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 appropriate to add use to paragraph (a) of the 

Purpose and Scope section. The addition 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 Refrigeration 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 required when the applicable leak rate 

threshold is exceeded. The page D-3 question 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 Congressional intent and Section 608 

language and should not be included in the rule. The language should remain 

unchanged. 

2.

78564 

78572 

EPA comment request – proposed amendment to the definition of follow-up 

verification. The follow-up verification 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 equipment 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 fairly 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 and 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 reason 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 meeting 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 full charge capacity. The appliance 

owner knows the equipment best and is in the best position to determine the 

methodology used in determining full charge capacity. If a combination of 

methods has been previously used and 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, changes in written procedures, etc. All 

of this would be costly and increase the likelihood of noncompliance until the 

new methodology is fully and completely implemented. 

Second, the proposed leak rate definition is not practical for large systems 

that have a continuous leak repair program. 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 potentially have to be calculated and 

documented on a daily basis. This is impractical, unworkable, and could 

have the unintended consequence of delaying 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 last successful follow-up verification.” 

This implies a leak rate must only be calculated 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 required and subsequently a leak rate 

calculation will never be required. Is this the intent of the proposed 

definition? If so, this would streamline 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 after 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 above 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 the 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 the 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 refrigerant 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 significant. 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 leak 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 appliance 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 requirement is to calculate the leak rate 

only after triggering the leak repair requirements and associated initial and 

follow-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 annualizing 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 already 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 Compliance 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 sources, as older appliances as replaced, 

the leak repair requirements disappear for that equipment. Since the impacts 

of the Section 608 leak repair requirements mainly affect sources already 

complying with the regulatory requirements, 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 time 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 repair 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 can be achieved is to verify repairs to 

system components that are contributing to the excessive leak rate. 

Clarification is needed for when repairs to “all” leaks is required. Language 

on page 78568 has the requirement to repair “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 always 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 where 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 substantial 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 existing 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 and record-keeping requirements are not 

necessary and place additional burdens on both the servicing personnel and 

the appliance owner or operator. EPA believes the current practices may not 

provide sufficient information for owners or operators to make decisions on 

the fate of their appliances. Certainly the appliance owner or operator is 

capable of obtaining this information as necessary without an EPA mandate. 

Appliance owners and operators have a vested interest in the cost and 

operation of their equipment. Let them use their best professional judgment 

to make independent inquiries of the servicing technician to obtain the 

information they may require including replacement costs. This is especially 

true for appliance owners or operators 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 and recordkeeping should be excluded 

from the final rule. 

10. 78580 

Costs associated with the NPRM. The costs are grossly underestimated. The 

proposed rule estimates 133,777 appliance 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 hour 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 compliance 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 only 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 requirements, for example see the first 

column on page 78561. This is not the case in several instances, including the 

proposed changes to record-keeping requirements, 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 remember 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-by-step format. It includes common 

questions and answers. The Compliance 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 changes to practices that have been in 

place and accepted for over 15 years. The regulated community is familiar 

with the current requirements, and there 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 appliance 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 conservative. 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.