National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project 

February 14, 2011 

Members: 

ALCOA Inc. 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Atmospheric Programs: Mail Code 6205-J 

1200 Pennsylvania A venue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

banks.julius@cpa.gov 

The Boeing Company 

ConocoPhilllps Company 

Chrysler Group LLC 

Ell Lilly & Company 

Exxon Mobil Corporation 

Georgla.Paciflc LLC 

Intel 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 Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair 

Requirements; Proposed Rule: 75 Fed. Reg. 78558 (Dec. 15. 2011). 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

NEDA/CAP appreciates this opportunity to offer comments on the proposal to revise in 

significant ways the existing regulations for repairing, replacing, and retrofitting covered 

refrigeration equipment including industrial process refrigeration appliances and comfort cooling 

appliances (i.e. air conditioners). NED A/CAP is a coalition of major American manufacturers 

from many industrial sectors. The Project was formed in 1979 to offer a balanced perspective on 

Clean Air regulations that affect the environment and the economy. All of our members operate 

facilities that are subject to the leak detection and prevention provisions of this regulation. Of 

most concern are the following changes, on which we offer comments below: 

• Lowering the trigger for leak rates for repairing covered equipment from 35% -to20 % for industrial process refrigeration appliances and from 20% to I 0% for 

comfort cooling appliances 

• Altering the definitions for determining "full charge," mandating detailed 

documentation of the methods for determining full charge and eliminating 

flexibility in current methods. and amending the exemption for seasonal 

variances; 

• Deletion ofthe annualized method of determining leakage based on EPA's belief 

that no one uses it. 

• Amending requirements and altering the time frame for initial and follow-up 

verification tests: 

• Removal of the 120-day exemption for industrial refrigeration systems: 

• Mandating the replacement or retrofit of "worst leakers" based on three leaks 

during a six month period, and ; 

• Mandating detailed recordkeeping and other documentation requirements for leak 

repairs and for service records, including transfer and disposal of refrigerants; 

• A proliferation of complicated and unnecessary recordkeeping requirements; and 

The Carriage House, 620 Fort Williams Parkway Alexandria, Virginia 22304 

Phone: 703.823.2292 Fax: 571 .970.3721 
NEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

Februa ry 14, 2011 

• Amending other pivotal related program definitions such as "component." 

DISCUSSION 

I. General Comments 

EPA's statements in the General Summary of the rule that suggest that the proposed rule 

merely would "streamline" the leak detection and repair regulations at 40 CFR part 82, Subpart F 

are misleading. Id., at 78558. While NEDAICAP agrees that some of the changes clarify 

requirements by eliminating phrases that may be confusing, other proposed revisions are likely to 

add significant compliance costs for manufacturers and still others improperly blur important 

distinctions between industrial refrigeration and air conditioning systems. These changes, 

according to EPA's own ana lysis at page 78569 of the Notice, are predicted to result in costs 

between 30 and 50 times higher than the monetized benefits they will are intended to drive (i.e., 

reduction of releases or " leaks" of ozone depleting compounds in the environment that have been 

determined to harm the stratospheric ozone layer). Moreover, in our view, the agency has 

provided little evidence of a problem that these extensive costs will solve, although the Agency 

concludes that reducing the leak rate triggers for all appliance are likely to increase repairs and/or 

replacements or retrofits of appliances no more than 5% for industrial process refrigeration units 

and less than I% for air conditioners. NED A/CAP therefore submits that the proposed rev isions 

to Section 608 regulations should not be finalized. 

Question Regarding the Scope of EPA's Statutory Authority - NEDA/CAP also 

questions whether the proposed regulations impermissibly expand the scope of these regulations 

under the Clean Air Act. The proposal states that "The purpose and scope of this subpart is to 

reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants to the lowest achievable level and 

encourage the use of substitutes, by maximizing the recapture and recycling of such ozonedepleting substances during the use, service, maintenance, repair and disposal of appliances and 

by restricting the sale of refrigerants in accordance with Title VI of the Clean Air Act." However, 

Section 608 (a) of the Clean air Act only provides EPA with the authority to establish "standards 

and requirements regarding the use and disposal of class I substances during the service, repair, or 

disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration. We hope EPA will address this issue 

if it finalizes the rule and discuss how revisions to the regulations are necessary to meet the goals 

of the Act which are designed to eliminate the use of certain ODS that have been identified 

internationally by treaty to harm the stratospheric ozone layer. 

Greenhouse Gas Wa rming Potential - A related concern is how EPA has reconciled the 

provisions of this program with the agency's policies on reduction of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). 

Under the ODP substitution program, a number of replacement OOPs such as R- 134A are HCFCs 

and have very high greenhouse warming potential (GWP). 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 reduce GHGs of much, much lower GWP through other Clean Air Act 

regu lation. For instance, it is incongruent that EPA feels compelled to require retrofits of 

manufacturing equipment that emit carbon dioxide, which has about l/20,0001

h of the GWP of 

HCFC 134A, and a much higher GWP than current refrigerants such as R-22. If these rules are 

meant to drive substitution of HCFCs, GWP is a critical aspect to be considered since ODP 

2j Page 
NEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

February 14, 2011 

substitution itself seems to us to represent another host of potential environmental and specifically 

Clean Air Act issues associated with the manufacture of ODS substitutes and leaks from 

refrigeration equipment. If this rulemaking is finalized, EPA should examine the policies and 

goals of Title VI of the Clean Air Act and the agency's goals with respect to greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Finally, NEDA/CAP agrees with other organizations that have commented publicly that 

for EPA, which is struggling to deal with the myriad requirements ofthe Clean Air Act 

Amendments that remain unaddressed after 20 years, including but not limited to National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from utility and industrial boilers as well as the 

transport of criteria air pollutants from state-to-state and region-to-region, these proposed costly 

revisions to regulations is highly problematic, if not at cross purposes with the President's recent 

announcements regarding the need for regulations that will have untoward consequences for 

manufacturers in the United States without substantial benefits. 

NEDA/CAP addresses specific proposed changes below. 

II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

A. Lowering the leak repair trigger rates for comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration 

and industrial process refrigeration and air condition equipment with ozone 

refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds. 

EPA proposes to lower the leak rates for requiring that an appliance be repaired, retired, or 

retrofitted. A breach of these trigger rates sets in motion requirements to address the appliance as 

a whole by requiring a timely repair, verification of the repair under normal operating conditions, 

and possible replacement of a component and/or replacement of the entire appliance if it shows a 

history of leak events. (It is not a violation for the operator to discover a leak greater than these 

triggers, but it is a violation to fail to repair, retire or retrofit the unit within 30 days.). EPA 

proposes to reduce leak rate repair triggers for commercial refrigeration appliances and industrial 

process refrigeration appliances from 35% to 20% and to reduce the leak rate repair trigger from 

15% to 10% for comfort cooling appliances. EPA has estimated the cost of this proposed change 

to be $38.2 million dollars and the monetized benefit of this change would be $1.6 million. !d. at 

78570. While emission reductions are valuable, having a monetized benefit of only $ 1.6 million 

with a cost of $38 million does not appear to be a reasonable trade off. For this and other reasons 

discussed below, NEDA/CAP urges EPA to retain the current leak rate triggers. 

Requested Input from Manufacturers on Impacts of Proposed Levels: EPA asks for input 

on the ability of owners or operators of commercial refrigeration, comfort cooling and industrial 

process refrigeration appliances to repair leaks within 30 days when appliances leak above these 

trigger levels. /d. , at 78571. In response, we want to emphasize throughout these comments that 

it is more difficult to repair, replace or retrofit industrial process equipment components than it is 

to replace or retrofit comfort cooling components, because industrial refrigeration systems are 

integrated and specially engineered into process equipment, requiring shutdown of process 

equipment for repair and depending on the equipment, substantial lead time to design replacement 

components or replacement. Recognizing these engineering and cost issues (from shutting down 

31Pa ge 
NEDAICAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

Februa ry 14,20 11 

process equipment so that repairs can be made), there is little question in our minds that reduction 

of the leak rates as proposed could trigger more repairs which would require facility or process 

downtime. EPA must allow more time for repairs requiring process shutdown for industrial 

process refrigeration appliances in the first instance. However, even if EPA fails to provide more 

time for industrial process repairs requiring shutdown, the current 35% leak rate provides industry 

with much greater flexibili ty than afforded by the 20% leak rate trigger. In general, we believe 

that most companies who discover slow leaks in their industrial process equipment will plan to fix 

those known leaks as soon as possible or when scheduled outages and seasonal manufacturing 

process unit "turn-arounds" next occur. Given that these industrial process refrigeration units are 

integral parts of the production processes at facil ities, failure to maintain this equipment could 

result in unplanned and costly downtime at a facility and therefore we believe that industry 

maintenance practices are sufficient to minimize leaks of ozone-depleting materials to the 

atmosphere. 

The revised 10% trigger rate for air conditioners and coolers is nonetheless also concerning. 

From manufacturers' perspectives, while repairing these units within 30 days is far more feasible 

then shutting down process equipment to repair industrial refrigeration assemblies, lowering the 

leak trigger to l 0% may prompt retrofits or replacements with other equipment that will have a 

likelihood of challenging annua l capital budgets and competing for other pollution control and 

process change resources. Replacement of air conditions for certa in manufacturing that is spaceconstrained may also create engineering concerns for replacing roof units for which structural 

engineering is required since the footprint of new equipment seems generally larger to handle less 

efficient refrigerant substitutes. 

Releva nce of EPA's Review of Califor nia Data: As a basis for lowering the leak rate 

triggers, EPA discusses the agency's review ofthousands of appliance repair records maintained 

by California's SCAQMD and determined that lowering the lea rate to 20% for industrial process 

refrigeration will 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 result in slightly less than 1 

%of systems facing mandatory repairs within 30 days. The data EPA references on page 7857 1 

of the Notice come from the commercial refrigeration systems in supermarkets and is not 

necessarily pertinent since grocers may be more sensitive to diminished performance of 

refrigerators, particularly for perishable foods. Second, NEDA/CAP questions whether it is 

reasonable to rely on repair record data from the South Coast Air Quality Management District as 

a basis for the proposed decision because there is so little industry located there. NEDA/CAP 

therefore urges EPA to study additional impacts before the proposed revisions to the leak rate 

definitions are fi nalized. However, if EPA's current analysis is correct and very few additional 

repairs and/or replacements or retrofits of appliances or components are likely to occur, then there 

is little basis to final ize this proposal. Before fin"alizing these rule revisions, NEDA/CAP urges 

EPA to sample other jurisdictions where there is significant industrial activity in the northeast, 

Midwest or Texas, it would find a much more substantial economic effect on businesses as a 

result of changing the percentages for both industrial refrigeration appliances and air conditioners. 

Leak Rate Detection Methodology - EPA's Notice proposes several fundamental 

changes to the definition of leak rate which also may make the application of the new triggers 

even more onerous. NED A/CAP believes these changes are not of a streamlining nature and that 

4 1Page 
NEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

February 14,2011 

they will reduce flexibility and increases the complexity of determining full charges for 

calculating leak rates. For these and the following reasons, we believe that EPA should not 

finalize the proposed changes. 

Definition of "full charge:" EPA's proposed revision of " full charge" is likely to limit 

current flexibility in the program to determine the applicability of the leak detection and 

repair/replacement program by requiring that an operator commit to one methodology for 

determining the " full charge" of an appliance. In addition the proposal would also eliminate the 

current option to consider use of combination of methods for calculating "full charge." EPA 

reasons that allowing a combination of methodologies is not in line with one ofthe goals of this 

NPRM "to create a streamlined set of regulations." !d., at 78564. 

EPA should not modify the definition of full charge in a manner that disallows 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 certain instances 1

• If EPA disallows use of a combination of methods, 

which was previously allowed, owners will need to re-calculate full charge using one of the 

remaining methods, which in a number of instances will result in less accurate calculations of full 

charge and/or necessitate substantial review and revision to all previous full charge ca lculations 

and procedures. Since EPA's primary motivation for this proposed change, as explained in the 

regulation, is to "streamline" the rules, NEDA members do not support it. Moreover, we think 

that it will force unnecessary re-calculations and repairs, and in tandem with lower leak trigger 

rates, the possibly retrofits and or replacements that the Agency has not assessed. 

Elimina tion of annualizing method from the definition of " leak rate" -The Agency 

also proposes to remove the annualizing method (Method 1) from the definition of leak rate 

because "EPA believes that the Rolling Average method is more in line with what most in the 

regulated community would consider as a true rolling average." !d., at 78, 566. EPA states, 

"Accordingly, the proposed definition states that the leak rate is expressed in terms of the 

percentage of the appliance's full charge that has been lost since the last successful repair over a 

consecutive 12-month period. " !d. 

First, based on NEDA 's membership practices and general discussions with other industry 

groups, EPA's suggestion that no one is using the annualized method is erroneous. On an 

informal survey basis, it appears that well over half of our companies use Method, the 

annualized method. Before EPA can proceed to finalize the proposed revisions, it needs to assess 

the consequences of the proposed change, its benefits and costs. Second, if after considering the 

impact of such a change in methodology the agency decides to implement the change, it also 

1 • See "Compliance Guidance For Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of the 

Clean Air Act" Prepared by The Chemical Manufacturers Association and The Environmental Protection Agency, 

October 1995, Page C 1-2, e. "Combinations of a through d. 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 manufacturers' estimate for the two components." 

SIP age 
NEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

February 14, 20 11 

should provide a two year transition period to implement the change, because the change will 

require system changes and training to implement properly. 

Consideration of Seasona l Variances in Determining a Full Charge - EPA's definition 

of ''full charge" also changes how operators account for seasonal 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 refrigerant to an appliance due to a 

change in ambient conditions caused by a change in season, followed by the subsequent removal 

of refrigerant in the corresponding change in season, where both the addition and removal of 

refrigerant occurs within one consecutive 12-month period. NEOA/CAP objects to this arbitrary 

definition because weather variation between winter and summer may or may not require exactly 

the same change of coolant. 

B. Verification Tests 

The current requirements for verification of repairs only apply to industrial process 

refrigeration and federally owned commercial and comfort cooling appliance. However, EPA's 

revisions affect comfort cooling as well because the agency is concerned that without any 

requirement to verify repairs, there will be continued leaks, especially from aging equipment. 

EPA says that it "sees no reason why verification should not be mandated for all types of 

appliances with refrigerant charges greater than 50 pounds." !d., at 78572. Therefore the agency 

has proposed that all types of appliances be subject to new repair requirements and revised 

requirements for initial and follow-up verification of repairs. We discuss each requirement 

below. 

Requirement to Repa ir a ll Leaks: EPA proposes on page 78568 to require in 82.156 (i) 

that when the leak rate exceeds trigger levels, ··all" leaks must be repaired within 30 days. As 

EPA points 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. 

NEOA/CAP's members object to this requirement as ambiguous and arbitrary. First of all, the 

rule should be to require responses to "all known leaks." Second, depending on their locations, 

some leaks may not be reasonably able to be repaired within 30 days, so EPA's rule should 

provide that if such 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 the leak occurs from industrial refrigeration systems. 

Not only does a process unit have to be dismantled to make the repair, but the manufacturing 

process has to be shutdown, necessitating losses in the form of produc.t, downtime and potential 

contract issues with customers. 

Initia l Repairs: Proposed requirements at Section 82.1560) EPA would require that the 

leak rate be calculated "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 service providers to appliance owners who calculate the leak rate, and 

this lag will certainly be amplified if EPA expands service records as has been proposed. It also 

does not seem necessary to calculate the leak rate "immediately," and therefore we suggest that 

EPA provide that the leak rate be calculated in a reasonable way, but no longer than two weeks 

following receipt of service records from the contractor. 

6jPa ge 
NEDAICAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

February 14, 2011 

Initia l Verification: For similar reasons, NEDA/CAP thinks it is unnecessary for EPA to 

include the word " immediately" for an initial verification test. See proposed Sec. 82. 156(i)(l). It 

may be prudent to wait a brief period for such initial verification of the repair, and immediately 

examining the equipment may result in a leak going undetected. Therefore NEDNCAP suggests 

EPA should remove the word immediately from the regulatory requirement so that the provision 

would read "Owners or operators shall conduct an initial verification test at a reasonable period 

after conclusion of the repairs, not to exceed 24 hours " 

Follow-up verification tests: Under the proposed revisions to the rule, follow-up repair 

verifications may not be conducted until at least 24 hours after completion of repairs and no later 

than 30 days fol lowing the repairs. See proposed §82. 152 (definitions). The current program 

requires a follow up verification test "as soon as practicable after the repair is completed." EPA 

explains that the 24 hour lag time is necessary to make certain that service personnel return to 

check the repair after the appliance is operating under normal operation characteristics and 

conditions. ld., at 78563-4. EPA believes that many operators have follow-up verifications 

performed immediately upon completion of the initial verification, before normal operating 

conditions are resumed and that by imposing a 24 hour precondition before fo llow-up 

verification, fewer leaks and failures will reoccur. ld. , at 78564. 

NEDNCAP disagrees with EPA's assertions and suggests that the change should not be 

made because it is unnecessary and because will impose significant costs on operators that do not 

have on-site certified refrigerant service maintenance. For those operators, EPA is essentially 

doubling the cost of service by requiring an additional service visit. 

EPA's proposal has two fundamental problems. First, certain equipment returns to normal 

operations immediately following a service call and it is perfectly valid to test it then. Without 

support for EPA's assertions that follow-up verifications that occur before the elapse of 24 hours 

after a repair, it is difficult to assess EPA's "belief" that failure to wait 24 hours is a pivotal factor 

in failures. Second, this requirement will impose considerable expense for sma ll and medium 

operators that do not have on-site certified maintenance because facilities must pay the additional 

cost of a separate service call. Aside from the costs, this will also mean that data must be 

collected from repair technicians two different times on the same repair, and someone must 

remember to schedule the call, and follow up to make sure the call occurs timely. To justify this 

additional cost, and the administrative complexity that the source must then manage, EPA 

provides no data that unrepaired leaks are more frequently found "after the appliance has operated 

under normal conditions over an extended period of time (but no longer than 30 days)" than they 

are found immediately after the appliance has returned to "normal operating conditions." 

For these reasons, NEDA/CAP recommends that EPA should modify the proposed 

requirement to allow the owner/operator to conduct the follow-up verification test as soon as the 

appliance "has achieved normal operating conditions after a repair." A 24-hour waiting period 

should not be added to the requirements since this eliminates the possibility of making a repair 

and conducting the follow-up verification during the same work day by maintenance or service 

personnel who are familiar with the repairs to the equipment. Thus, the definition of "Follow-up 

7 1P age 
NEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions 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 changes to the requirements for operators of leaking equipment to 

develop and implement retrofit and retirement plans. Currently sources that have fai led 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 short 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 expenditure amounts to less than $ 10,000-

$100,000, depending on the size of the company). Also, as already discussed, industrial 

refrigeration systems, which are integrated with process equipment, frequently require extensive 

engineering involving the process equipment, unique design and fabrication 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, additional 

structural engineering may be needed to safely remove and replace an air conditioner with a new 

unit. While we understand that EPA believes that l2 months 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 without 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 ignores an important business reality about the time 

needed for approval of capital budget items. While this may be less of a problem for 

multinational industries like NEDA's members. it is going to be a vastly more problematic issue 

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 or retrofit. 

Extensions a utomatic but shortened for replacement and retrofit plans: NEDA/CAP 

agrees that the regulatory extension process in the current rules is complex and confusing. When 

an extension is required 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 components are delivered. Such extensions would be 

automatic and not contingent on a written request and EPA response, but they would 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, engineering delays due to design and fabrication of equipment, delays that result from 

capitalization justifications and other related corporate procedures, and other production and 

business delays. As long as these justifications are documented with supporting information, 

EPA should broaden the bases for automatic extensions and extend these to six additional months. 

Proposed removal of 120 day exemption for shutdowns: The existing regulations at 

Section 82.156(i)(3)(iv) provide a 120-day exemption when owners or operators of industrial 

81P age 
NEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

February 14,2011 

process refrigeration appliances undergo an industrial process shutdown. EPA proposes to 

remove this exemption period for purposes of streamlining the regulations for air conditioners and 

industrial process refrigeration systems. However the proposal is unreasonable if its basis is to 

streamline the two sets of requirements because industrial refrigeration systems are fundamentally 

different from cooling systems and as a general matter require shutdown of manufacturing 

processes in order to dismantle the equipment. Air conditioning equipment can be more or Jess 

swapped out and piping changes if they are necessary do not generally require interruption of 

most manufacturing process units for long periods of time. However, industrial refrigeration units 

are integrated into process equipment, generally at several production steps on a manufacturing 

line. Consequently there is a rationale purpose for leaving the existing exemption in place, which 

EPA's proposal largely ignores in favor of"streamlining." NEDA/CAP urges EPA to leave the 

existing 120 day exemption in place for leaks from industrial refrigeration systems so that losses 

from production that must be interrupted to remedy a leak can be minimized, reducing ancillary 

significant costs to businesses and potential resulting losses to employees and communities. 

C ~ D. NEDA/CAP Ob jects to the "Three Strikes" and You' re Out Worst Leaker 

Provisions. 

The proposed rule at Section 82.1560)(4) would require an operator to replace an entire 

industrial process refrigeration system after three failed leak verification attempts within 6 

months. Not only is the proposed requirement a potential disincentive to try to repair leaks in the 

most expeditious manner (for fear of failure of three verification tests within a 6 months), but 

there are other alternatives that are less costly and equally effective. In particular, NEDA/CAP's 

members urge EPA to consider requiring the replacement ofthe specific component or 

components at which the leaks are occurring instead of requiring the retrofit or replacement of the 

entire industrial process refrigeration system. In addition, the regulations should allow an 

operator a full 180 days to address leaks and implement additional repairs, without fear of failing 

to repair the leak during one of the first three leak repair attempts. NEDA/CAP therefore supports 

the alternative proposal made by the American Chemistry Council for modifying at Section 

82.156 G) (4) ofthe rule as follows: 

Owners and operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial process refrigeration 

appliances must repair the 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 section, if the 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. 

olume of Records - EPA is proposing significant changes in recordkeeping- so much 

so that we are surprised that this proposal does not qualify as a major regulatory 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 age 
NEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

February 14, 2011 

refrigerants that are transported off site. We do agree with EPA, however, that as long as these 

records are maintained on site for three years, no reporting requirements are necessary. Because 

of the significant changes that EPA proposes, NEDA/CAP urges EPA to provide at least a I yea/r 

from the effective date of the final rule to phase in to the recordkeeping changes. This time will 

allow owners and service companies to modify data systems and retrain technicians. Additional 

time will also accommodate technician training providers which we believe will be required for 

both onsite ma intenance and off site service providers to be updated regarding the additional 

requirements. 

Relevance of Certa in Service Records: NED A/CAP also urges the Agency to clarify 

that the proposal's recordkeeping requirements are only applicable when the maintenance or 

repair of an appliance involves the addition of refrigerant. Maintenance, service or repair where 

the refrigerant is removed and replaced without additional refrigerant should be clearly excluded 

from the recordkeeping requirements or the volume of records and clutter of information will 

interfere with tracking records related to refrigerants. We also suggest that the proposed section 

82.166(m) should state that the requirement for refrigerants disposal is satisfied by manifests and 

related records required to be maintained by the operator under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act. 

" Records at the "actua l site" of the applia nce: Two particular aspects of 

recordkeeping seemed particularly peculiar. EPA's rules at 82. 156 (I) (I) would require leak 

records to be maintained at the physical location of an appliance. Also retrofit plans would be 

required to be maintained "on-site at the physical location of the affected appliance in accordance 

with 82.1 66 (n). We suggest that a better alternative might be to maintain electronic centralized 

recordkeeping because of the detail that will be involved, with minimum logs or even "tagging" 

regarding service at the "actual" location of the appliance.) 

' ' 

\

F. Other Cha nges Affecting §82.152- Definitions 

Definition of Component: EPA proposed to change the definition of "Critical 

(Appliance) Component" by deleting the tetm "critica l" and also deleting the word "safety" from 

the definition. The definition of the new term "component," will mean an "appliance component, 

such as but not limited to compressors, condensers, evaporators, receivers and all of its 

connections and subassemblies without which the appliance will not properly function and/or will 

be subject to failures. " Proposed § 82.152. EPA explains that it feels that the inclusion of both 

words adds elements of confusion that may make it difficult to distinguish when a fai lure or repair 

of a component triggers another regulatory requirement. According to the preamble (page 

78,563) EPA suggests that this revision will facilitate other rule revisions to the leak repair 

requirements that will allow changes to the individual refrigeration appliance components in lieu 

of requirement of an entire appliance. The revised definition will cover all industrial process 

refrigeration appliances, comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration. 

NEDA/CAP is not troubled about removing "critical" from the definition since this 

implies a judgment call by maintenance staff or environmental managers. However, we believe 

that removing ·'safely" is not appropriate because it limits the overly broad last phrase of the 

lO jPage 
NEDA/CAP Comments on Section 608 Refrigerant Leak Revisions Rule 

February 14, 2011 

proposed definition "will not properly function and/or will be subject to failures." Without the 

phrase "safely." any number of small component problems could be argued to cause a component 

to not function properly or be subject to failures and trigger unnecessarily a requirement for 

replacement of the component or under the three strikes. you're out rule embedded 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 replacement program without 

consideration of the impact of such a change in this rulemaking. 

***************** 

NEDNCAP appreciates this opportunity to comment and urges EPA consider 

withdrawing the proposed revisions to the section 608 leak rule. If you have questions about 

these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 703-823-2292 or 

I sri tts(ci),ri ttsla wgrou p .com. 

ll iPage 

Respectfully submitted. 

Leslie Sue Ritts, Counsel for NEDNCAP 

RITTS LAW GROUP, PLLC