Draft Summary of Comments

For the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak
Repair Requirements

Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167

March 4, 2014

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Stratospheric Protection Division

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Prepared by:

ICF International

1725 Eye Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684867"  1.	SUMMARY OF
COMMENTS	  PAGEREF _Toc380684867 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684868"  2.	Purpose and Scope	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684868 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684869"  2.1.	Inclusion of “use” in the
Purpose and Scope of Subpart F	  PAGEREF _Toc380684869 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684870"  2.2.	Inclusion of “and encourage the
use of substitutes”	  PAGEREF _Toc380684870 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684871"  3.	Definitions	  PAGEREF _Toc380684871
\h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684872"  3.1.	Comfort Cooling Appliance	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684872 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684873"  3.2.	Commercial Refrigeration Appliance
 PAGEREF _Toc380684873 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684874"  3.3.	Critical (Appliance) Component
PAGEREF _Toc380684874 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684875"  3.4.	Initial and Follow-Up Verification
Tests	  PAGEREF _Toc380684875 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684876"  3.4.1.	Proposed Definition of Initial
and Follow-up Verification	  PAGEREF _Toc380684876 \h  Error! Bookmark
not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684891"  3.5.	Full Charge and Seasonal Variance
PAGEREF _Toc380684891 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684892"  3.5.1.	Proposed Definition of Full
Charge	  PAGEREF _Toc380684892 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684893"  3.5.2.	Proposed Definition of Seasonal
Variance	  PAGEREF _Toc380684893 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684895"  3.6.	Industrial Process Refrigeration
PAGEREF _Toc380684895 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684896"  3.7.	Leak Rate	  PAGEREF _Toc380684896
\h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684897"  3.7.1.	Proposed Definition of Leak Rate
 PAGEREF _Toc380684897 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684898"  3.7.2.	Proposed Elimination of Method 1
in Leak Rate Calculation	  PAGEREF _Toc380684898 \h  Error! Bookmark not
defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684899"  3.8.	Normal Operating Characteristics or
Conditions	  PAGEREF _Toc380684899 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684900"  3.9.	Retrofit, Repair, and Retire
PAGEREF _Toc380684900 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684901"  3.9.1.	Proposed Definition for Retire
PAGEREF _Toc380684901 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684902"  3.9.2.	Proposed Definition for Retrofit
 PAGEREF _Toc380684902 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684903"  3.10.	Other Definitions	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684903 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684904"  3.10.1.	Appliance	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684904 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684905"  3.10.2.	“Engineered System”
PAGEREF _Toc380684905 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684906"  3.10.3.	Refrigerant	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684906 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684907"  3.10.4.	Duty Types	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684907 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684908"  3.10.5.	Refrigeration Circuit	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684908 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684909"  4.	Required Practices	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684909 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684910"  4.1.	Repair of Leaks and Leak Repair
Trigger Rates	  PAGEREF _Toc380684910 \h  36

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684911"  4.1.1.	Requirement to repair all leaks
if the leak repair trigger rate has been breached	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684911 \h  36

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684912"  4.1.2.	Costs associated with lowering
the leak repair trigger rates	  PAGEREF _Toc380684912 \h  39

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684913"  4.1.3.	Proposed leak repair trigger
rates of 20% for industrial process refrigeration appliances and
commercial refrigeration appliances and 10% for comfort cooling
appliances	  PAGEREF _Toc380684913 \h  39

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684914"  4.2.	Verification of Repairs	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684914 \h  41

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684915"  4.2.1.	Requirement to perform a
follow-up verification test no sooner than 24-hours after repairs are
completed	  PAGEREF _Toc380684915 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684916"  4.2.2.	Requirement that initial and
follow-up verification tests be performed for all types of appliances
subject to the leak repair requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc380684916 \h  41

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684917"  4.2.3.	Use of the word “immediately”
in 82.156(i) and (j)	  PAGEREF _Toc380684917 \h  42

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684918"  4.3.	Requirement to Develop and Complete
Retrofit/Retirement Plans	  PAGEREF _Toc380684918 \h  43

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684919"  4.3.1.	Proposal to shorten the one-year
timeframe that is currently granted to owners or operators to complete
appliance retrofit/retirement plans	  PAGEREF _Toc380684919 \h  43

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684920"  4.3.2.	Requirement to replace leaking
components	  PAGEREF _Toc380684920 \h  45

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684921"  4.3.3.	Minimum requirements for a
retrofit/retirement plan	  PAGEREF _Toc380684921 \h  45

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684922"  4.4.	Extension to Repair and Retrofit/
Retirement Timelines	  PAGEREF _Toc380684922 \h  46

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684923"  4.4.1.	Proposal to remove the 120-day
exemption when owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration
appliances undergo an industrial process shutdown	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684923 \h  46

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684924"  4.4.2.	Proposal to allow extensions
PAGEREF _Toc380684924 \h  48

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684925"  4.5.	Worst Leaker Provision	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684925 \h  49

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684926"  4.5.1.	The worst leaker provision
PAGEREF _Toc380684926 \h  49

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684927"  4.5.2.	Two proposed options for the
worst leaker provision	  PAGEREF _Toc380684927 \h  52

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684931"  4.5.3.	Concerns about requiring the
retrofit/retirement of an appliance based upon the failure of an initial
verification test	  PAGEREF _Toc380684931 \h  54

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684933"  4.5.4.	Replacement of components rather
than the entire appliance	  PAGEREF _Toc380684933 \h  55

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684935"  5.	Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc380684935 \h  56

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684936"  5.1.	Service Records	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684936 \h  56

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684937"  5.1.1.	Requirement to keep records
on-site	  PAGEREF _Toc380684937 \h  56

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684938"  5.1.2.	Electronic Reporting	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684938 \h  Error! Bookmark not defined.

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684939"  5.1.3.	Recordkeeping requirements for
persons servicing appliances	  PAGEREF _Toc380684939 \h  59

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684940"  5.2.	Records Documenting the Fate of
Recovered Refrigerant	  PAGEREF _Toc380684940 \h  59

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684941"  5.3.	Documenting the Determination of
the Appliance Full Charge	  PAGEREF _Toc380684941 \h  59

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684942"  5.4.	Other Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc380684942 \h  60

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684943"  6.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
  PAGEREF _Toc380684943 \h  61

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684946"  7.	General Comments and Other Issues
PAGEREF _Toc380684946 \h  62

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684947"  7.1.	General Support for the Proposed
Regulations	  PAGEREF _Toc380684947 \h  63

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684948"  7.2.	General Opposition to the Proposed
Regulations	  PAGEREF _Toc380684948 \h  64

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684950"  7.3.	Applicability to systems with a
charge less than or equal to 50 lbs	  PAGEREF _Toc380684950 \h  65

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684953"  7.4.	Preamble discussion of “knowingly
venting”	  PAGEREF _Toc380684953 \h  66

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc380684954"  7.5.	Other Issues	  PAGEREF
_Toc380684954 \h  66

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

This document summarizes comments on the proposed rule, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair
Requirements, which are found in EPA’s docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167. A
total of 40 comments were submitted and are listed in   REF
_Ref226527003 \h  Table 1  by organization and Docket ID number. Three
of these comments were submitted after the close of the comment period
on March 25, 2011.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 : Public Comments Received by EPA on the
Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements

Count	Organization 	 Docket ID

1	AbitibiBowater	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0138

2	Alcoa Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0134

3	American Bakers Association (ABA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0142

4	American Chemistry Council (ACC)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

5	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

6	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

7

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0166

8	California Air and Resources Board (CARB)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0130

9	CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0155

10	Cornell University Environmental Health & Safety
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0132

11	Coto Consulting, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0161

12	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

13	Department of Defense (DoD)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0133

14	Eastman Chemical Company Texas Operations (Eastman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0137

15	Emerson Climate	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0099

16	Environmental Support Solutions (ESS)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0140

17	Flexible Packaging Association (FPA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0152

18	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

19

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0164 a

20	General Electric Company (GE)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0153

21	Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0146

22	National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project
(NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

23

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0165 a

24	Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0147

25	Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0144

26	Perkins Coie, LLP	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0160

27	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0124

28

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0131

29

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0141

30

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0157

31

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0162

32

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0098

33	Safeway Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0136

34	Shecco	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0149

35	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

36	Supervalu, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0143

37	Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0126 b

38

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0163 a

39	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

40	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129

a Comment was submitted after the close of the comment period on March
25, 2011.

b Comment previously submitted August 31, 1998 regarding Proposed Rule
63 FR 32043-32099; Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant
Recycling; and Substitute Refrigerants.

All comments have been reviewed, summarized, and organized by main
categories within the remainder of this document to highlight major
issues and clarification requests pertinent to the rule. Summaries are
organized by the following main sections of the rule:

Section 2 – Purpose and Scope

Section 3 – Definitions

Section 4 – Required Practices

Section 5 – Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Section 6 – Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Section 7 – Other Issues

At the beginning of each section, an outline of categories is provided
followed by a table detailing organizations that contributed comments.
Below each individual topic heading of a section, a bulleted list of
comments is provided. Comments are organized within each topic by
frequency (i.e., comments supported by the largest number of commenters
are placed first to highlight issues of common concern) followed by
Docket ID number. Special attention was paid to ensure that comments
were properly addressed with sufficient and relevant detail extracted
from their submittal. Commenters are listed at the beginning and Docket
ID numbers are provided in parentheses at the end of each comment.

The majority of comments submitted to EPA express non-support for
EPA’s proposed amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Requirements.
Comments deal primarily with EPA’s request for comments on required
practices in § 82.156 and changes to the definitions in § 82.152, and
most comments request modifications or clarifications to the regulatory
language. Several commenters stated that EPA should not require repairs
to all leaks as it is not practical and unnecessarily burdensome for
large, complex appliances where it can be difficult to identify and
repair some leaks. EPA also received comments that the costs associated
with leak repair trigger rate scenarios exceed the benefits that would
be achieved.

The majority of comments received on the proposed leak repair trigger
rates for IPR and comfort cooling were in support of keeping the current
rates of 35 and 15 percent. Several commenters state that the
requirement to perform a follow-up verification test no sooner than
24-hours after initial verification is unnecessary and burdensome.
Commenters also generally oppose the worst leaker provision, asserting
that the provision should not be applicable to three unrelated leaks
that could result in the unnecessary and very costly retrofitting and/or
retiring of appliances.

In addition, of the nine comments EPA received regarding the requirement
to keep records on-site, eight state that these requirements would
impose a significant burden, especially for organizations with a large
volume of facilities in various geographic locations. Commenters
expressed confusion around using the language “greater than 50 lbs”
instead of “50 lbs and greater” and request clarification. Comments
regarding the inclusion of users to the purpose and scope of Subpart F
generally were in non-support and thought the proposed language is a
departure from the Clean Air Act (CAA). Commenters also requested
modifications to the leak rate calculation, and suggested retaining
Method 1 to avoid the burden of software upgrades, recertifying
technicians, and general confusion regarding leak rate calculations.
Lastly, commenters were generally concerned about the proposal to
shorten the one-year timeframe currently granted to complete
retrofit/retirement plans.

Purpose and Scope

EPA received five comments on the Purpose and Scope of the proposed
regulations. Comments were in reference to the following categories:

  REF _Ref380415747 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  2.1 	Inclusion of “use”
in the Purpose and Scope of Subpart F

  REF _Ref380415754 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  2.2 	Inclusion of “and
encourage the use of substitutes”

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Lorraine Krupa Gershman	American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

2	James D. Jones	Alcoa Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0134

3	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

4	Brian A. Bell	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

5	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

Inclusion of “use” in the Purpose and Scope of Subpart F

EPA received five comments on the inclusion of users to the purpose and
scope of Subpart F, all in non-support. Four of the commenters think the
addition of the word “use” is beyond the scope of the CAA and
EPA’s statutory authority. One commenter found EPA’s proposed
amendment to be consistent with the CAA, but thought that EPA needs to
clarify the intent of the word “use” in the context of Subpart F.
The need to further define or clarify the new terms in the context of
Subpart F was also raised by another commenter.

USEC opposes EPA’s inclusion of “users” and “use” in the
purpose and scope of Subpart F. They believe that the addition of
“use” implies mandatory appliance repair during normal use instead
of being on “applicable leak rate threshold exceedance.” USEC
asserts that the leak repair provisions only apply once the applicable
leak rate threshold is exceeded, citing evidence from EPA 300-B-95-010,
Compliance Guidance For Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair
Regulations Under Section 608 Of the Clean Air Act. USEC believes that
the EPA proposal to include “use” goes beyond clear Congressional
intent, Section 608 language, and thus should not be included in the
rule.  [0125]

Auto Industry Forum (the Forum) does not agree with EPA’s addition of
the word “use” in the phrase, maximizing the recapture and recycling
of such ozone-depleting substances during the “use, service,
maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances.”  The Forum is
concerned with EPA’s proposal to expand a provision in Section
82.150(a) from “purpose” to include “scope”, which would
indicate the range of applicability of the rules. Further, the Forum
opposes EPA replacing the term “class I and class II” with the term
“ozone-depleting,” because it could expand the scope of the
regulations beyond those  defined terms, depart from the CAA Section
608, which refers to “class I and class II substances,” and could
add confusion.    [0148]

Alcoa Inc. believes that the inclusion of “use” in the purpose and
scope of Subpart F is consistent with the plain language of the CAA, but
that the proposed text does not add any additional clarity with respect
to EPA’s stated objective, “to clarify that the regulations also
apply persons using refrigerants who are owners or operators of
appliances with large refrigerant charges.” Alcoa Inc. holds that EPA
must define what “use” means in the context of its Subpart F
regulation.

Alcoa Inc. sees that there are distinct differences between persons who
“use” refrigerants and those persons who own equipment that
“contain” refrigerants. Alcoa Inc. states that the term “use” is
consistently and repeatedly linked to persons engaged in the service,
repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration.
They deduce that within the context of Section 608, §608(a)(3)(A) was
expected to reduce refrigerant “use,” because less refrigerant will
be required to replenish losses minimized through the regulations
implementing the prohibitions in Section 608(c). Alcoa Inc. maintains
that the plain language of Section 608 is focused on reductions in
refrigerant emission to the lowest achievable level during the service,
repair, or disposal of appliances.

Alcoa Inc. asserts that if EPA’s intent is to more clearly articulate
that Subpart F’s scope includes owners and operators that perform
their own service, repair, or undertake the removal of refrigerant from
their appliances prior to disposal, that level of clarity should be
added to the proposed amendment. If not, then EPA should clearly define
within the context of Subpart F what “using refrigerants” means.
[0134]

ACC objects to the EPA’s proposed changes to the purpose and scope
provision of Subpart F (§82.150(a)), holding that they appear to be an
effort to import its misinterpretation into the regulatory leak repair
requirements. The commenter objects to the EPA’s proposed addition of
“use” in two places, and cites this as proof that EPA acknowledges
that the current language of the rule does not support its
interpretation. ACC believes that EPA lacks the statutory authority to
make this change, because the statutory venting prohibition does not
apply to “use.” The commenter believes that the references to
“use” in §82.150(a) should not be adopted and, in the preamble to
the final rule, EPA should disavow its interpretation of the statute’s
“knowingly vent” provision and acknowledge that it does not apply to
leaks during use of an appliance when the leak rate is less than the
repair threshold.  [0139]

NEDA/CAP questions whether these proposed regulations impermissibly
expand the scope of EPA’s statutory authority. Specifically, the
commenter highlights the inclusion of “use” into the EPA proposal
and points out that Section 608(a) 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.” The commenter hopes
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.
 [0151]

Inclusion of “and encourage the use of substitutes”

EPA received two comments in reference to the phrase “encourage the
use of substitutes.”  The Auto Industry Forum agrees with EPA’s
addition of this language, while ACC disagrees with such language.

The Forum agrees with EPA’s proposed changes to add the language "and
encourage the use of substitutes" and delete the language "and their
substitutes" in the first sentence because these changes make the
regulations more consistent with CAA Section 612.  [0148]

ACC notes that EPA proposes to change the purpose statement so that it
no longer intends to “reduce emissions of …substitutes…to the
lowest achievable level” but rather that it intends to “encourage
the use of substitutes.” ACC states that this restatement loses sight
of one of the original purposes of Section 608, which was not only to
reduce ODS emissions but also to minimize emissions of their
substitutes, unless the substitutes did not pose a threat to the
environment.  [0139]

Definitions

EPA received 31 comments on definitions. Comments were in reference to
the following definitions provided in the proposed rule:

  REF _Ref378947650 \r \h  3.1 	Comfort Cooling Appliance

  REF _Ref380487441 \r \h  3.2 	Commercial Refrigeration Appliance

  REF _Ref378950016 \r \h  3.3 	Critical (Appliance) Component

  REF _Ref380487465 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 	Initial
and Follow-Up Verification Tests

  REF _Ref380415924 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition of Initial and Follow-up Verification

  REF _Ref380415930 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.4.2  	Proposed 24-hour
Waiting Period

  REF _Ref380487477 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 	Full
Charge and Seasonal Variance

  REF _Ref380415978 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition of Full Charge

  REF _Ref380415983 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition of Seasonal Variance

  REF _Ref378947645 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found.
Industrial Process Refrigeration

  REF _Ref378774039 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Leak Rate

  REF _Ref380416024 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition of Leak Rate

  REF _Ref380416029 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Elimination of Method 1 in Leak Rate Calculation

  REF _Ref378774045 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Normal Operating Characteristics or Conditions

  REF _Ref380487500 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 	Retrofit,
Repair, and Retire

  REF _Ref380416128 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition for Retire

  REF _Ref380416135 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Proposed Definition for Retrofit

  REF _Ref378774178 \r \h  Error! Reference source not found. 	Other
Definitions

  REF _Ref380416174 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Appliance

  REF _Ref380416179 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	“Engineered System”

  REF _Ref380416185 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Refrigerant

  REF _Ref380416215 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Duty Types

  REF _Ref380416224 \w \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Error! Reference source not
found. 	Refrigeration Circuit

Count	Commenter	Organization	Docket ID No

1	Dale Herendeen	AbitibiBowater	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0138

2	James D. Jones	Alcoa Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0134

3	Lorraine Krupa Gershman	American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0139

4	Paul Shorb	AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0154

5	Shannon S. Broome	Auto Industry Forum (the Forum)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0148

6

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0166

7	Pamela Gupta	California Air and Resources Board (CARB)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0130

8	David P. Hutchison	CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0155

9	Christina Schwerdtfeger	Coto Consulting, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0161

10	Robert D. Bessette	Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0145

11	Donald R. Schregardus	Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0133

12	Kevin Phillips	Eastman Chemical Company Texas Operations (Eastman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0137

13	Steven Ehrlich	Environmental Support Solutions (ESS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0140

14	Erik R. Lieberman	Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0150

15

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0164

16	Robert W. Schenker	General Electric Company (GE)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0153

17	Leslie Sue Ritts	National Environmental Development Association’s
Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0151

18

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0165

19	Frederick G. Fedri	Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0144

20	Christopher J. Sutton	Perkins Coie, LLP	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0160

21	Reid Jennings	Private Citizen Comment	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0124

22	Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0131

23

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0141

24

	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0162

25	Rob Uhl	Safeway Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0136

26	Christianna Papazahariou 	Shecco	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0149

27	Anonymous 	Southern Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0135

28	Ronald T. Mendes	Supervalu, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0143

29	John Myers	Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)	EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0163

30	Brian A. Bell	United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0125

31	Kathleen Tobin	Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0167-0129

Comfort Cooling Appliance

EPA received four comments on the applicability of the proposed new
definition of comfort cooling appliance to air-conditioning equipment
that is typically used to provide cooling/humidity controlled appliance.
All four comments suggest modifications to further clarify the proposed
new definition. One comment (from ESS) suggests specifying that comfort
cooling applies to spaces where people are present, including occupied
computer rooms. FMI expresses concern over considering the sum of all of
the cooling system’s components as an appliance and proposed a broader
definition for “component.” Alcoa Inc. recommends that EPA
streamline the definition and remove the reference to specific
refrigerants. Another comment (from The Auto Industry Forum) suggests
that EPA clearly delineate each of the three categories of refrigeration
and air conditioning equipment, including comfort cooling appliance.

ESS specifically suggests the following modification to the proposed
definition for comfort cooling appliance: “Comfort Cooling Appliance
means any air-conditioning appliance used to provide cooling in order to
control heat and/or humidity in facilities where people are present in
the space and the temperatures and humidity are in the HVAC industry‘s
comfortable range including occupied computer rooms. (10% trigger
rate).” [0140]

FMI believes the definition of “comfort cooling appliance” is vague
and seems to regard a supermarket system in its entirety as a single
appliance. The implication would be to replace or retrofit all
components of a system (e.g., cases, unit coolers, condensers,
compressor systems and interconnecting piping) instead of the
problematic component, which would be an unduly burdensome and wasteful.
FMI suggests two options to address their concern. The first option
would be to broaden the definition of component, and alter the
regulations such that they would impose the follow-up verification test
requirement and the retire option to failed components rather than the
whole appliance. Specifically, FMI proposes the following, more broad
definition of component: “A factory-made assembly of refrigeration
Components that function to control air temperature and/or humidity in
facilities such as office buildings and computer rooms. The commenter
also mentions including in the definition a list of components that are
intended to be included, but not be limited to (e.g., evaporators,
condensers, refrigerant compressors). The second and preferred option
would be to revise the definition so that it doesn’t capture a
supermarket system in its entirety. Specifically, FMI proposes: “A
factory-made assembly of refrigeration Components that function to
control air temperature and/or humidity in facilities such as office
buildings and computer rooms.” They suggest that the definition is
intended to include, but not be limited to packaged indoor or outdoor
air-conditioning units, and air-handlers, condensers, condensing units
and compressor systems used in an Engineered System. [0150, 0164]

Alcoa Inc. Inc. believes that EPA’s proposed definition of comfort
cooling appliance does not achieve the stated objective of providing
greater clarity, and creates unnecessary confusion. By incorporating a
listing of specific refrigerants in the definition, the commenter
believes that EPA brings into question the applicability of the
definition to appliances containing refrigerants other than those listed
in the definition and the applicability of certain required practices if
non-listed refrigerants are contained in the appliance. Alcoa Inc. Inc.
recommends that EPA streamline the definition and eliminate the
reference to specific refrigerants. Specifically, they recommends the
following definition: “Comfort cooling appliance means any air
conditioning appliance, such as building chillers and roof-top
self-contained units, used to control heat and/or humidity in the
facilities to which the appliance is connected.” [0134]

The Auto Industry Forum states that EPA does not define the range of
appliances covered across comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and
industrial process refrigeration or make clear that these categories are
mutually exclusive. To make the definitions clear, the commenter
suggests that EPA define comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration
first, and then define industrial process refrigeration appliance as
other appliances covered by the regulation that do not fit within the
other two categories. In addition, the commenter suggests that EPA
should clarify the scope and applicability of categories listed on
EPA’s website, which indicate that there is a leak repair trigger for
“all other appliances” that is the same as comfort cooling
(http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/leak.html). The commenter states
the website indicates that “all other appliances” have a leak rate
trigger of 15%, but there is no definition of such appliances and no
such leak rate in the rules.  [0148]

With respect to the comfort cooling appliance definition in particular,
the Auto Industry Forum suggests that EPA delete the words “and
computer rooms” and make clear in the regulation that such activities
are part of industrial process refrigeration, not comfort cooling. The
commenter notes that the term “comfort” at least implies its effect
on living things and therefore should be reflected in the definition of
comfort cooling. Alternatively, they might fall in the “all other
appliances” category which is not referenced in the rules but is
mentioned on EPA’s website. The commenter states that, in any case,
there needs to be a clear delineation of the categories and the
requirements that apply to them. [0148]

Commercial Refrigeration Appliance

EPA sought comment on the inclusion of the compressor rack system in the
Agency’s current interpretation of what comprises a commercial
refrigeration appliance. EPA received two comments on the definition of
“commercial refrigeration appliance,” both suggesting modifications.

ESS suggests the following as the definition for commercial
refrigeration appliance: “Commercial refrigeration appliance means any
food related refrigeration appliance used to store food. This includes
the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, grocery and
convenience stores, restaurants, and other food service establishments.
They may be walk in or drive in coolers and freezers including cold
storage food warehousing. (20% trigger rate).” [0140]

FMI proposes the following definition for commercial refrigeration
appliance: “A factory-made assembly of refrigeration Components that
function to extract heat from or reject heat to a space or substance, or
to compress a refrigerant vapor, for the purposes of storing perishable
goods in retail food, cold storage warehousing, or any other sector
requiring cold storage. This definition is intended to include, but not
be limited to, self-contained refrigeration equipment, and remote
refrigerated merchandising or storage fixtures, unit coolers,
condensers, condensing units and compressor systems used in an
Engineered System.” [0150]

Critical (Appliance) Component

EPA sought comment on the proposed change to the definition of critical
component and received a total of five comments. One comment (from
Eastman) supports EPA’s proposal to allow comfort cooling appliances
to be granted the same flexibility for repairs due to unavailable
components.  While other commenters generally supported the proposed
change, several suggest modifications. Another common theme from
commenters (Auto Industry Forum, ACC, and NEDA/CAP) was a concern over
safety considerations brought on by the proposed change.

Eastman supports EPA’s proposal to allow comfort cooling appliances to
be granted the same flexibility for repairs due to unavailable
components.  [0137]

Alcoa Inc. supports EPA’s proposal to provide owners and operators of
comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration appliances flexibility and
additional time when “critical” components are unavailable for
repairs. However, Alcoa Inc. believes that without the term
“critical,” or some equivalent qualifier, the stand alone term
“component” could be interpreted to include any part of the
appliance, which effectively “emasculates the definition to the point
that it has no meaningful purpose within the regulation.” Alcoa Inc.
suggests that the definition retains some form of a qualifying
descriptor and clearly define that term to mean “an essential
appliance component, without which the appliance will not function
(e.g., compressor, condenser, evaporator).” [0134]

Auto Industry Forum believes that the proposed definition for component
could inappropriately apply to components that are not part of the
refrigerant circuit (e.g., electrical wiring and controls, cooling fans
that need cleaning, etc.) and don’t require the involvement of a
refrigerant technician. The Forum supports adding a definition for
appliance component but one that is associated with the term
"refrigerant" as pertaining to the refrigerant circuit. The commenter
notes that work performed on non-refrigerant components does not require
an EPA-certified technician since the refrigerant circuit is not being
opened to conduct such repair. Moreover, the commenter states that a
refrigerant technician may not be qualified to perform certain
electrical work and inadvertently creating an overly broad definition of
the term component could lead to safety and quality problems. The Forum
proposes the following changes to the definition:

“Component means a  n appliance component of an appliance’s
refrigerant circuit, such as, but not limited to, compressors,
condensers, evaporators, receivers and all of its connections and
subassemblies that handle refrigerant without which the appliance will
not properly function and/or will be subject to failures.” [0148]

ACC believes that replacing “critical component” with
“component” eliminates considerations of safety in the definition.
The commenter suggests that EPA modify the definition to read as
follows: “Component means 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
function safely and/or will be subject to failures.” [0139]

NEDA/CAP supports removing “critical” from the definition since this
implies a judgment call by maintenance staff or environmental managers.
However, NEDA/CAP believes that removing “safely” is not appropriate
because it limits the overly broad last phrase of the proposed
definition “will not properly function and/or will be subject to
failures.” Without the phrase “safely,” NEDA/CAP feels any number
of small component problems could be argued to cause a component to not
function properly or be subject to failures and unnecessarily trigger 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.  Therefore, the commenter believes it is
unnecessary 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.  [0151]

 Initial and Follow-Up Verification Tests

Proposed Definition of Initial and Follow-up Verification

EPA received six comments proposing modifications to the language within
the definition of initial and follow-up verification. CIBO, FMI, and
NEDA/CAP’s proposed modifications remove the 24 hour provision in the
proposed “follow-up verification” definition. OCC recommends adding
a safety option for verification testing and clarifying that testing is
specifically for leak repair. ESS proposed changes to the names for the
verification tests and comments on the feasibility of testing under
normal operating conditions. Alcoa, Inc. believes the proposed changes
would create an unnecessarily burdensome requirement without a
demonstration of specific health or ecological benefits.

CIBO suggests that the phrasing of the proposed change be revised since,
as written, it could be interpreted to mean that each of the
verification tests listed must be done, rather than EPA’s intended
meaning, as suggestions of some methods that may be used. CIBO
recommends that this definition be revised as follows:

“Follow-up verification test means a test that validates the
effectiveness of repairs within 30 days of the appliance’s return to
normal operating characteristics and conditions but no sooner than 24
hours after completion of repairs. Follow up verification tests include,
but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles….and handheld gas
detection devices." [0145]

FMI recommends the following changes to the definitions of “follow-up
verification test” and “initial verification test”:

“Follow-up verification test means a test conducted by a technician
that validates the effectiveness of repairs within 30 days of the
appliance’s return to normal operating characteristics and no sooner
than 24 hours after completion of repairs. Follow-up verification tests
include… “

“Initial verification test means a leak test that is conducted by a
technician as soon as practicable after the repair is competed. An
initial verification test, with regard to the leak repairs that require
the evacuation of the appliance or portion of the appliance, means a
test conducted prior to the replacement of the full refrigerant charge
and before the appliance or portion of the appliance has reached
operation at normal operating characteristics and conditions of
temperature and pressure.” [0164]

NEDA/CAP suggests that 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."
NEDA/CAP believes it may be prudent to wait a brief period for such
initial verification of the repair, and that immediately examining the
equipment may result in a leak going undetected. For the follow-up
verification definition, NEDA/CAP suggests the definition of should be
modified to remove the no sooner than 24 hour after completion
restriction. NEDA/CAP feels EPA’s proposal has two fundamental
problems. First, certain equipment return to normal operations
immediately following a service call, and it is valid to test it at that
time. NEDA/CAP states that, to justify this additional cost and the
administrative complexity that the source must then manage, EPA provides
no data that demonstrates 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
immediately after the appliance has returned to “normal operating
conditions.” Second, the commenter feels that this requirement will
impose considerable expense for small 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,
NEDA/CAP believes this will also mean that data must be collected from
repair technicians at two different times on the same repair, and that
someone must remember to schedule the call and follow up to make sure
the call occurs timely.  NEDA/CAP suggests that 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.  [0151]

OCC recommends two amendments to the definitions. First, OCC recommends
that the proposed rule contain the following wording:

“Follow-up leak repair verification tests include, but are not limited
to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or ultrasonic leak detectors,
pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye and black light, infrared or
near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection devices. Where repairs
are made in areas of an appliance that render it dangerous, unsafe, or
not possible to test safely while under load, a deep vacuum test per
ASHRAE guidelines for the system shall be conducted prior to recharging
the refrigeration system and shall satisfy the follow-up leak repair
verification test requirement for the system after recharge is
completed.”

OCC states that there are operational circumstances that can be unsafe
to the technician performing the follow-up leak repair verification test
and that the addition of an option to use the deep vacuum test takes
into consideration those areas that become dangerous or inaccessible
once a system is restarted.  OCC notes that special unsafe-to-monitor
provisions can be found in LDAR regulations at 40 CFR 63.168 (h)
defining unsafe-to-monitor for situations exposing the monitoring
personnel to immediate danger. Second, OCC believes EPA should clarify
descriptive language by using terminology such as “the initial leak
repair verification test” and “follow-up leak repair verification
test” to help technicians better understand the intent and specific
purpose of the testing.  OCC believes that the wording changes would
provide an unambiguous reading of the purpose for the testing throughout
the rule. [0144]

ESS recommends modifying the names of the tests and including language
in the follow-up definition to note that leaks cannot be verified with
systems running under normal operating characteristics and conditions.
With regards to the modification of the names of the tests, the
commenter notes that, during the 1995 rule process when verification
tests were introduced to the IPR industry (and federally owned), the
proposed test names evolved from “static” and “dynamic” to
“initial” and “follow-up.” ESS notes that it has promoted to
clients since 1995 that they proactively perform and document initial
and follow-up verification tests. ESS found confusion within the non-IPR
industries about the meaning of the tests. ESS states that technicians
documented how they found a leak in the initial verification test space
of their service form even though a definition of the test was listed.
Technicians then documented the initial test they performed in the
follow-up test space on the form. ESS estimates that the failure rate of
understanding is over 40% within the non-IPR industry. ESS notes that
the same reason is given: “It was not in my 608 EPA certification
test, we have always checked our work prior to charging a system and why
didn’t EPA call it Initial Leak Repair Verification Test and Follow-up
Leak Repair Verification test so we know it is about leaks we
repaired.” ESS believes many of the industries involved did not have
an environmental department and that all their work done was by
contractors and technicians who have no experience with IPR systems.
Therefore, ESS suggests that renaming the tests may bring clarity to the
technicians who have not been exposed to this subject. ESS further feels
that EPA should make modifications to include training on verification
testing in order to better prepare new technicians for compliance.

Secondly, ESS notes that there are situations where it is impossible to
perform a follow-up verification test while running under normal load.
ESS notes that clients have had to extrapolate the 1995 Federal Register
language to develop policy and procedure to address the issue, and ESS
believes it is time to clarify and address this issue with a revised
definition. ESS points to ASHRAE Standard 3 on deep vacuum tests:
[Federal Register: August 8, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 152)][Rules and
Regulations][Page 40430], where, according to ESS, EPA agrees that in
certain circumstances, performing a follow-up verification test prior to
normal operating characteristics and conditions may be more meaningful
and reliable. [0140]

Alcoa, Inc. believes the proposal to amend the follow-up verification
tests requirements (via changes to the definition of the term and the
required practices portion of the rule) would create an unnecessarily
burdensome requirement without a demonstration of specific health or
ecological benefits. [0134]

Proposed 24-hour Waiting Period

EPA received twenty-five comments opposing the requirement to perform a
follow-up verification test no sooner than 24-hours after initial
verification. Commenters state that owners/operators would be required
to have a service technician return on a second day for all repairs,
which can double the cost of a repair; that follow-up verification
testing should be allowed as soon as the equipment has returned to
normal operating characteristics and conditions, as allowed under the
current rule; and that EPA does not provide sufficient data or
explanation to justify the requirement.  EPA received one comment in
support of this requirement.

ACC, USEC, Eastman, The Auto Industry Forum, Perkins Coie, LLP,
AbitibiBowater  and CIBO comment that the proposed requirement will
result in facilities paying substantial, additional, and unnecessary
costs for a second service call.  It was noted that many businesses do
not have “in-house” technicians and a technician may need to be
dispatched from another location.  The commenters note that while this
may be appropriate with respect to some repairs, it should not be
necessary for many others.  [0139, 0125, 0137, 0148, 0160, 0138, 0129,
0145]

Eastman, ACC, and DoD note that for many repairs, the repair technician
will be able to verify that the appliance had returned to normal
operating conditions during the initial service call, without the need
for an additional visit. [0137, 0139, 0133]

 The Auto Industry Forum, Eastman, Southern Company, ACC, TVA, AT&T, and
FMI state that a more appropriate requirement would be that the unit is
returned to normal operating characteristics and conditions. The
commenters state that the time period for each appliance to reach normal
operating characteristics and conditions is often less than 24 hours,
and the selection of 24 hours seems to be arbitrary. ACC believes EPA
should allow the use of professional judgment regarding secondary
follow-up verification and when this should occur for industrial process
refrigeration systems because work activities, such as the replacement
of insulation over pipes, need to occur shortly after the system returns
to operation. [0148, 0137, 0135, 0139, 0154, 0163, 0164]

DoD, Verizon, Eastman comment that equipment owners, operators, and
certified technicians are best equipped to determine the appropriate
amount of time after an appliance has resumed operation at normal
operating characteristics prior to conducting a follow-up verification
based upon the nature of the repair, the overall condition of the
appliance, and other factors. [0133, 0129, 0137]

CIBO, TVA, and ACC note that the service call on a second day will often
be handled by a second technician who did not perform the initial leak
repair work and is not familiar with the particular leak. [0145, 0163,
0139]

USEC, ACC, DoD, Alcoa Inc., Verizon, CIBO, TVA, and AT&T comment that
EPA does not provide sufficient explanation or data to justify EPA’s
implication that it is necessary to wait until an appliance has operated
under normal operating conditions over an extended period of time to
ensure that repairs hold up. [0125, 0139, 0133, 0134, 0129, 0145, 0163,
0154]

TVA, Verizon, and FMI comment that if EPA is going to maintain the
24-hour requirement, EPA should factor these costs into its economic
analysis. TVA believes that mandating an additional inspection after 24
hours of the repair but before 30 days have passed increases labor and
diagnostic costs of the repair job.  TVA states that this follow up leak
check will take between 10 and 12 man hours, which, at $70 to $100 per
man hour fully burdened with overheads, tools, etc., totals to
approximately $700 to $1200 per repair job in addition to the cost
required to fix the leak.  TVA’s estimate includes travel to job site,
various pre-job briefings, coordination with plant operations, in some
cases, notification of regulators. [0163, 0129, 0150, 0164]

USEC comments that the proposed 24 hours minimum is too restrictive and
will lead to delays in returning equipment to service. USEC states there
is no reason to believe the equipment is more likely to fail the
follow-up verification test after 24 hours than if the test was
performed as required by the current definition. The commenter also
states that the current definition already requires the follow-up
verification testing to occur “after the appliance or portion of the
appliance has resumed operation at normal operating characteristics. .
.” USEC believes the current requirements adequately test the repairs
and should not be changed. [0125]

The Auto Industry Forum states that it is generally preferable to
complete the follow-up verification as soon as the unit is brought back
on line and up to its normal operating temperature and pressure to
assure that the leak has been properly repaired. The Forum notes that,
if the repair is not successful, waiting 24 hours to make that
determination risks additional refrigerant loss and harm to the
environment, and could pose risk to the appliance. The commenter also
believes that imposing a 24-hour delay requirement creates a greater
risk that the follow-up test will not occur. The Auto Industry Forum
notes that facilities typically have technicians perform the follow-up
verification test as soon as normal operation is returned to minimize
the chance that the technician will not fulfill this obligation within
the 30-day requirement. [0148]

ACC states that the phrasing regarding the methods of performing the
tests could be interpreted to suggest that each of the verification
tests listed be used. ACC suggests that EPA rephrase this as
“Follow-up verification test methods which may be used include, but
are not limited to,…” Finally, ACC notes that EPA has omitted from
the new definition a good deal of clarifying material without
explanation. The commenter believes the addition of a definition of
“normal operating characteristics and conditions” does not replace
the explanation as to how to determine when the equipment has returned
to normal operating conditions. ACC encourages EPA to retain the
language found in the current definition of follow-up verification tests
in §82.152. [0139]

DoD states that the proposed 24-hour minimum is too prescriptive and may
significantly increase the costs of leak repairs. DoD recommends EPA
should keep the current definition of follow-up verification as-is and
remove the 24-hour minimum required waiting period. [0133]

Eastman does not believe EPA should require owners/operators to wait at
least 24 hours to conduct follow-up monitoring. Eastman believes the
owner/operator will know when the appliance has resumed operation at
normal operating characteristics and conditions and in many instances
could conduct the follow-up monitoring at that time, even if that time
period is less than 24 hours. Eastman believes that waiting at least 24
hours will result in increased operating costs. Eastman states that, in
many instances, the refrigeration appliance could be returned to service
and the person(s) conducting the repair could remain on site until the
unit is at normal operating characteristics and conditions and conduct
the follow-up checks before leaving the site, which would eliminate
another trip by personnel to the appliance location. [0137]

Alcoa Inc. believes the proposed 24-hour waiting period is unnecessary,
and should be removed from the final rule. The commenter believes the
current EPA definition is clear in its meaning and its applicability.
The commenter notes § 82.152 defines, for the purposes of § 82.156(i),
a follow-up verification test to be one that involves checking of
repairs within 30 days of the appliance’s returning to normal
operating characteristics and conditions of temperature and pressure,
except in cases where sound professional judgment dictates that these
tests will be more meaningful if performed prior to the return to normal
operating characteristics and conditions. [0134]

Perkins Coie, LLP believes that the proposed change eliminates
flexibility and doesn't demonstrably result in any improved protection
of human health or the environment. The commenter suggests that EPA
instead provide owners and operators guidance recommending that
follow-up verification testing be conducted after the appliance has
operated for 24 hours, but allow the qualified service technician the
flexibility to perform the follow-up verification test sooner in
circumstances where the technician can document that the appliance is
operating under normal conditions in advance of the test. [0160]

ESS encourages EPA to refer to the 1995 Federal Register discussions and
the EPA/CMA settlement when considering the minimum 24 hour wait time
for follow-up verification tests. ESS notes that the issue was to allow
large IPR systems time to heat their product back up to temperature to
allow the system to return to normal operating conditions. ESS also
notes that smaller IPR, comfort, commercial, and other refrigeration
systems that have a pent up load built up during repair time usually
return to normal operating load as soon as their internal safety
controls allow. If the repaired area was not successful, the test would
fail immediately at those temperature and pressures, so waiting a
minimum of 24 hours will not reduce emissions and add significant costs
to the industry. ESS therefore suggests the definition be modified to
the following:

“Follow-up ‘Leak Repair’ Verification test means a test that
validates the effectiveness of repairs within 30 days of the successful
Initial Leak Repair Verification test date. Follow-up verification tests
include, but are not limited to, the use of soap bubbles, electronic or
ultrasonic leak detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, fluorescent dye and
black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection
devices. If repairs were made to areas of an appliance that make it
impossible to conduct the test while running under load then a Standing
Deep Vacuum test for the appropriate amount of time for the system size
shall serve as the Follow-up verification test. (Examples: Low Pressure
appliance, low side leak repairs, water cooled heat exchanger repairs
and locations deemed unsafe or impossible to access with system running
under normal load).” [0140]

An anonymous commenter states that the 24-hour waiting period will place
a large burden on supermarkets by effectively mandating that a return
trip be made in order to perform the follow-up verification test, which
would double the cost of each repair. The commenter notes that current
practices of supermarket in-house technicians and outside contractors
allow them to make the repair in one service call by performing an
initial verification test followed by the follow-up verification after a
waiting period of several hours. The commenter notes that these costs
will rise even further if the leak rate thresholds are lowered, which
would trigger more leak records. The commenter estimates that within a
supermarket chain that has roughly 6,000 refrigerated systems,
approximately 480 systems would therefore likely require the mandatory
repair if the leak rate for refrigeration appliances is lowered to 20
percent (i.e., 8%). The commenter states that, assuming the average
labor coat of $55.00 per hour, follow-up verification on a single
service call would cost roughly $26,400. The commenter believes that if
supermarkets are required to request a return trip for the follow-up
verification test, supermarkets could expect that cost to double to
$52,800. [0131]

CARB comments that the 24 hour wait period may be unnecessary, since
industry input suggests many systems are able to return to normal
operating conditions much sooner than 24 hours.  CARB believes that the
intent that the follow-up verification test be conducted after the
system has returned to normal operating conditions is an important
stipulation to ensure that the repairs will hold. [0130]

Southern Company comments that follow-up verification no sooner than
24-hours after initial verification could double the cost of repairs for
facilities in remote locations. Southern Company agrees that thirty days
is a reasonable length of time to complete repairs on equipment that is
leaking above the leak repair trigger rate. Southern Company believes
that the requirement for follow-up verification testing no sooner than
24 hours after repairs, however, will increase the costs associated with
leak repairs, particularly for companies like Southern Company that have
several facilities in remote locations.  For example, certified service
personnel must drive four hours to reach one of the facilities owned by
a Southern Company operating company. Southern Company notes that
requiring a second verification no sooner than 24 hours after the first
verification would essentially require the certified service personnel
to either spend the night near the facility or complete a second 8-hour
round trip the next day, which could double the cost of the repair.
[0135]

Safeway Inc comments that a follow up leak check within 30 days, but no
sooner than 24 hours can be extremely burdensome. Safeway Inc notes that
once a refrigeration system is brought up to normal operating pressures,
a leak check done then versus 24 hours from then, or 7 days from then
will yield the same results; the leak is either repaired or not. Safeway
Inc notes that many supermarkets are located in remote areas; even for
supermarkets that are not located “remotely” (e.g., a 5 hour drive
into the mountains), many are located 1 or 2 hours from the closest
technician, which will lead to increased costs to repair leaks. Safeway
Inc notes that the scenario of having the technician perform the leak
check the next time they visit the store is also not good as it could be
longer than 30 days before the next service call, it would create more
havoc on record keeping, and it may be a different technician on the
next visit which could make finding the location that was repaired
difficult. Safeway Inc believes the leak check could be accomplished
with the same level of accuracy as soon as the system is up to normal
operating pressure. [0136]

Supervalu, Inc. comments that the proposed follow up verification
testing provision would have little, if any, impact on the environment,
while being overly costly and burdensome for appliance owners and
operators.  Supervalu, Inc. notes that typically supermarket appliances,
unlike commercial refrigeration appliances, can be returned to normal
operating temperatures, pressures, and conditions in less than one hour
after the system is put back on line. Supervalu, Inc. states that once
normal conditions are restored, verification testing is appropriate.
Supervalu, Inc. comments that such a requirement drives up the cost of
service, may cause inconvenience to customers if cases on the sales
floor are left empty or must be re-emptied for a subsequent verification
test and will result in unnecessary loss of sales. [0143]

Verizon notes that many smaller comfort cooling units may return to
normal operational characteristics in a short period of time; therefore,
a follow-up verification test during the same day that the repairs have
been completed may still provide the same level of environmental
protection without the added burden of recalling a technician on a
subsequent day. [0129]

OCC comments that EPA should remove the proposed 24 hour waiting period.
OCC notes that with the current rule provisions requiring that in all
cases, the follow-up verification test shall be conducted at normal
operating characteristics and conditions, the requirement to wait 24
hours provides an undue cost burden, especially for those facilities
requiring outside contractors to revisit the plant. OCC states that
costs and emissions associated with travel back to the facility, passing
through security protocols, safety checks, redeploying testing equipment
and a new set up effort would be incurred. OCC also notes that the rule
does not provide a recordkeeping element to clarify what defines the
start of the 24-hour clock; to demonstrate clearly that the 24 hours has
been expended, information would need to be documented (e.g. through a
signed certified technician’s service order) that indicates date and
time that the initial leak repair verification test (or other 24-hour
clock start-activity identified in the rule) was successfully achieved.
OCC believes that unless there is data demonstrating that full operating
conditions reached under the current rule are different from full
operating conditions reached after 24 hours of operation, the imposition
of a 24-hour waiting period does not logically translate into lower
emissions. OCC notes that other provisions in the proposed rule
amendment provide better and enhanced means to elicit emission
reductions. OCC believes that having the opportunity to conduct the
verification test once the unit is operating at normal operating
conditions is a more prudent course of action rather than having to wait
24 hours, because there may be cases under which a unit passes the
initial verification test but experiences a leak shortly after startup.
OCC notes that a delay of the verification test could result in a
leaking unit going unchecked for at least 24 hours and higher
refrigerant emissions. OCC recommends that the language currently in
place at 40 CFR 82.156(i)(3) remain unchanged. [0144]

TVA comments that current accepted industry practices utilized by most
certified refrigeration mechanics call for a thorough leak test on a new
system by pressurizing the system with inert gas and then reducing the
pressure to form a deep vacuum (system evacuation and moisture removal).
 TVA states that repaired or overhauled equipment is normally tested in
a similar manner.  [0163]

FMI maintains that a follow-up verification as defined in the proposed
amendments would have almost no value in reducing refrigerant emissions.
FMI states that it would be an extremely rare event for the repair of a
specific leak site, having passed a verification test immediately
following the appliance’s return to normal operating characteristics
and conditions, to subsequently fail within the presently prescribed
follow-up window. FMI notes that a technician’s reputation is on the
line with every service call, and technicians know that if their repairs
fail regularly, they will lose the business of retailer or wholesalers.
FMI states that firms in the industry expect the job to be done
correctly the first time.

FMI notes that for the owner/operator of a supermarket system, providing
access to a repair site often means removing perishable product from a
merchandising fixture. FMI believes that the service cost of a follow-up
inspection, the cost of store labor and the cost of lost revenue that
results from removing saleable product from a merchandising fixture are
far in excess of the benefit gained by imposing a 24 hour waiting period
for a follow-up verification test. FMI states that the typical service
call for a technician lasts about 4 hours—often longer—and that a
technician may have to drive an hour or two to visit a store location,
and then an hour or two back. FMI notes that thousands of small,
independent retailers are located in small towns that do not have
resident certified refrigeration technicians, and for many of these
retailers, the closest technician may be a six hour or more drive away.
FMI states that these retailers face challenges in getting technicians
to drive vast distances to make a repair in the first place, and
requiring these retailers to bring a technician back to check on a
previously made repair will be nearly impossible. FMI comments that a
retailer would effectively be forced to pay a technician to stay
overnight to comply with the 24-hour waiting period. With contractor
rates averaging $90 to more than $100 an hour, the follow-up
verification requirement will cost retailers and wholesalers hundreds or
thousands of dollars more for each leak repair in addition to the costs
of lost revenue and store labor described above FMI comments that
retailers have estimated that complying with the waiting period
requirement will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
FMI states that pulling a case for repair requires significant amounts
of store labor, so if the 24 hour waiting period is implemented, it is
likely that retailers will leave a case pulled for that entire period,
which not only leads to lost revenue, but inconveniences consumers.  FMI
notes that small businesses will bear a significant share of this
burden.

FMI comments that the waiting period will impose environmental costs;
in many circumstances it will double the amount of time technicians
spend on the road driving to reach store locations thus doubling the
amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by their vehicles for each repair.
FMI also believes EPA should specify in the regulations that the test be
conducted by a technician to ensure that it is accurate.  [0150, 0164]

AT&T comments that adding a 24-hour requirement is unjustified. AT&T
comments that this 24-hour requirement would create a substantial and
unnecessary additional cost on AT&T, and likely on many other parties.
AT&T has over 8,000 facilities with comfort cooling equipment that would
potentially be subject to this requirement if a leak repair were
necessary. These locations are spread widely across the country, and
generally do not have an on-site technician qualified to service
refrigeration and cooling equipment. AT&T believes the proposed 24-hour
requirement would in effect require an extra visit by the technician
after almost every repair, in order to perform the follow-up
verification.  AT&T therefore requests that the words “but no sooner
than 24 hours after” be stricken from the proposed new text of 40 CFR
82.156(i)(2).  AT&T notes that the rule would still require that the
follow-up verification test not be performed until the repaired
equipment had returned to “normal operating characteristics and
conditions.”

AT&T also comments that the proposed rule appropriately allows an
owner/operator to use professional judgment to select which type of test
to use, based on such factors as the type and location of the repair and
the repair history of the equipment.  AT&T notes that most of the test
methods listed in EPA’s proposal are essentially instantaneous and do
not inherently involve change over time, including: the use of soap
bubbles, electronic of ultrasonic leak detectors, fluorescent dye and
black light, infrared or near infrared tests, and handheld gas detection
devices. AT&T states that if the cause and location of a leak are known,
the repair is straightforward, and the relevant area can be accessed by
one of the test types listed above, then that type may be the best to
ensure that the repair was successful. AT&T comments that these types of
tests are just as accurate in confirming the success of a repair whether
they are performed (a) immediately after a system returns to “normal
operating characteristics and conditions” or (b) 24 hours later.  AT&T
notes that if for some reason none of the “instantaneous” types of
tests is applicable, one may need to rely on pressure or vacuum testing
at two different times, to see if lower pressure in the second test
indicates a loss of refrigerant—but the occasional need for these
tests does not justify requiring that all follow-up verification tests
be delayed 24 hours. AT&T states that the necessary time interval
depends on the sensitivity of the pressure test and on how slow a leak
one is trying to detect. AT&T notes that this sort of follow-up
verification based on two pressure tests is not to determine whether a
completed repair will “hold”; rather, it is to determine whether the
repair was successfully completed in the first place. AT&T believes that
allowing owner/operator discretion to decide how much time interval is
needed between pressure/vacuum tests would follow logically from the
fact that EPA’s proposal currently leaves the owner/operator
discretion to choose which type of verification test is appropriate.
AT&T proposes the following alternate language: “Owners or operators
shall conduct a follow-up verification test within 30 days of completing
a repair and recharge of the appliance.  The follow-up verification test
shall be conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions.
If the follow-up verification test relies solely on detecting pressure
differences at different times to determine whether a slow leak exists,
the second test shall be conducted no sooner than 24 hours after the
first test, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that a shorter
interval is sufficient.” [0154]

GE is concerned with the 24-hour wait period requirements in §82.152,
§82.156 (i) and §82.156 (j). GE emphasizes that this provision
automatically requires that any leak repair to industrial process,
comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration appliances must be performed
over two days. GE sites perform repairs in the following three different
ways:

A limited number of large manufacturing GE sites employ certified
refrigeration technicians and maintain the needed refrigerant recovery
equipment. These sites can easily schedule the follow-up verification
tests on subsequent days because the needed certified technician and
recovery equipment will be readily available. GE states that the 24-hour
delay provisions will not significantly impact these sites.

Some GE sites hire qualified refrigeration contractors who employ the
certified refrigeration technicians and maintain the needed refrigerant
recovery equipment. If the site is sufficiently large and has numerous
industrial process refrigeration and/or comfort cooling appliances, the
site may hire the refrigeration contractor on an extended agreement such
that the contractor routinely comes to the site on a periodic basis.
These sites can easily schedule the follow-up verification tests on
subsequent days when the refrigeration contractor is already scheduled
to come to the site (if they are scheduled to come more frequently than
monthly to assure that the 30 day limitation is met).  GE states that
again, the 24-hour delay provisions will not significantly impact these
sites.

The great majority of GE sites hire a refrigeration contractor on an as
needed basis. This is particularly the case, if the site is an office
facility or small to medium manufacturing or service site. These sites
call a refrigeration contractor when one or more appliances on site need
to be serviced. The refrigeration contractor travels to the site and
typically completes the needed service or repairs in one day, including
any initial and follow-up verification tests.  GE notes that in this
situation, the needed certified refrigeration technician and needed
recovery equipment are not available on site, nor will they likely be
routinely available on site within 30 days. GE states that the
refrigeration contractor will have to schedule a second visit to the
site to complete the follow-up verification tests because of the
proposed 24-hour delay provision. GE believes that this will increase
the cost because two service visits will be required for every leak
repair to comfort cooling, commercial and industrial refrigeration
appliances.

GE maintains that these additional costs could easily be $200 or more
per visit.  GE notes that if they conservatively assume that there is at
least one service repair requiring a second visit under the 24-hour
delay provision at 500 GE sites in the US with refrigeration appliances
greater than 50 pounds, then the cost increase of performing the
follow-up verification test on a subsequent day instead of the same day
would be at least $100,000. GE believes the cost increase would likely
be much higher since many GE sites have numerous industrial process
refrigeration and/or comfort cooling appliances with greater than 50
pounds of refrigerants.

GE notes that §82.156 (i) and §82.156 (j) extend the initial and
follow-up verification tests to comfort cooling and commercial
refrigeration appliances with greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant, and
many commercial and institutional organizations will be required to
perform initial and follow-up verification tests for the first time. GE
believes it is likely that most of these organizations hire
refrigeration contractors on an as needed basis in the same manner as
the majority of GE sites; therefore, many of these commercial and
institutional organizations will incur the same cost increases that GE
will incur from the additional contractor travel time costs to visit the
site on the second day.

GE believes that EPA is not likely to achieve any significant
refrigerant release reductions by delaying the follow-up verification
for 24 hours. GE states that the 24 delay may in fact lead to an
increase in refrigerant releases. GE provides an example of a situation
in which a refrigeration contractor performs a repair that is followed
by a successful initial verification, and the appliance is then turned
on and brought up to normal operating conditions and the appliance then
starts to leak at the normal operating conditions. GE notes that in this
case, the follow-up verification test will not be performed until 1 to
30 days after the repair because of the proposed 24-hour delay
provision. GE states that a significant quantity of refrigerant could be
released from the appliance before the follow-up verification test is
performed at a later date, and this leak would likely be identified
sooner if the follow-up verification test were performed on the day of
the repair. GE recommends that the 24-hour delay for the follow-up
verification test should be removed from all provisions because it will
increase costs and provide little benefit. [0153]

The Auto Industry Forum opposes adding a 24-hour wait period. The Forum
states that it is generally preferable to complete the follow-up
verification as soon as the unit is brought back on line and up to its
normal operating temperature and pressure to assure that the leak has
been properly repaired. If the repair is not successful, waiting 24
hours to make that determination risks additional refrigerant loss and
harm to the environment, and could pose risk to the appliance. Based on
feedback from engineering staff at member company facilities, following
the completion of repairs, appliance systems have been found to reach
steady state within a very short time period following startup,
generally no more than about 15 minutes. The engineering staff report
that the effectiveness of repairs is verifiable through the verification
tests described in the proposed amended regulation very soon after the
appliance returns to normal operating characteristics and conditions,
such that a 24-hour waiting period is both unjustified and unnecessary.
The Auto Industry Forum’s members interviewed appliance service
technicians employed by their facilities as well as third-party
contractors they utilize for appliance service. The Auto Industry Forum
comments that these technicians consistently reported that the
effectiveness of repairs is verified soon after repair completion and
return of the appliance to normal operating characteristics and
conditions. The Auto Industry Forum also notes that all of those
surveyed reported that if the leak test should happen to find a leak, it
would be preferable to find it soon after completion of the repair
rather than 24 hours later because the technician would still be working
on the appliance and could more easily troubleshoot problems. Specific
comments made by those interviewed by the Forum member companies include
the following:

One lead HVAC third-party technician stated that the equipment is
generally normalized within a few minutes following startup. He noted
that the technicians have a clear idea as to whether a leak has been
repaired prior to charging the system because they check it under vacuum
with a micrometer prior to charge. If the system is not tight, the
technicians will simply not charge the unit. The follow-up leak
verification test, then, according to the lead HVAC technician, actually
serves as a second check to the micrometer vacuum check.

A third-party contractor who is familiar with a variety of appliances
from ice machines to rooftop HVAC to large chiller units indicated that
all units return to normal operating characteristics and conditions in 5
to 15 minutes. [0166]

Shecco welcomes this provision and assesses that 24 hours is an
appropriate amount of time, at a minimum, that allows the appliance to
return to normal operating characteristics and conditions. Shecco
recognizes that this requirement encompasses increased servicing costs,
especially for owners and operators with no in-house certified servicing
personnel but believes that the incurred costs would be counterbalanced
by avoiding another leak repair in the event that the initial repair was
not effective. Shecco also believes this provision would ensure higher
quality of services by the leak repair providers. [0149]

CWI suggests that EPA consider an alternative clarification that
requires follow-up verification to be conducted “no sooner than 24
hours but not later than 30 days after successful initial verification
testing of all leak repairs and the appliance has operated under typical
conditions.” The commenter believes that this clarification may
provide clearer instruction to prevent the issues EPA identified where
follow-up verifications were performed immediately after repairs and the
initial verification. [0155]

Full Charge and Seasonal Variance

Proposed Definition of Full Charge

EPA received nine comments in opposition to the proposed change to the
definition of full charge, one comment in support, and one comment
recommending a modification. The Auto Industry Forum supports the
proposed definition of full charge, but they do not support removing the
option to determine the full charge based on a combination of the
methods. NEDA/CAP, USEC, and CIBO note that a combination of methods may
be more accurate and cite the Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process
Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of the CAA.
NEDA/CAP, Perkins Coie, LLP, and CIBO note that the proposed changes
will require recalculations that will be burdensome. ACC and a private
citizen disagree that the proposed changes reduce complexity.

USEC opposes the proposed change. USEC states that the current
definition has been in place for an extended time and that the regulated
community is familiar with the current system and thus should be allowed
the most flexibility in determining full charge while still meeting
regulatory requirements. For some large and complex IPR, USEC states
that a combination of methods may be the most practical way to determine
full charge determinations and that appliance owners are in the best
position to determine the methodology for determining full charge
capacity. The commenter provides an example from the Compliance Guidance
for Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act (citing the same Compliance Guidance as
NEPA/CAP and CIBO). The commenter states that if a combination of
methods has been previously used and documented, new resources will have
to be unnecessarily expended in order to comply with the proposal and
the determination may be less accurate. [0125]

NEDA/CAP and CIBO disagree with the proposed change to disallow the use
of a combination of methods for determining full charge. They note that
EPA’s own guidance recognizes that use of more than one method may be
necessary to calculate full charge in certain instances (citing the same
Compliance Guidance as USEC and CIBO). The commenters assert that if EPA
disallows use of a combination of methods, 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 calculations and procedures.

NEDA/CAP state that, since EPA’s primary motivation for this proposed
change is to “streamline” the rules, NEDA members do not support it.
 Moreover, the commenter thinks 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. [0151]

CIBO states that, not only does this proposed change result in less
accurate full charge calculations, it also necessitates substantial
review and revision to all previous full charge calculations and
requires revisions to resulting leak rate calculation procedures. CIBO
states that, given that there is no record support or legal
justification for this change, that it will lead to inaccuracies and for
other reasons as noted, this change is arbitrary and should not be made.
[0145]

Perkins Coie, LLP believes that the definition of "full charge" should
not be changed as proposed by EPA. The commenter suggests that the
proposed change is unnecessarily restrictive and will adversely affect
owners and operators of comfort cooling appliances. As an example,
businesses that take over an existing facility with field
installed/charged units may not have data regarding the charge of these
units (e.g., manufacturer's name plate does not include the full charge
of the unit), and it would be a great deal of work to go to each unit
and pull the charge, weigh it, and return the charge to comply. The
commenter believes flexibility in the measurement of full charge is
needed to account for seasonal variability as well as to address minor
modifications to the appliance. The commenter believes the proposed
change will limit the current flexibility authorized by the existing
regulations without a demonstrable benefit to the protection of human
health or the environment. [0160]

The Auto Industry Forum supports changing the definition of full charge
but does not support removing the option to determine the full charge
based on a combination of the methods. In the case of modified
appliances, the commenter notes that the load requirements may have
changed since the system was originally charged, and therefore, the
manufacturer’s nameplate information would no longer be correct. The
commenter notes that owners use a combination of calculation, actual
measurements, and manufacturer’s nameplate information to determine
the new full charge, and therefore, the Forum believes the option to
determine the full charge based on a combination of methods should be
retained. The commenter also notes that the full charge determination
could be subject to change. As an example, a manufacturer might
determine that "full charge" is 100 pounds based on anticipated
operating conditions (method 1), and use this value for the first few
years. Should it be determined later that 10% more refrigerant is
required to achieve desired operation and is documented through actual
measurements (method 3), then the full charge value should be changed to
110 pounds. [0148]

ACC believes that EPA is incorrect in stating that complexity is reduced
by removing only an optional approach for determining a full charge. The
commenter believes that no one is required to use a combination of
methods for determining full charge and that anyone who does so probably
concluded that the complexity involved was worth the effort, based on
their own individual circumstances. The commenter believes that the
agency’s approach to the recordkeeping requirement around the
determination of full charge would require that owner/operators of
existing refrigeration equipment, who determined their full charge long
ago and may not have retained the weights, measurements, calculations,
and other records on which their conclusions were based, must now
re-determine their full charge.  ACC suggests that this repeats the
entire cost of determining the full charge, plus adds a recordkeeping
requirement, and further, the records will need to be kept for the life
of the equipment, a point EPA does not clarify. [0139]

A private citizen believes that committing to one full charge
methodology for the life of an appliance will prove difficult in some
situations. The commenter believes, for instance, that if a store
receives a brand new refrigeration rack, full charge determination can
be obtained from the rack manufacturer. If that store is remodeled and
circuits are added or removed from the equipment several years later, it
would be the current refrigeration contractor who would be most
knowledgeable about the charge capacity of the present system. The
commenter believes that, according to this proposed rule, supermarkets
would be required to go back to the rack manufacturer in order to
determine the full charge, and this would require paying two people to
determine the same information about the system (the original
manufacturer and the current refrigeration contractor). The commenter
believes that some flexibility should be included in this proposed
change and suggests that there could be exceptions where a new charge
method would be allowed (e.g., a remodel or significant redesign of the
system). The commenter raises questions about what method would be
required in the event that a supermarket were to purchase an existing
store from another supermarket company. The commenter questions if the
supermarket could determine charge capacity at the time of purchase or
if it would be required stick to the original methodology decided upon
by the original owner of the system. [0141]

Supervalu, Inc. notes that the proposed change does not take into
account that for exigent circumstances (e.g., failure of a component), a
change in methodology may be necessary to ensure accuracy while
minimizing burdens. Committing to one methodology would not be
burdensome under normal operating circumstances. The commenter lists,
for example, method 2 (calculated value) may be typically used, but in
the event of a component failure resulting in the entire charge of being
lost, it may be appropriate to change the methodology to method 3
(actual measurement) to determine the full charge amount. Supervalu,
Inc. notes that their comments supplement and expand on the comments
submitted by FMI on behalf of its 1,500 member companies. [0143]

FMI supports EPA for proposing to change the exiting regulation by
specifying that owners or operators of commercial appliances may take
seasonal variances into account in determining the full charge of an
appliance. [0150]

A private citizen believes it is clear in the preamble that EPA intended
to allow the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance in determining
the “full charge,” however, the commenter feels it was left out of
the definition in the proposed rule.  The commenter recommends that
bullet 3 of the definition should be updated to include the amount added
to the appliance as in the current rule. [0162]

Proposed Definition of Seasonal Variance

EPA received one comment supporting the definition of seasonal variances
and one comment in opposition.

FMI supports EPA’s change to the existing regulation. [0150]

NEDA/CAP objects to the definition of seasonal variance because the
weather variation between winter and summer may or may not require
exactly the same change of coolant.  [0151]

Industrial Process Refrigeration

EPA received two comments with modifications to the proposed definition
for IPR to capture industrial processes.

The Auto Industry Forum believes the proposed amendments to the
definition have an unintended consequence of excluding appliances that
have traditionally been considered IPR by revising the phrase
“manufacturing industries” to read “manufacturing process” and
the phrase “the industrial process” to “a manufacturing process”
in the two sentences of the definition. The commenter notes that the
proposed changes do not appear to include several appliances that are
within the IPR category. As an example, an air dryer is an industrial
refrigerant appliance that serves a critical role in drying the
compressed air used to operate the machines in a manufacturing facility
or other industrial facility as part of the industrial process. However,
the commenter believes that it is not a “manufacturing process.”
Similarly, the commenter notes the industrial refrigerant appliances
used to cool the air in a wind tunnel or test chamber are considered
IPR, but are not used in a manufacturing process. The commenter believes
the definition should be clarified to include other industrial processes
and activities associated with industry that are not classified as
comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration. The commenter notes that
some of these appliances may fall in the “all other appliances”
category that is not referenced in the rules but is mentioned on EPA’s
website. Therefore, there needs to be a clear delineation of the
categories and the requirements that apply to them. Specifically, Auto
Industry Forum suggests that EPA should revise the first and second
sentences of the definition to read:

Industrial process refrigeration appliance means refrigeration
equipment, that may be complex or customized, that is used in a
manufacturing process or in an activity associated with industry that is
not comfort cooling or commercial refrigeration. Industrial process
refrigeration-appliances include equipment that is directly linked to a
manufacturing or an industrial process or activity, including but not
limited to, appliances used in the chemical; pharmaceutical;
petrochemical; food or beverage manufacturing, packaging, or processing;
power generation; and other industrial ice manufacturing industries.
[0148]

ESS suggests the following as the definition for Industrial Process
Refrigeration Appliance:

“means refrigeration equipment, that may be complex or customized,
that is used in a manufacturing process. Industrial process
refrigeration appliances include equipment that is directly linked to a
manufacturing process, including, but not limited to, appliances used in
the chemical; pharmaceutical; petrochemical; food or beverage
manufacturing, packaging or processing; power generation; and industrial
manufacturing machines ice machines and ice rinks. (20% trigger
rate).” [0140]

Leak Rate

EPA received fourteen comments on the proposed changes to the definition
of leak rate. Ten commenters were opposed to eliminating the annualizing
method (i.e., method 1), while two commenters supported this
modification. Two commenters (CARB and Eastman) suggest revising the
rolling average method (i.e., method 2). NEDA/CAP commented that over
half of companies are using the annualizing method. An anonymous
commenter and OCC have concerns regarding the costs of upgrading
leak-tracking software to comply with the change in rule. A few
commenters also questioned whether there is sufficient environmental
benefit to justify the change.

USEC notes that the terms in the numerator of the equation on page 78566
are different than in the leak rate equation and wording in § 82.156
and this can represent a significant difference. In the first equation
(page 78566), the commenter notes that a leak rate must be calculated
every time a leak is repaired. This means a simple minor repair such as
tightening a leaking gasket or repairing a minor valve leak would
require calculation of the leak rate and associated recordkeeping
activities. If several small leaks in different parts of the appliance
are repaired in a single day, the commenter states that the current
wording would require a subsequent number of leak rate calculations and
associated records. The commenter believes that this is not practical or
workable for a complex IPR appliance with many small existing and
emergent leaks, especially if there is a continuous leak repair program.

The commenter states that the proposed leak rate definition is not clear
on when the leak rate must be calculated. For example, the proposed §
82.156 leak rate equation includes a term of “pounds of refrigerant
added since last successful follow-up verification.” The commenter
notes that this implies a leak rate must only be calculated if there has
been a successful follow-up verification; however, if the leak rate
trigger has not been exceeded, a follow-up verification will never be
required and subsequently a leak rate calculation will never be
required. The commenter notes that if this is the intent of the rule,
this would streamline and simplify compliance for those appliances that
never trigger the leak repair requirements thereby reducing associated
costs. USEC believes clarification of the requirements is needed and if
the leak rate calculations are only required after the addition of
refrigerant since the last successful follow-up verification, it is
strongly supported as a streamlining effort and as a burden reduction
for the regulated community.

The commenter notes this would also address the second issue above in
that leak rate calculations are not required for an ongoing leak repair
program as long as the trigger rate is not exceeded. The commenter
states that if the leak rate definition is changed to exclusive use of
the rolling average method, the assertion the change will not impose
additional burden is false and should not be implemented and that the
change will result in added costs for certified technician retraining,
changes in recordkeeping, changes in written procedures, etc. In support
of aspects of the proposed definition, USEC believes the proposed
definition of leak rate will not pose additional burden and determines
that it is reasonable for appliance owners to keep records documenting
full charge capacity. USEC supports EPA’s statement that this
information is already required by regulation.

USEC does not support a change to the exclusive use of the rolling
average method. USEC believes that the appliance owner or operator
should be allowed the flexibility to choose the best method for their
individual situation. USEC suggests clarification that the leak rate
calculation is only required if the applicable leak rate threshold has
been triggered and that it does not require implementation for an
ongoing program of repairing minor leaks. USEC believes that Method 1 of
the current regulation is likely used by many IPR owners and that
changing the definition in midstream would cause them to rework their
current compliance methodology including retraining certified
technicians, record-keeping practices, changes in written procedures,
etc. The commenter states that all of this would be costly and increase
the likelihood of noncompliance until the new methodology is fully and
completely implemented.

The commenter notes that requiring a change “in an effort to provide
greater clarity to the leak repair requirements” is not supported
unless there is a benefit to the change in methodology. The commenter
believes clarity is not a good reason if there is already a system in
place that many appliance owners have incorporated into their
refrigeration practices. The commenter believes these many owners
already understand and have implemented the current requirements and
that allowing the appliance owner flexibility and the opportunity to use
either method is not a complex and confusing issue. The commenter notes
that Method 1 has been recommended since at least 1995 (EPA
300-B-95-010, Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process Refrigeration
Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, p. D-1).
The commenter notes that the Compliance Guidance was jointly developed
by EPA and industry and would seem to be the best overall approach as
many appliance owners and operators likely rely on it for implementing
their leak repair programs. The commenter also notes the Section 608
leak repair requirements apply almost exclusively to existing owners or
operators using class I or class II ODS and notes that, presumably new
owners or operators will be using new appliances that do not contain
class I or class II ODS. Additionally, the commenter states that
existing sources, as older appliances as replaced, the leak repair
requirements disappear for that equipment. Since the impacts of the
Section 608 leak repair requirements mainly affect sources already
complying with the regulatory requirements, the commenter believes a
change to exclusive use of the rolling average method is not justified.
[0125]

An anonymous commenter believes that removing the annualizing method in
the leak rate definition will create several problems for a supermarket
chain. The commenter notes that the leak-tracking software use the
annualizing method and if a switch to the Rolling Average Method is
required, the software will have to be revised, which may be costly and
would require time to research the effect the change would have on
current records. The commenter questions whether or not the system will
recalculate the leak rates on all existing records when the leak rate
definition is changed to the Rolling Average Method. The commenter
suggests further clarification on how the Rolling Average Method works
with step by step examples provided to show hypothetical refrigerant use
and calculated leak rate. Furthermore, the commenter questions the
accuracy of the statement on page # 78566 that states the Rolling
Average Method “ . . . takes a true snapshot of the amount of
refrigerant that is added to an appliance over a consecutive 12-month
period by simply looking at the ratio of the amount of refrigerant added
over the last consecutive 12-month period and the full charge.”  The
commenter believes this contradicts with the following statement in the
rule: “taking the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the
appliance since the last successful follow-up verification or the number
of pounds of refrigerant added during the previous 365-day period (if
the last successful follow-up verification occurred more than one year
ago).”

The commenter provides two examples for consideration. In the first
example, 50 lbs of refrigerant is added to a system on February 11th and
the last successful follow-up verification was on November 1st of the
previous year. The commenter believes that step one requires only the
addition up the amount of refrigerant added since November 1st (50 lbs)
and this would provide a snapshot of the past three months rather than a
consecutive 12-month period as stated above. In another example 2, 50
lbs of refrigerant is added to a system on February 11th, and the last
successful leak verification test occurred two years ago.  For this
example, according to step one, the commenter believes the requirement
would be to sum all pounds of refrigerant added in the previous 365-day
period (still 50 lbs). The commenter believes that the time before the
last successful follow-up would be irrelevant, since the amount of
pounds required for the leak rate calculation remains the same, which is
confusing.

The commenter also believes the Rolling Average Method fails to note
what types of refrigerant use should be included and requests that the
rule state any types of refrigerant additions that should be excluded
from the calculation (e.g., if Seasonal Adjustments or Refrigerant
Conversions should be excluded or included). The commenter also wonders
if there would be a record required of the initial charge of R407A added
for the conversion if an appliance was converted from R22 to R407A. The
commenter believes that seasonal adjustments, refrigerant conversions,
and system additions should be excluded from the Rolling Average Method
leak rate calculation.  The commenter states that the term “system
additions” refers to situations where the current system is expanded
to include more circuits or refrigerated cases and more refrigerant must
be added to compensate for the additional load. The commenter believes
that the Annualizing Method superior in this regard as it does not
require determination of the reasons for past refrigerant additions. The
commenter also disagrees with the statement that the EPA “believes
that the current leak repair requirements raise the question of when a
leak event ceases.” The commenter believes that the leak event ceases
with the successful completion of the follow-up leak verification test
and believes it would be good to amend the leak rate definition to
clarify this point.

The commenter further believes that “systems additions” should be
excluded from the definition. The commenter notes this exclusion would
entail expansions to include more circuits or refrigerated cases that
would require additional refrigerant to compensate for the additional
load. The commenter notes this can be a common occurrence as stores are
remodeled and refrigerated cases are added to a circuit. The commenter
suggests the “system addition” refrigerant addition is made because
the circuit size has increased and requires more refrigerant, and since
it is not due to a leak, the system additions should not be subject to
the leak rate calculation. [0131]

NEDA/CAP believes 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. NEDA/CAP believes these changes will
reduce flexibility and increases the complexity of determining full
charges for calculating leak rates. NEDA/CAP asserts that, based on
membership practices and a general discussion with industry groups, well
over half of the companies use the annualized method—contrary to
EPA’s suggestion that no one is using the annualized method is
erroneous. Before EPA can proceed to finalize the proposed revisions,
NEDA/CAP feels it needs to assess the costs and benefits of the proposed
change. And, NEDA/CAP believes, if after considering the impact of such
a change in methodology the agency decides to implement the change, it
also should provide a two year transition period because the change will
require system changes and training to implement properly.  [0151]

Alcoa Inc. encourages EPA to retain the current definition of “leak
rate,” for the same reasons it gave in the final 2005 leak repair
requirement rule and believes EPA should not limit the options for
determining an appliance’s leak rate by eliminating the annualizing
method. The commenter notes that, prior to 2005, EPA had not promulgated
a formal definition of “leak rate” for the purposes of the leak
repair requirements contained in § 82.156(i). The commenter also notes
that in its January 11, 2005 rulemaking (70 FR 1971), EPA asserted that
the annualizing method has the advantage of being relatively simple,
familiar, and that owners and operators had incorporated that
methodology into their manual and computerized refrigerant tracking
systems and standard operating procedures. The commenter states that,
with regard to the rolling average method (i.e. Method No. 2), EPA
expressed its belief that there was a “disadvantage” associated with
the rolling average method “because it permits owners or operators to
delay repair of certain types of leaks longer than the annualizing
method and may not show that appliances are leaking until they have lost
a relatively large percentage of charge…” The commenter suggests
that based in part upon comments it received during that rulemaking, and
its desire to provide more flexibility to owners or operators, EPA
stated it had decided to codify an option that allowed appliance owners
or operators to use either of the two methods, provided the option
chosen is used consistently for calculating leak rates for the lifetime
of all appliances located at an operating facility. The commenter states
that the rationale offered by EPA for its 2010 proposal, to abandon the
current definition of “leak rate” and to adopt the exclusive
definition of “leak rate” it rejected in 2005, is inconsistent with
its relatively recent decision that Method No. 2 was “not
preferable” (70 FR 1971). In addition, the commenter believes it is
unreasonable to believe that the community of owners and operators has
changed so significantly that the sentiment expressed in the prior
public comment is now significantly different, or that the disadvantages
EPA relied upon to determine in 2005 that Method No. 2 was “not
preferable” have been eliminated. [0134]

OCC requests that EPA retain the annualized method and the rolling
average method as written in the 2005 rule amendment.  OCC believes
that, since there are acknowledged strengths and weaknesses for both
methods, elimination of the annualized method may provide some clarity
in restricting options at the expense of producing confusion,
potentially oversimplifying the new formula, and eliminating of a tried
formula that has been used for almost two decades. OCC believes the
costs associated with procuring updates to refrigeration software,
training and rewriting plant refrigeration procedure manuals, or
required outside computer technical support to modify in-house
spreadsheets, do not appear to justify the changes when no demonstrated
advantage is gained.  [0144]

ACC believes that the "annualizing method" (Method 1) to determine leak
rate should remain an option. The commenter believes that although the
concept of a "true rolling average" of Method 2 is appealing, the
complexity of the calculation and the associated recordkeeping has no
added environmental benefit. The commenter notes that after refrigerant
has been added to an appliance, it is important that the leak rate be
quickly and accurately calculated so that any required regulatory
responses can be undertaken within the allotted time. ACC believes that
using Method 2 is functionally more complex, requiring a rolling 365-day
window with a total of all refrigerant additions from within that
window. The commenter notes that the total changes as refrigerant
additions "roll" in and out. The commenter also notes that the
complexity increases as repairs are made (and verified), initially
shrinking the size of the window to one day. ACC believes it is not
clear that required use of Method 2 will result in any environmental
benefit, but it will result in an increase in leak rate calculation
errors and associated non-compliance. ACC believes that linking the
trigger for calculating leak rate to the last successful follow-up
verification test is a good clarification (since it clearly resets the
leak rate to zero) that ACC suggests should be used in both options.
[0139]

The Auto Industry Forum opposes the proposed elimination of the Method 1
calculation, noting that it will make leak rate calculations more
complex, time-consuming, and problematic from a compliance management
perspective as additional records must be reviewed in order to perform
the calculations. The Forum believes EPA should clarify that requiring
leak rate to be calculated at the time of refrigerant addition means
that the leak rate does not need to be calculated upon repairs where
refrigerant is not added to the system. The commenter notes that Method
1 does not require review of all the service records listing refrigerant
additions that have been made during the year together with a
determination of whether the leak verification checks had been completed
and found to be successful. Rather, the commenter believes it only
requires the most recent service record showing a refrigerant addition
to perform the calculation, simplifying compliance while assuring an
appropriate calculation of the current annualized refrigerant leakage
rate. The commenter suggests that both annualized and rolling average
leak rate calculation methods must be retained, or at a minimum, EPA
should retain the current Method 1 (as shown below) as the preferred
method and EPA should continue to provide current Method 2 as an option
[0148]:

Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing refrigerant,
calculated at the time of refrigerant addition and measured between
refrigerant charges. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the
percentage of the appliance's full charge that would be lost over a
consecutive 12-month period if the current rate of loss were to continue
over that period. The rate is calculated from the last day that
refrigerant was added to the appliance as described under Method 1
below:

Method 1.

(i) Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance
since the last day that refrigerant was added to the appliance and
divide it by the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance normally
contains at full charge;

(ii) Take the shorter of the number of days that have passed since the
last day refrigerant was added or 365 days and divide that number by 365
days;

(iii) Take the number calculated in Step 1 and divide the result of Step
1 it by the number of pounds of refrigerant the appliance contains at
full charge calculated in Step 2.; and

(iv) Multiply the number calculated in Step 3 by 100 to obtain a
percentage.

ESS feels that the existing formulas and date of calculation for leak
rates should remain as written in the 2005 rule because the reduced
trigger rates will deliver the emissions reduction. ESS believes that
the added cost to industry to change the formula and remove choice is
not warranted and will punish organizations that have complied for over
17 years using the annualized method. ESS questions why there should be
a change when no value is gained. ESS believes the 1993 rule’s
original intent was to break the industry of its past practices of
topping off oozing systems and never repairing until a major event
required a repair. ESS believes the rule allowed the industry to get a
system back on line but forced industry to make repairs within 30 days,
mothball within 30 days, or create a retrofit or replacement plan. The
commenter believes that, because of the intent of the original rule, the
date refrigerant is added has been used many times by industry to
trigger their repair efforts. ESS notes that in the 2005 rule change,
four leak rate scenarios were given and the present two methods,
annualized and rolling average, were selected. ESS encourages EPA to
leave the leak rate choices and allow an owner to make a onetime
selection of method of choice for their appliances. ESS believes that
much of the recent input to EPA on leak rates comes from the Commercial
Refrigeration and Industrial process groups who prefer the Rolling
Average Method, while the other refrigeration and comfort cooling
industries have not had as much input. [0140]

CIBO believes by disallowing use of Method 1 found in the current
definition of leak rate, EPA is reducing flexibility and imposing new
burdens on industry that are unnecessary and unwarranted by fact, EPA
analysis or data, or law. CIBO notes that many members currently use
Method 1 for determining leak rate. CIBO believes that if EPA adopts
their proposed change, all facilities will be required to use a more
complex approach to determining leak rate and require facilities to
establish new compliance procedures. If EPA fails to demonstrate benefit
from this revision, or justify additional costs, CIBO opposes EPA’s
proposed changes to the current methods for calculating leak rate.
[0145]

CARB believes a single rolling average method will not accurately
reflect the annual leak rate in some cases. CARB believes the proposed
formula works well for leaks that occur longer than a year apart or if
the pounds of refrigerant added reflect the total additions in the past
365 day. However, CARB notes that when leaks occur less than a year
apart and the equation uses the number of pounds of refrigerant added
since the last repair, the formula does not reflect the magnitude of the
annual leak rate of the system and an annual normalization factor is
needed. CARB gives a hypothetical situation as an example to demonstrate
that when there is no annual normalization built into the proposed leak
rate calculation, the annual leak rate appears lower than actual:  Given
a 100 pound charge, and a 15 pound leak in 180 days since the last
repair, the leak rate would be calculated using the proposed equation
as: (15 pounds leaked / 100 pound full charge) * 100% = 15% leak rate.
If normalized to an annual leak rate, it is: (15 pounds leaked / 100
pound full charge) * (365 days per year / 180 days since the last
repair) * 100% = 30% annual leak rate. CARB believes that the leak rate
calculation method should be revised to the following to accurately
reflect annual leak rates [0130]:

Eastman believes that under the “Rolling Average Method”
calculation, EPA should allow the date of the initial successful leak
determination to be used if the follow-up leak verification date is also
found to be successful. Eastman believes the actual repairs to stop the
leak were proven at the initial leak verification check and subsequently
proven by the follow-up leak verification test. Eastman notes that
EPA’s Method 2 calculation, Step 1, is not sufficiently
self-explanatory and encourages EPA to clarify with examples of how the
leak rate would be calculated when last successful repairs were made but
multiple required repairs were made within a 365 day period, when
repairs were made that were not required and how the calculation would
be made where an appliance required repair and the last repairs were
made more than 365 days ago.  Eastman notes that many facilities will
have to purchase upgraded software for inclusion in their refrigeration
programs to implement the Rolling Average Method. [0137]

A private citizen notes the movement towards a leak rate formula that
accounts for periods of longer than a year between recharges is much
more useful than a single-year calculation. The commenter notes that, as
refrigeration and cooling technology improves, the useful life of
systems increase, and with those increases come reduced levels of ODS
leakage. The commenter believes that having a formula that accounts for
those reduced levels of leakage over periods extending more than one
year will improve documentation of leak rates and subsequently, the
regulation of systems leaking unacceptable levels of ODS.  [0124]

Southern Company supports EPA proposal to change the definition of leak
rate by removing the annualizing method (Method 1).  Although Southern
Company agrees with EPA that there are advantages and disadvantages with
both the annualizing and rolling average approaches, Southern Company is
prepared to adopt the rolling average approach (Method 2).  [0135]

FMI supports EPA’s change to the definition of leak rate whereby the
leak repair clock for a leak event is stopped after successful initial
verification and follow-up verification and documentation of repairs for
all leaks. [0150]

Normal Operating Characteristics or Conditions

EPA received one comment opposing the reference to “full charge” in
defining normal operating characteristics or condition.

The Auto Industry Forum believes appliances may not contain a "full
charge" when returned to service and thus, the normal operating
conditions will be different than if the appliance contains a full
charge. The Forum objects to adding "full charge" to the definition of
normal operating characteristics and instead suggests adding "for the
refrigerant charge" to clarify that the normal operating conditions will
reflect the ambient, load, and actual refrigerant charge conditions of
the appliance at the time that it is being operated. The commenter notes
that following a refrigerant leak repair, it may be unnecessary to add
the entire "full charge" to achieve the desired operation of the
industrial process appliance. As long as records are kept to establish
that the subsequent refrigerant addition was not due to leaks, the
commenter believes such records should be sufficient compliance
determination in the event no repairs are made and no verification tests
performed after subsequent refrigerant addition. The Auto Industry Forum
proposes the following revisions to the proposed definition to address
this issue:

Normal operating characteristics or conditions means, for the purposes
of §82.156(i), the appliance operating temperatures, pressures, fluid
flows, speeds and other characteristics based on the refrigerant charge,
including full charge of the appliance, that would be expected for a
given process load and ambient condition during operation. Normal
operating characteristics and conditions are marked by the absence of
atypical conditions affecting the operation of the refrigeration
appliance. [0148]

Retrofit, Repair, and Retire

Proposed Definition for Retire

EPA received five comments noting that the definition of retire was
unclear and suggesting modifications. Three of the commenters suggested
that EPA clarify the definition of “appliance” to indicate whether
it is the entire system or includes the retirement of components. Three
commenters expressed concerns regarding the intent of “removal of an
appliance from service” (i.e., whether removal refers to removing the
entire system, components of the system, or just the refrigerant).

USEC believes clarification is needed on the proposed definition of
retire, not only in regards to repair but also in regards to system
mothballing. USEC does not believe an appliance can undergo system
mothballing for an indefinite period of time and then be subsequently
retired. [0125]

CARB suggest that retire would be better defined as “the permanent
removal from service of a refrigeration system, or component, rendering
it unfit for use by the current or any future owner or operator.” CARB
believes that EPA’s intent is somewhat unclear; while repairs are at
the component level, if a repair is unsuccessful the retirement
requirement is that the entire appliance must be scrapped even if all
but a small component is leak tight and functions well. The commenter
notes that the requirement that retire means that an entire appliance
must be removed from service is likely to cause unnecessary expense and
time when removal from service of a specific component that has proven
to be unrepairable would likely serve the same function.  [0130]

The Auto Industry Forum recommends clarification that EPA intends for
appliances to be able to be disabled and the equipment left on-site. The
commenter believes appliances that are retired may not be removed from
the site for some time. The Forum suggests that the term "retire" should
be clarified so that it is understood that the appliance will have its
refrigerant removed and it need not be physically removed from its
location, but simply rendered inoperable. The Forum recommends the
definition be revised as follows:

Retire means the permanent removal from service of the entire appliance
and removal of refrigerant from it, rendering it unfit for reuse by the
current or any future owner or operator of the facility. The appliance
need not be physically removed from the facility. [0148]

Safeway Inc believes the definition of appliance needs to be addressed
in the sense that retiring or retrofitting an entire appliance can be
very burdensome. Safeway Inc does agree that if a component (evaporator)
keeps leaking it should be replaced, not continually repaired. [0136]

Eastman believes that the proposed regulatory definition does not
mention “major components” as does the preamble wording and notes
that the wording “entire appliance” could have many meanings and is
not clearly defined by EPA. Eastman believes EPA’s intent is to remove
(i.e., retire) the appliance sections and/or pieces that held the
appliances refrigeration charge and install a newer appliance and
recharge the new appliance. The commenter notes that then the appliance
is evacuated and removed, the removed appliance and/or sections may be
taken off-site by the refrigeration service company and from that point
on the previous owner/operator of the properly evacuated company no
longer follows what happens to the old appliance. Eastman believes the
owner/operator should only be required to properly evacuate the unit
being removed/retired and not have to worry about proving that no future
owner or operator used any of the retired equipment. [0137]

Proposed Definition for Retrofit

While creating the distinction between “retrofit,” “repair,” and
“retire,” EPA states that a retrofit involves the conversion of an
appliance so that it is compatible for use with a substitute with a
lower ODP. EPA received one comment from Sheeco suggesting EPA also
require the use of lower GWP substitutes in advance of December 31,
2019.The Auto Industry Forum and ACC opposed the specification that
retrofits include substitutes with lower ODP and requested that EPA
allow owners to continue using equivalent ODP substances.

Shecco recommends that EPA provide provisions in the amended regulation
where a retrofit involves the conversion of an appliance so that it is
compatible for use with a substitute with a 0 (zero) ODP and not a lower
ODP. Shecco states that it is less costly to convert directly to non-ODS
substances and avoid the need for a second conversion. The commenter
believes that such a provision would enhance the avoided tons of ODP
emissions between now and December 31, 2019, therefore, enabling the US
to meets its interim phase-down targets and preparing the industry for a
smoother transition to non-ODS appliances. Shecco suggests the inclusion
in the amendments of a recommendation by EPA whereby it encourages the
conversion to refrigerants that not only encompass 0 ODP but also low
GWP (e.g., ammonia, CO2). [0149]

The Auto Industry Forum believes that EPA should allow equivalent ODP
substances to continue to be used. The commenter states that there is no
explanation why EPA assumes that it is the ODP of the substance that
would necessitate the retrofit rather than the appliance itself.
Moreover, the commenter believes EPA does not take into account or
provide any exception for the situation where a company cannot use a
lower ODP substance for the particular process in question. The Forum
notes in their members’ experience, refrigerants with lower ODPs may
actually require a higher compressor pressure, which could indicate that
requiring this change does not make sense from a leakage standpoint.
[0148]

ACC does not believe that EPA’s proposal for all appliances to be
retrofitted with refrigerants with a lower ODP makes sense at this point
in time. The commenter encourages EPA to suggest that owners/operators
retrofitting equipment consider refrigerants with a lower ODP, but not
mandate replacement since there is a surplus of certain Class II
refrigerants. Rather, ACC believes owners and operators should be
allowed to choose the refrigerant that best works for each application,
accounting for supply and demand and expense of maintenance. [0139]

Other Definitions

EPA received seven comments suggesting modifications to definitions
currently in the rule, such as “appliance” and “refrigerant”,
and suggesting additional definitions to the rule, such as “engineered
systems,” “duty types,” and “refrigerant circuit.”

Appliance

EPA received three comments with suggested modifications in order to add
clarity to the term “appliance” as it is currently defined in the
rule. OCC requests that EPA consider including clarification to the term
appliance to avoid confusion with owners and operators of commercial
refrigeration and IPR. NEDA/CAP requests that EPA further clarify what
is meant by an “appliance with a full charge greater than 50 pounds”
to avoid inadvertent confusion. FMI commented that the definition of
“appliance” is too broad.

OCC requests for the purposes of reading clarity that the EPA consider
including the wording “appliances, industrial process refrigeration
and commercial refrigeration” wherever it is inclusive of devices in
all group categories. OCC believes confusion is encountered in the
intermix of terminology used in the rule, in particular the use of the
word “appliance” in a paragraph where there is inference to owners
and operators of commercial refrigeration or industrial process
refrigeration as well. OCC also believes, in some instances, the
terminology ascribed to the term “appliance” does not readily
translate to large industrial process refrigeration and can easily
misdirect the understanding of a specific meaning as it is used
interchangeably in the rule. [0144]

NEDA/CAP requests that, as part of this rulemaking, EPA reaffirm and
codify the agency’s historic interpretation that the "appliance with a