance For Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 Of the Clean Air

Act. Many of the current proposals conflict with information in the Compliance Guidance which will make it of limited value if the proposals are finalized. It is important to rememb er the Compliance Guidance was a joint venture between industry and EPA with apparent agreement of what is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the leak repair regulations for IPR appliances. The Compliance Guidance explains the regulatory requirements in a simple, straight-forward, step-b y-step format. It includes common questions and answers. The Complianc e Guidance has been a very valuable compliance demonstration tool. If the proposed changes affecting the Compliance Guidance are finalized, what will take its place?

Another issue is the wisdom of making ch anges to practices that have been in place and accepted for over 15 years. The regulated community is familiar with the current requirements, and ther e will be a negative learning curve for appliance owners and operators and service technicians. Retraining of certified technicians is not addressed in the proposal. Certainly this will have a huge impact on the regulated community. Changes to the routine practices that have been in place for at least 15 years will be problematic, especially without a requirement for retraining and recertification. If retraining and recertification are required, as they should be for changes of this magnitude, the implementation costs of the proposal balloon to unacceptable levels. The proposal estimates 138,000 affected app liance owners and operators. This

commenter estimates the cost of individual recertification to be approximately $200 including time for attending refresher training and the cost of the test. Assuming each affected owner or operator uses at least one individual certified technician means the cost of retraining and recertification would equal $27.6 million. The proposal’s preferred scenario projects costs at $38.2 million. The cost or retraining and/or recertification would alone increase costs to $65.8 million. This does not include other estimated administrative costs estimated to be at least $100 per affected appliance owner or operator which totals over $13.7 million. Adding in this cost increases the cost to $80 million – over double the amount in the proposal and this is believed to be very conser vative. This casts doubt on the wisdom of the proposed changes, especially in the light of a waning population of appliances that use the phased-out class I and class II ozone depleting substances. The proposed changes are not cost effective, especially considering the current economic climate of the country. The proposed changes should not be finalized.