National Environmental Development Association ' s Clean Air Project February 14 , 2011 Memb e rs : ALCOA Inc

. Docket ID

. No. E PA-HQ

- OAR-2 003-0167 U.S

. Environmental Protecti o n Agency Office of Atmospheric Pro gram s: Mail Code 6205-J 1200 Penn sylvania A venue , NW. Wa s hington , DC 20460 banks

. juliu s@ cpa.gov The Boeing Company ConocoPhilllps Company Chrysler Group LLC Ell Lilly & Company ExxonMobil Corporation Georgla.Paciflc LLC Inte l Corporation In vista S

. a
. r
. l

. Koch Industries

. Inc

. Merck & Co

.. Inc

. Occidental Petroleum Corporation Procter & Gamble Company Weyerhaeuser Corporation Counsel:

. Leslie Ritts , Esquire 

### Re: Protection of Stratosp h eric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Req uireme n ts; Pr oposed Rule: 75 Fed. Reg. 78558 (Dec. 15. 2011 )

. D e ar Sir or Madam:
NEDA/CAP appreciates thi s opportunity to offer comments o n the propo sa l to re vise in sig nific ant ways the exis tin g regulations for repairin g , replacin g , and retrofitting cove red refrigeration equip ment includin g indust rial process refrigeration a ppliances and comfort cooling appliances ( i. e. air conditioners). NE DA/CAP is a coa li t ion of maj o r American manu fact urers from man y indu s trial secto r s. Th e Project wa s formed in 1979 to o ffer a balanced p e r s pective o n Clean Air reg u lations th at affect the environm e nt a nd the economy. All of our m emb e r s operate facilities that a re s ubject to th e leak d etection and pre ve ntion provi s io n s of thi s regulatio n. Of most concern are the following changes, o n w hi c h we off er c omments be low:

• Lowering th e tr i gger for leak rates f o r re pairin g covere d equipment fro m 35%

-to20 % for indu s trial process refri ge rati o n applianc es and from 20% to I 0 % for comfort cooling appliances • Altering the definiti o n s for dete rminin g "f ull charge," mandatin g d eta il e d documentation of the method s fo r determining full charge and e limi natin g flex ibility in curre nt methods. a nd ame nding the exe mpti o n fo r seasonal varian ces; • D e leti o n ofthe annualized meth o d of d e terminin g lea ka ge ba se d o n E PA ' s belief tha t no one us es it. • A mending require ment s and altering the time fra m e f o r initial a nd fo ll ow - up ve rificati o n tes t s: • R emova l o f th e 120-day exemption for indu strial refrigeration systems: • Mandating the repla ce ment o r re tr ofit of "wor s t leakers " based on three l eaks during a s ix mo nth period , and ; • Mandating detail e d rec o rdkeepin g and other d oc um e nt ation r equirements for l eak re pairs and f or serv ice record s , in c ludin g transfer a nd di s p osa l of refrigerants; • A proliferation of complic ate d and unnecessary recordkeeping r eq uireme nts; and The Carriage House , 620 Fort Williams Parkway Alexandria , Virginia 22304 Phone : 703.823.2292 Fax : 571

. 970

. 3721NE DA/CAP Co mm e nts on Sec t io n 608 R efri ge r an t Leak R ev is ions Rul e Feb rua ry 14, 2011

• Ame n ding oth er pivota l r e lated program definitions suc h as "compo n ent."


### DI SCUSS IO N
I

. Ge ne ral C omm e n ts
EPA 's s tatements in th e Genera l Summary of the rule th at suggest th at the proposed r ule merely would "streamline" the leak detecti o n and repair regu lations at 40 CFR part 82 , Subpart F
are misleading. Id. , at 78558. Whi le NED AICA P agrees that some of the changes clarify requi rements by eliminating phrases that may be confus ing , other p roposed revisions are likely to add significant comp li ance costs for manufacture r s and still others improperly blur important disti n ctions between industria l refr i gerat i on and air condit i oning systems. T hese changes, according to EPA's own ana l ysis at page 78569 of the Notice , are pred i cted to result in costs between 30 and 50 times hi g h e r than the monetized benefits they will are intended to drive (i.e., reduction of releases or " leak s" of ozone depleting compounds in the environment that have been determined to harm the stratospheric ozone layer). Moreover , in o ur view, the agency has provided little evidence of a problem that these extensive costs will so lve , although the Agency concludes that reducing the l eak rate tri ggers for all appliance are likely to increase re pairs and / o r rep lacement s or retrofits of appliances no m ore than 5% for industr ia l process refr i geration un i ts and les s than I % for air conditioners. NEDA/CAP therefore submits that the proposed rev isions to Section 608 regulations s ho uld not be finalized. 

### Qu es ti o n R egarding th e S co pe of E P A ' s S ta tut ory A uth ori ty

- NE D A / CAP also quest i ons whether the proposed regulations imp er miss ibly expand the scope of these regu lations
u n der the C l ean Air Act. The proposal states that "The purpose and scope of t h is subpart i s t o reduce the u se and emissions of ozone -dep leting refrige rants to the l owest ach ievable leve l and encourage th e u se of substitutes , by maximizing the recapture and recycling of s uch ozone depleting s ub stances durin g the use , service , maintenance, repair and disposal of appliances and by restricting the sale of refrige rants in accordance with T itle VI of the Clean Air Act. " However , Section 608 (a) of the Clean air Act only provides EPA w ith the authority to estab lish "standards and r equirements regard ing the use an d disposal of c l ass I substances dur in g the serv ice, r epa ir , or disposal of appliances and industria l process refrigeration. We hope EPA wi ll address th i s issue if it finalize s the rule and discuss how revision s to the regulations are necessary to meet the goa ls of the Act which are designed to eliminate the us e of certain ODS that have been identified internati o nall y by treaty to harm the stratospheric ozo ne layer. 

### G r ee nhou s e G a s Wa rmin g Potenti a l

- A r elated concern i s how EPA has reconciled the provis i ons of this program with the agency's polic ies on reduction of Greenhouse Gases (G H Gs). Under the ODP s ubstitution program , a numb er of replacement OOPs such as R

- 134A are H CFC s and ha ve very high greenhouse warming potential (GW P). While leaks of any refrigerant are intended to be avoided , it is difficult to square the use of high GWP ODP substitutes when the Agency is clearly trying to r ed uce GHGs of much , much lower GWP through other Clean Air Act regu l at ion. For instan ce, it is incongruent that EPA fee ls compe ll ed to req ui re retrofits of manufactur ing equ ipment that emit carbon dioxide , which has about l /20,000 1h of the GWP of HCFC 134A , and a much high e r GWP than current refrigerants s uch as R

- 22. If the se rules are meant to drive subs titution of H CFCs , GWP is a critical aspect to be considered s in ce ODP
2j PageNE DA/ CA P C omments on Sect ion 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rul e February 14, 2011

s ubstitution itse lf se ems to u s to re present anoth e r host of pot e ntial e nvironmental and s pecifically Clean Air Act iss ues associate d with the manufacture of OD S substitutes and leak s fro m ref rige ration eq uipme nt. If this rulemaking is finalized , EPA shou ld exami ne the policies and goals of Title VI o f the Clean Air Act and the age ncy ' s goals w ith re s p ect to greenhouse gas emissions.
Fina ll y, NEDA/CAP a g ree s with other organizat ions that h ave commented pub licl y that for EP A, wh ic h is stru gglin g to d e al with the my ri ad requirements of th e Clean Air Act Ame ndments that remain un ad dressed after 20 years , includin g but n o t limited to Nationa l Emission Stan dards fo r Hazard o u s Air Po llutants from utility and indu stria l bo il ers as well as th e transport of cr it eria air p o llut a nt s from state-to-state and re gio n-to -r eg io n , thes e proposed cost ly revisions to regulations is hi g hly problematic , if not at cross purpo ses w ith the Pre s ident ' s recent announcements regarding the nee d for regulati o n s that w ill have untoward consequences for manufacturers in the U nited States wi th o ut s ub stant i a l benefi ts. NE DA/CA P addresses specific pro p osed c h anges below.
II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS
A. Lowering the leak repair trigger rates for comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration and industrial proces s refrigeration and air condition equipment with ozone refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds.
EPA proposes to lower th e lea k rate s for requiring that an app li ance be re pair ed, re tire d , or r et

rofitte d

. A breac h of the se tri gge r rates sets in motion requirem e nts to address th e appliance as a whole by r e quiring a tim e ly repair , verification of the repair und e r normal operating condit ions , an d po ssible rep l aceme nt of a co mponent and/or rep lace ment of the e ntire appliance i f it shows a history of leak events. ( It is n ot a v io l ation for the operato r to di scover a leak greater than these triggers , but it is a v io lati o n to fail to repair, re tire or retro fit the unit within 30 d ays.). EPA pro poses to redu ce leak rate repair triggers f o r commerci al refri ge ration appliances a nd indu st rial process re fri ge rati o n applianc es from 35% to 2 0% a nd to redu ce the l eak rate repa ir trigge r from 15% to 10 % f o r comfort cool in g appl ian ces. EPA ha s es timated th e cos t of thi s proposed change to be $38.2 million d o llars and th e monetized benefit of thi s c han ge would be $1.6 million. 

### !d. at 78570. While emiss io n reductions are va lu ab l e , hav in g a monetized benefit of o nl y $ 1 .6 milli on with a cost of $38 million does not appear to be a reasonable trade off. For this and other reasons discussed b elow , NE D A/CA P ur ges E PA to reta in the current le ak rate triggers

. Requested Input from Manufacturers on Impacts of Proposed Levels : EPA asks for input on the ability of owner s or operato rs of commercial refrigeration , co mf o rt cooling a nd indu strial process refrigeration appliances to rep air leaks with in 30 days when app li a nc es leak above these tri gger levels. 

### /d. , at 78571. In response , we want to e mpha s ize throughout these comme nt s that it is more diffi c ult to repair, rep lace o r retrofit indu str ial process equipment components than it is to rep lace o r retrofit comfort coo ling components, because indu s trial re frigeration sys te m s are integrate d and spec ially eng in eere d into proces s e quipment , requirin g s hutdown of process eq uipment for repair and dependin g on the equ ipme nt , s ub stanti a l lead time to d es ig n replacement compone nt s or rep l acement. Recognizing these engineering a nd cost issues ( f ro m s huttin g down

31Pa geNE DAICA P Com me nts o n Sec ti o n 608 R efr ig era nt Leak R ev i s i o n s Rul e F eb ru a ry 14 ,20 11
process equip me n t so t hat repairs can be made), there i s li tt l e quest i on in ou r m in ds that red ucti on of the leak rates as proposed could trigger more repairs wh ich wou l d require fac i lity or process downtime. E PA must allow more time for repairs requiring process shutdown for ind u strial process refrigeration appliances in the first instance. However, even if EPA fails to provide more time for industrial process repairs requ ir ing shutdow n , the current 35% leak rate p rovides industry
w i th m uch g r eate r flex ibi li ty than afforded by the 20% leak rate trigger. 

### In general , we believe that most compa nies who discover s low leaks in th e ir ind u stria l p r ocess eq ui pment w ill plan to fix those known leaks as soo n as possi b le or whe n sc heduled o utages and seasonal manufacturi ng process unit " turn

- arounds " next occur. G iven that these industrial process refrigeration units are integral part s of the production processes at facil ities , fa ilure to maintain this equipment could result in unplanned and costly downtime at a facility and therefore we be lieve that industry maintenance practices are sufficient to m inim i ze l eaks of ozo n e-dep let ing materials to the atmosphere.
The revised 10% trigger rate for air conditioners and coolers is nonetheless also concerning. From manufactu rers' perspectives , while repairing these units within 30 days is far mo re feasible then shutting down process equipment to repair industrial ref r igeration assemblies, lowering the l eak t r igger to l 0% may prompt retrofits or replacements with other equ ip ment th at w ill have a like lih ood of c h a ll e n gi n g annua l cap ita l budge ts a n d com p et in g fo r other po ll u ti o n contro l a nd process change resources. Replacement of ai r conditions for certa in manufacturing that is spaceconstrained may also create engineering concerns for replacing roof units for which structural engineering is requ ired since the footpri n t of new equipment seems generally larger to handle less efficient refrigerant substitutes.
Re l ev a n ce of EPA 's R ev iew of Ca li fo r n i a Data: As a bas is for l owe rin g th e l eak rate tri ggers , EPA discusses the agency's rev i ew ofth ousan ds of app li ance repa ir r ecords m a in tained by California ' s SCAQMD and determ ined that lowering the lea rate to 20% for industrial process refrigeration w i ll result in slightly less than 5% of systems facing mandatory repairs in 30 days and lowing the leak rate to I 0% for comfort cooling appliances will resu lt in slightly less than 1 %of sys tems facing mandatory repairs within 30 days. The data EPA references o n page 7857 1 of the Notice co me from the commercia l ref ri geration syste m s in s u permarkets and i s n ot necessarily pertine n t s ince grocers may be more sensit ive to di mi nis h ed performance of refrige rators , particularly for perishable foods. Second, NEDA/CAP questions whether it i s reasonab le to re ly on repair record data from the South Coast A ir Quality Management Dist rict as a basis for the pro p osed decis ion because there is so little industry located there. NEDA/CAP therefore urges E PA to study additional impac t s before th e proposed revisions to the leak rate defin it i ons are fi n a l i zed. H owever, if EP A's current ana l ysis is correct a nd very few add itio n a l repairs and/or replacements or retr ofits of app li a n ces o r co mponents are li ke ly to occ ur, then there is little basis to final i ze this proposal. B efore fin" alizing these rule revisions, NEDA/CAP urges EPA to sample otherjurisdictions where there is s ig nificant in dustrial activity in the northeast, Midwest or Texas, it would find a much more substantial eco n omic effect on businesses as a result of changing the percentages for both industrial refrigeration appliances and air co n d it ioners.
Le a k Rate Detection Methodo logy - EPA's Notice proposes severa l funda me ntal changes to the defin it i on of l eak rate which a lso may make the app lication of the new triggers even more onerous. NEDA / CAP bel ieves these changes are not of a streamlining nature and that

4 1PageNEDA/CAP Comments on Sect io n 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rul e February 14 ,2 011 they will reduce flexibility and increases the comp lex ity of determining full charges for calculating leak rates. For t h ese and the following reasons, we believe that EPA should not finalize the proposed changes. Definition of 

### "f ull charge:" EPA's proposed revision of " full charge" is likely to limit cu rrent flex ib ility in the program to determine the applicability of the leak detection and repair / replacement program by requiring that an operator commit to one methodol ogy for determining the " full charge " of an appliance. In addition the proposal wo uld also el iminate the current option to consider use of combination of methods for calcu latin g " full charge. " EPA reasons that allow ing a combination of methodologies is not in lin e with one ofthe goals of this NPRM " to create a streamlined set of regulations. " 

### !d. , at 78564.
EPA shou ld not modify the definition of full charge in a manner that disall ows 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 certa in instances 1 • If E PA disallows us e of a combinati o n of methods , which was previously allowed , owner s will need to re-calculate full charge us ing one of the remaining methods , which in a number of instances will result in less accurate calculations of full charge and/or necessitate s ubstantial review and rev is ion to all previous full charge ca l cu lations and procedures. Since EPA 's primary motivati on for this proposed change , as explained in the regulation , is to "s treamline " the rules, NE DA members do n ot s upport it. Moreover , we think that it will fo rce unnecessary re-calculations and repairs , and in tandem with lower leak trigge r rates , the possibly retrofits and or replacements that the Agency has not assessed.
E limin a ti on of annualizing method from the definition of " leak rate" -Th e Agency also proposes to remove the annualizing meth od (Method 1) from the definition of leak rate because "EPA believes that the Rolling Averag e method is more in line with what most in the regulated community wo uld con s ider as a true rolling average. " 

### !d. , at 

### 78, 566. EPA s tates , "Accordingly , the proposed d e finition states that the leak rate is expressed in terms of the percentage of the appl ianc e's full charge that ha s been lost since the last successful repair over a consecutive 12-month peri od. " 

### !d.
First , based on NEDA 's me mbership practices and general discussions with other industry groups, EPA's s uggestion that no one is using the ann uali zed method is erroneous. On an informal survey basis , it appears that we ll over half of our companies use Method , the annualized method. Befor e EPA can proceed to finalize the proposed revisions , it needs to assess the conseque n ces of the proposed c hange , its benefits and costs. Second, if after considering the impact of such a cha nge in methodology the agency decides to impl eme nt the change , it also

1 • See "Co mpliance Guidance For Industrial Pr ocess Refri geration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of the C lean Air Act " Prepared by The Chemical Manufacturers Association and Th e Environmental Protection Agency, October 1995 , Page C 1-2, e. " Combinations of a through d. For example suppose yo u have a system that cons ists of two components connected by pipe or tubing

. The len gth 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 h ow much refri ge rant is in the length of pipe o r tubin g for your sys tem and then add that amount to the manufa c turers' estimate for the t wo co mponents. " SIP ageNEDA/CAP Comments on Secti on 608 Refrigerant Leak Revis i o n s R u le Febru ary 14 , 20 11

s hould provide a two year transition period to imp l e m e nt the change , because the change will require sys tem changes and training to implement properly.
Co n s ideratio n of Seaso n a l Va r ia n ces i n Deter m i ning a Fu ll Cha r ge - EPA ' s definition of ' ' full c har ge " a lso changes h ow operators account for seasona l variances in determining the full charge. EPA proposes to add a definition of seasonal variance only in Option 2 in the definition of"full charge " at §82.152 , as follows: " The need to add refrig e rant to an applianc e due to a change in ambie nt conditions caused by a change in seaso n , followed by the subsequent removal of refrigerant in the corresponding change in season , where both the addition and r emova l of refrigerant occurs w ithin one consecutive 12

- month period. NE OA / CAP objects to this arbitrary definition because weather variation between winter and summer may or may n o t require exactly the same c hange of coolant.
B. Verifi ca t io n Tests
The curre nt requireme nt s for verification of repairs only apply to indu strial process refrigeration and federally owned commercial and comfort cooling appliance. Howe ver , EPA's revisi o n s affect comfort cooling as well because the agency is concerned that without any requirement to verify repairs , there w ill be continued l eaks, especia ll y from aging eq uipment. EPA says that it "sees no reason why veri fication s h o uld not be mandated for all types of appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. " 

### !d. , at 78572. Theref ore the agency has proposed that all types of appliances be subject to new repair requirements and revised require m ents for initial and follow-up verification of repairs. We discuss each requirement below. Requ ire m e n t to Re p a i r a ll Leaks: EPA proposes on page 78568 to require in 82.156 (i) that when the leak rate exceeds trigger level s , ··all " leaks must be repaired within 30 days. As EPA point s 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. NE OA / CAP ' s members object to this requireme nt as ambiguous and arbitrary. First of all, the rule should b e to require responses to "a ll known leaks. " Second, depending on their locations , some leak s may not be rea so nab l y able to be repaired within 30 days , so EPA's rule should provide that if suc h leaks are identified, extensions for repairing them may be necessary if the location and reason for additional maintenance time is necessary. This will particularly be the
case , as we already have discussed , when th e leak occurs fr om industrial refrigerati o n systems. Not only does a process unit have to be dismantled to make the repair, but the manufacturing process ha s to be shutdown , necessitating losse s in the form of produc

. t , downtim e and potential contract is s u es with customers. Ini t ia l Re p a irs : Proposed requ i rements at Sectio n 82.1560) EPA would require that the leak rate be ca lculate d "immediately " upon each addition of refrigerant to the appliance. This requirement does not appear to be necessary or appropriate. First, there is a lag time between the receipt of information from serv ice providers to appliance owners who calculate th e leak rate , and this lag w ill certainly be amp lified if EPA expands service rec o rd s as has been proposed. It a lso does not seem necessary to calculate the l e ak rate " immediately, " and therefore we s uggest that EPA provide that the leak rate be calculated in a r easo nable way , but no longer than two weeks following receipt of service records from the co ntractor. 6jPa geNEDAICAP Co mm ents on Sec t ion 608 R efrige r ant Leak Revisions Rul e February 14, 2011



### I n it ia l Ve r ificati o n : Fo r s imilar reasons , N E DA /C AP thinks it is unn ecess ary for EPA to include the word " imm e d iately" for an init ial ver i fication test. See proposed Sec. 82. 1 56( i )(l)

. It may be prudent to wait a brief per i od for s uc h init ial ve r ificat i on of the repa ir , a n d immediately exa minin g the equipment may re s u lt in a leak go in g und e tected. Therefore NE D NCA P suggests EPA s h o uld remove th e word immediately fro m the r eg ulat ory requirement so that the provision would read 

### "Owne rs o r operato rs shall conduct an initial ve rific ation test a t a reasonable period after conclus ion of the repairs, not to exceed 24 hours "


### Fo llo w -up ve rifi cati o n tes t s: Under the proposed revisions to the rul e, follow-up repair ve rificati o ns may not be conducted until at least 24 ho ur s after completion of re pai r s and no later than 30 days fol l owing the repa irs. 

### See propose d §82. 152 (definitions). The current prog ram require s a follow up verificatio n test " as soon as practicab l e after the repair is comp l eted

. " EPA exp lain s that the 24 hour lag time is necessary to make certain that service per so nn e l return to c h eck the repair after the appliance is operating und e r n o rmal o peration characteri stics and conditions. 

### ld. , at 78563

-4. EPA believes that many operators have follow-up verificati o n s performe d immed iately upon completion of the initial ve rificati o n , before n orma l operating cond iti o n s are resum ed and th at by imposing a 24 h our precondition before fo ll ow - up ve rificati o n , fewer leaks and failures will reocc ur . 

### ld. , at 78564

. NEDNCAP di sag re es with EPA's assertion s and s uggests that the change s hould not be made because i t i s un n ece ssary and because w ill impo se s i g n ificant costs on operators that do not have on - site certified refrige rant se rvice maintenance. For those operato r s , EPA i s essentially doubling the cost of serv ic e b y requiring an additional se rv ice v isit.
EPA's proposal h as two fundamental prob lem s. F ir st, certain equipment returns to n o rmal operations immediat ely following a service call a nd it i s perfectly v alid to test it then. Without s upp ort for EPA 's assertions that follow

- up verificat i o ns that occ ur before the e lapse of 24 h o urs after a r e pair, it i s difficult to assess EPA 's " be l ief " th at failure to wait 24 hours is a pivotal factor in failures . Second, this req uire ment will impo se considerable expense for s ma ll and medium ope rators that do not hav e on-s ite certified mainte n ance because fac i lities must pay the additional cost of a se parate ser vice ca ll. A s ide from the costs , thi s will also mean that data must be co ll ecte d from repair technician s two different tim es o n the same repair, and someone must remember to sc hedule the call , and follow up to m a ke s ure the call occurs t imel y. T o justify thi s add iti o n a l cost , and the ad mini strat ive complexity th at th e source must th en man age, EPA provides no data that unrepaired leaks are mo r e frequen tl y found " after the appliance ha s o perated under normal cond itions over an exten ded peri o d of time (b ut n o longer than 30 days) " than they are found imm ediate l y after th e ap pli a nc e ha s returned to " n o rmal operating conditions. "
For these rea so n s, NEDA/ CA P recommend s that EPA should mod ify the proposed r eq uirement to allow the owner / operator to conduct the fo ll ow-up verification te s t a s soo n as the a pplian ce 

### "has achieved normal operating conditions after a repair. " A 24

- h o ur wa iting period should not be add e d to the requirements since th i s e lim in a tes the possibility o f makin g a repair and conducti ng the fo ll ow-up verification durin g the same wo rk day by maintenance o r service per so nnel w h o are fam il iar w ith th e repairs to the equ ipm e nt. Thus , th e d e fini tion of " Follow

- up

7 1 P ageNE DA/CAP Co mments o n Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Re vi sions Rule Februa ry 14 ,20 11 verification test" in Section 82.152 should also be modified to remove the no sooner than 24 hour after completion restriction. " 

### C. Requirements to Develop a nd Complete Retrofit/Retirement Plans
EPA proposes several c h anges to the requirements for operators of leakin g equ ipment to develop and implemen t retrofit a nd retirement plans. C urrentl y sources that have fai l ed an initial
or follow-up verification test must develop a dated and written retrofit or retirement plan within 30 days of the failed verification and implement it within one year. EPA proposes that such plans should be implemented within 6 months. Six months is an extremely s h ort period for the replacement of large equipment which is likely to require capitalization (i

. e., the project cannot be implemented with maintenance budgets which limit ex pendi ture amounts to l ess than $ 10 ,000

- $100,000 , depending on the s ize of the company). A lso, as already discussed, indu strial refrigeration systems, which are integrated with process equipment, frequently require extensive engineering involving the process equipment , unique design and fabricatio n off

- site , and finally , shutdown of process equipment for potentially extensive periods of time to replace or retrofit. There also has been some concern expressed that even for roof air conditioning units , add ition al stru ctura l engineering may be needed to safely remove and replace a n air conditioner with a new unit. While we understand that EPA believes th at l 2 month s may be too long for some replacements or retrofits of air conditioning units particularly , 6 months is too short and the shorter period is not supported w ith out additional assessment by the agency's " that leaks are continuing. " Therefore , EPA ' s proposal has at least two problems: first , automatic extensions are not allowed for engineering or production reasons (this is not the missing component problem. " ) Second, the six month proposal totally ign ores an important business reality about the time needed for app rova l of capital budget items. Whi l e this may be less of a problem for multinational industries like NEDA's memb ers. it is going to be a vastly more problematic i ssue for small and medium size manufacturing businesses. As a result , NEDA/CAP suggests that EPA retain the current provision, or that it allow additional time for the replacement or retrofit of industrial refrigeration systems provided documentation shows that the operator is reasonably diligent in implementing the replacement o r retrofit.
Extensions a utom atic b ut s hortened for r e placement and r etrofit plan s: NEDA/CAP agrees that the regulatory extension process in the current rules is complex a nd confusing. When
an extension is requ ired due to the unavailability of parts within 12 weeks of the 6 month period to complete retrofit plans , EPA proposes to limit the extension to an additional 12 weeks beyond the data that the necessary parts or co mp onents are delivered. Such extensions would be automatic and not contingent on a written request and EPA response, but they wou ld be contingent on documentation detailed in the proposed revisions. As discussed above , NEDA/CAP supports the automatic exemption but believes that it is not broad enough to cover shutdowns , eng ineering delays due to design and fabrication of equipment , delays that result from cap italizat ion justifications and other related corporate procedures , and o th er production and business delays. As long as these justifications are documented with supportin g information, EPA should broaden the bases for automatic extensions and extend these to six additiona l month s. Proposed removal of 120 day exem ptio n for s hu tdown s: The existi ng regulations at Section 82.156(i)(3)(iv) provide a 120

- day exemption when owner s or operators of indu strial

81P ageNEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revi s ions Ru le February 14 ,2 011
process refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial process shutdown. EPA proposes to rem ove this exemption period for purpose s of streamlining the regulation s for air conditioners and indu strial process refrigerati o n syste ms. However the proposal is unreasonable if its basis is to streamline the two se t s of requirements because indu strial refrigeration systems are fundamentally different from cooling systems and as a general matte r require shutdown of manufacturing processes in order to d i smant le the equipment. Air conditioning equipment can be more or Jess swapped out and piping changes if they are nece ssary do not gene rall y require interruption of most manufacturing process units for long periods of time. However, indu strial ref ri geration units are integrated into process equ ipment , generally at several production steps on a manufacturing lin e. Conseq uentl y there i s a rati o nale purpose for leav in g the existing exemption in place , which EPA ' s proposal large ly ig n ores in favor of"streamlining. " NEDA/CAP urge s E PA to leave the ex i st ing 120 day exemption in place for leak s from indu strial refrigeration syste m s so that losses from production that must be interrupted to remedy a leak can be minimized , reducing ancillary sign ificant costs to bus inesses and potent ial resultin g losses to employees and communities. 

# C

**~** D. NE D A/CAP Ob j ects to the "T hre e Strikes" and You ' re Out Worst Leaker Provisions.
The proposed rule at Section 82.1560)(4) would require an operator to replace an entire indu strial process refrigeration sys tem after three failed l eak verification attempts within 6 months. Not only is the proposed requirem e nt a potential disincentive to try to repair leaks in the most expeditious manner (for fear of failure of three verification tests within a 6 month s), but there are other alternatives that are less costly and equa ll y effective. In particular, NE D A/CAP's members urge EPA to consider requiring the replacement ofthe specific component or components at which the leaks are occurrin g instead of requiring the retrofit or replacement of the ent ire industrial process refrigeration syste m . In addition, the regulations s h ou ld allow an operator a full 18 0 days to address leaks and impl ement additional repairs , without fear of failing to repair the leak during one of the first three le ak repair attempts. NEDA/CAP therefore supports the a lternati ve proposal m ade by the American Chemistry Council for modifying at Sect i on 82.156 

### G) (4) ofthe rule as follows:


### Owners and operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial process refrigeration appliances must repair th e 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(/) of this sec tion, 

## if th e 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. 

## E

.

o lume of Records

- EPA is proposing s ign ificant changes in recordkeeping- so much so that we are surprised that this proposal does not qualify as a major regu latory action because of the impacts for operators which will need to keep full documentation of how full charges were determined , detailed service records including initial verification and follow

- up verification tests based on minimum recordkeeping requirements detailed in the proposal and detailed records of

91P ageNE D A/CAP Co mm e nts o n Sectio n 608 R ef ri ge r an t Leak R ev is i o n s R ul e Feb ru ary 14 , 20 11 refrigerants that are transported off site. We do agree with E PA , however , t h at as lo n g as these records are maintained o n s ite for three years, n o rep ort ing require ments are necessary. Becau se of the s ignifica nt changes that EPA proposes, NE D A/CAP urg es EPA to provide at l east a I yea/r from th e effective date of th e fina l rule to pha se in to the recordkeep in g changes. T hi s time will allow ow ner s and service companies to modify data sys tems and ret ra in technician s. Add itional time will also accommodate tec h n ician tra ining provider s wh ich we b e lieve w i ll be required for both ons ite ma inte n ance a n d off site service provide rs to be update d regard in g the additiona l requirements.
Re le va n ce of Certa in Servic e R ecor d s: NE DA/ C AP a l so urges the Agency to clarify that the pro p osa l 's recordkee pin g require ment s are only appl icable when the mainte nance or repair of an appl iance involv es the addition of re frigerant. Maintenance , serv i c e or re pair where the refr ige rant i s removed a n d replaced without additiona l refri ge rant sho u ld be cl ea rly excl u de d from the recordkeeping r e quire ments o r the vo lume of records and c lutter of information will interfere w ith tracking reco rd s r e lated to refrigera nts. We also suggest that the proposed sec tion 82.166(m) should state that the requirement fo r ref r igerant s disposal i s sati s fi ed by manifests and related records required to be m ainta in ed by the operato r under the Reso urce Conservation and Recovery Act.

" R eco rd s a t th e "a ctu a l s ite" of th e a ppli a nce: Two part i cular aspects of
r eco rdke e pin g see med particularl y peculiar. EPA 's rule s at 82. 156 (I) ( I ) would requir e leak records to be ma intained a t the physical locati o n of an appliance. A lso retrofit plan s would be required to be maintained "o n- s ite at the physical location of the affecte d appliance in accordance with 82.1 66 ( n)

. We suggest that a better alternat ive might b e to ma intain e l ectronic centralized
recordkeep ing because of th e detai l t h at w ill be involve d , w ith m in imu m logs or eve n " taggi n g " regardin g se rvice at the " actual " lo cation of the appliance.) 

### ' '

\ F. Oth e r C h a n g e s Affec tin g 

### § 82

. 152- D e finit i on s
D e finiti o n of Component : EPA prop ose d to change th e definit ion of "C r i tical (Applianc e) Co mponent" b y deleting the tetm "c r it i ca l" and also de leting the w o rd "safety " from the definiti o n. Th e definiti o n of th e new term "co mp o nent ," will mean an "applian ce compone nt , such as but not limited to compressors, conde nsers, evaporator s, receivers and a ll o f it s c onn ections and sub a sse m blies with out which the ap plianc e will notproperly function and/or will be s ubjec t to failu res. " Pro po se d 

### § 82.152

. E PA ex plains that it fee ls that the inclu s io n of both words adds e l e ments of co n fus i on that may make it difficult to di s t in g u ish when a fai lure or repa ir of a compon e nt triggers an o th e r regulatory re quirement. Accordin g to the preamb le (page 78,563) E PA suggests that thi s rev i s io n wil l facilitate other r ule revisions to the leak r e pair
r equire m e nt s th at will allow changes to the ind iv idua l refrigerat i o n appliance compone nts in lieu of requireme nt o f a n entire a pplianc e. Th e re v ised definition w i ll cove r all indu strial process ref ri ge ra ti o n app l iances , comfort cooling and commercial refri ge rati o n.
N E D A/C A P is not troubled about re m ov ing " cri t ical" fro m the defi ni tion s ince this implie s a judgment call by mainte nance staff o r e n vironmental m a na ge rs. Howe ve r , we believe that rem oving · ' safely" i s no t appropriate because it limits the overl y broad last phrase of the

lO jPageNE D A/CAP Co mm ents on Sect io n 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rul e February 14, 2011 proposed definit io n "wi ll not properly f un ction and /o r will be subject to fail u res. " Without th e phrase "safely. " any number of sma ll component problems cou ld be a rgued to cause a component to not functi o n properly or be subject to failures and trigger unnecessarily a requirement fo r replacement of the component or under the three s trikes. yo u ' re o ut rule e mbedd ed in the worst leaker provision , retirement of the unit. We think that it is unnecessary therefore to remove the term safely because it could unjustifiably tighten the repair and replace ment pro g ram without cons id erat ion of the impact of s uch a change in this rulemaking. 

### ***************** NE D NCA P appreciates this opportunity to comment and urges EPA cons ider withdrawing the proposed rev i sio n s to the sectio n 608 leak rule. If you have questions about these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 703-823-2292 o r I s ri tt s(ci), r i tt s la wg ro up .co m .

ll iPage Respectfully submitted. Leslie Sue Ritts , Counsel for NE D NCAP RITTS LAW GROUP , PLLC