Analysis of Average Annual Leak Rates in Comfort Cooling Appliances (August 2015)
Prepared for: Stratospheric Protection Division. Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
Prepared by: ICF International, 1725 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC
Background
The proposed updates to the Section 608 leak inspection and repair requirements will affect appliances used for commercial refrigeration (CR), industrial process refrigeration (IPR), and comfort cooling (CC) containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant. For the purposes of this regulation, comfort cooling is defined as stationary refrigeration equipment that provides cooling in order to control heat and/or humidity in facilities, such as office buildings and light commercial buildings. Comfort cooling appliances include building chillers and roof-top self-contained units. They may be used for the comfort of occupants or for climate control to protect equipment within a facility, such as in computer rooms.
The current leak repair requirements require that when an owner or operator of a regulated appliance discovers that refrigerant is leaking at a rate that would exceed the applicable annual leak rate during a 12-month period, the owner or operator must take corrective action to repair the leak. For the comfort cooling sector, the current annual leak rate threshold is 15%.
As an input to the consideration of alternative leak threshold rates for the comfort cooling sector, this memorandum compares leak rate data reported to California's Refrigerant Management Program (RMP), estimates from EPA's Vintaging Model, and recent leak rate estimates for comfort cooling systems available in the literature.
Comfort Cooling Leak Rate Data
Analysis of Data Reported under California's RMP
The basis for this analysis is system-level data reported to California's Air Resources Board (CARB) under the RMP for the 2013 calendar year. Equipment was characterized and leak rate data was analyzed to determine the amount and frequency of leaks by equipment type. Annual leak rates were calculated as the total amount of refrigerant added to a piece of equipment minus any refrigerant removed from the equipment (i.e., due to a seasonal variance) throughout the year, divided by the charge size of the equipment. This analysis classifies comfort cooling equipment into three size categories based on refrigerant charges: small (containing between 50 and 199 pounds of refrigerant), medium (containing between 200 and 2,000 pounds of refrigerant), and large (containing greater than 2,000 pounds of refrigerant)
Table 1 below shows patterns in leak rate distribution for comfort cooling systems across all refrigerant types based on the 2013 RMP data. In comfort cooling, between 74% and 79% of reported systems have a leak rate less than 5%, regardless of equipment size.
Table 1: Leak Rates by Equipment Type
                                Equipment Type
                                     Size
                           Total Reported Equipment
                               Average Leak Rate
              Annual Leak Rate Distribution across Equipment Type

                                   0% to 5%
                                   5% to 10%
                                  10% to 15%
                                  15% to 20%
                                  20% to 25%
                                  25% to 30%
                                  30% to 35%
                                    >35%
Unitary AC
Small
                                      825
                                      15%
                                      79%
                                      0%
                                      1%
                                      1%
                                      2%
                                      1%
                                      2%
                                      13%
Chiller
Medium
                                     1,901
                                      8%
                                      74%
                                      2%
                                      3%
                                      3%
                                      3%
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      10%
Chiller
Large
                                      85
                                      15%
                                      79%
                                      2%
                                      5%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      2%
                                      1%
                                      7%
Chiller
All
                                     1,986
                                      11%
                                      74%
                                      2%
                                      3%
                                      3%
                                      3%
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      10%
CC
All
                                     2,811
                                      12%
                                      75%
                                      2%
                                      3%
                                      2%
                                      3%
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      11%
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Comparison of California RMP Data with EPA's Vintaging Model
In Table 2, the leak rate distributions and average leak rates based on RMP data are compared against a similar analysis of information from California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1415 and EPA's nationwide Vintaging Model to ensure that leak rates reflect equipment used throughout the United States and to remove any potential bias associated with California-specific data. Table 2 indicates similarity in the distribution of leak rates between HCFC and HFC comfort cooling systems. The vast majority of systems have leaks rates less than 10% for both HCFC and HFC systems according to all three sources.
Table 2: Leak Rate Comparison
                               Equipment Sector
                               Refrigerant Type
                            Leak Rate Distribution
                         Annual Leak Rate Distribution
         Average Leak Rate of Equipment within Leak Rate Distribution

                                   CARB RMP
                                    SCAQMD
                                      VM
                                   CARB RMP
                                    SCAQMD
                                      VM
                                      CC
                                     HCFC
                                     0-5%
                                      79%
                                      85%
                                      82%
                                     0.05%
                                     0.03%
                                     0.9%

                                     5-10%
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      14%
                                     6.5%
                                      NA
                                     5.9%

                                     0-10%
                                      81%
                                      87%
                                      96%
                                     0.3%
                                     0.2%
                                     1.6%

                                    10-15%
                                      2%
                                      1%
                                     1.7%
                                      13%
                                      12%
                                      12%

                                    >5%
                                      21%
                                      15%
                                      18%
                                      53%
                                      NA
                                     8.2%

                                    >10%
                                      19%
                                      13%
                                      4%
                                      56%
                                      NA
                                      16%

                                    >15%
                                      17%
                                      12%
                                     2.2%
                                      58%
                                      69%
                                      21%

                                      HFC
                                     0-5%
                                      98%
                                      NA
                                      98%
                                     0.1%
                                      NA
                                     1.2%

                                     5-10%
                                     0.1%
                                      NA
                                      2%
                                     6.5%
                                      NA
                                     6.1%

                                     0-10%
                                      98%
                                      NA
                                     99.9%
                                     0.1%
                                      NA
                                     1.3%

                                    10-15%
                                     0.4%
                                      NA
                                     0.1%
                                      12%
                                      NA
                                      11%

                                    >5%
                                      2%
                                      NA
                                     0.7%
                                      51%
                                      NA
                                      9%

                                    >10%
                                      2%
                                      NA
                                     0.1%
                                      52%
                                      NA
                                      11%

                                    >15%
                                      2%
                                      NA
                                      0%
                                      62%
                                      NA
                                      NA
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Additional Sources
A review of relevant literature also indicates consistency with the average leak rates for comfort cooling systems from the California RMP data and EPA's Vintaging Model, as shown in Table 3. Sources include technical reports, assumptions and guidance from other emissions models, and analyses based on industry input and leak reporting data. For the most part, these sources indicate that average leak rates for chillers are low (i.e., less than 10%) whereas unitary AC systems have slightly higher leak rates, but are generally less than 15%.
Table 3: Average Annual CC Leak Rates from Literature
                           Average Annual Leak Rate
                                Equipment Type
                                    Source:
                                     1.4%
Medium Centrifugal Chiller
Gallagher (2013)
                                     2.4%
Large Centrifugal Chiller

                                     6.9%
Packaged Chiller

                                     11.3%
Unitary AC

                                     2-15%
Chillers
IPCC (2006)
                                      2%
Chillers
EPA Vintaging Model (2014)
                                      5%
Unitary AC

                                      3%
Chillers
UK DECC (2011)
                                      5%
Chillers
Oko-Recherche et al. (2011)
                                    5-7.5%
Chillers
UNEP (2004)
                                    15-20%
Air Conditioning (>30 kg)
Koronacki (2012)

Conclusions
A review of relevant data sources and literature indicates that a 10% applicable leak rate for comfort cooling is reasonable considering most comfort cooling equipment has an average annual leak rate less than 10% and many appliance types may achieve average annual leak rates of less than 5%.

References

CARB. 2014. Data reported to California Air Resources Board under the Refrigerant Management Program for the 2013 calendar year. Provided to EPA and ICF on May 16, 2014.

Gallagher, Glenn, Tao Zhan, Ying-Kuang Hsu, et. al. 2013. "High-global Warming Potential F-gas Emissions in California: Comparison of Ambient-based versus Inventory-based Emission Estimates, and Implications of Refined Estimates." Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (2), 1084 - 1093. DOI: 10.1021/es403447v. Publication Date (Web): December 13, 2013. Copyright (C) 2013 American Chemical Society. Available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es403447v

IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use, Chapter 7: Emissions of Fluorinated Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances." November 2008. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_7_Ch7_ODS_Substitutes.pdf

Koronaki, I.P., D. Cowan, G. Maidment, K. Beerman, M. Schreurs, K. Kaar, I. Chaer, G. Gontarz,
R.I. Christodoulaki, and X. Cazauran. 2012. Refrigerant emissions and leakage preventing across Europe  -  Results from the RealSkillsEurope project. Energy 45 (2012) 71-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.05.040.

Stratus Consulting (Stratus). 2009. Screening Analysis to Examine the Economic Impact of Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling and Emissions Rule.

UK Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC). 2011. "Development of the GHG Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Model." Prepared by ICF International. November 2011. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48250/3844-greenhouse-gas-inventory-improvement-project-deve.PDF.

UNEP. 2004. Report of the UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Chiller Task Force. May 2004. Available at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/Other_Task_Force/teap_chiller_report_May2004.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. EPA's Vintaging Model. "VM IO file_v4.4_10.13.14."


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 62597]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26280]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-1046]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0001

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0001,
Report of Marine Casualty and Chemical Testing of Commercial Vessel
Personnel; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast
Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 4,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2018-1046] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-612), ATTN: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE, STOP 7710, Washington,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-1046], and
must be received by February 4, 2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Report of Marine Casualty and Chemical Testing of Commercial
Vessel Personnel.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0001.
    Summary: Marine casualty information is needed for Coast Guard
investigations of commercial vessel casualties involving death, vessel
damage, etc., as mandated by Congress. Chemical testing information is
needed to improve Coast Guard detection/reduction of drug use by
mariners.
    Need: Section 6101 of 46 U.S.C., as delegated by the Secretary of
Homeland Security to the Commandant, authorizes the Coast Guard to
prescribe regulations for the reporting of marine casualties involving
death, serious injury, material loss of property, material damage
affecting the seaworthiness of a vessel, or significant harm to the
environment. It also requires information on the use of alcohol be
included in a marine casualty report. Section 7503 of 46 U.S.C.
authorizes the Coast Guard to deny the issuance of licenses,
certificates of registry, and merchant mariner's documents (seaman's
papers) to users of dangerous drugs. Similarly, 46 U.S.C. 7704 requires
the Coast Guard to revoke such papers unless a holder provides
satisfactory proofs that the holder has successfully completed a
rehabilitation program acceptable to the U.S. Coast Guard and is
determined to be, by a competent substance abuse professional, free
from misuse of chemical substances and that the risk of subsequent
misuse of chemical substances is sufficiently low to justify returning
to safety-sensitive positions.
    Forms: CG-2692, Report of Marine Casualty, Commercial Diving
Casualty, or OCS-related Casualty; CG-2692A, Barge Addendum; CG-2692B,
Report of Mandatory Chemical Testing Following a Serious Marine
Incident Involving Vessels in Commercial Service; CG-2692C, Personnel
Casualty Addendum; CG-2692D, Involved Persons and Witnesses Addendum.
    Respondents: Vessel owners and operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
22,939 hours to 22,980 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated
number of responses.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
Acting Chief, Office of Information Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2018-26280 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57374-57375]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22693]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-88-000]

Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice
of Complaint

    Take notice that on September 11, 2013, pursuant to section 206,
306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825c, and
825h and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2013),
Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Complainant) filed a formal
complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)
and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) (collectively, Respondents),
requesting that the Commission direct the Respondents to make
modifications to the transmission planning provisions of Section 9 of
the MISO-PJM Joint Operating Agreement.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the

Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 1, 2013.

    Dated: September 12, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22693 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P