Three Top-Ups and a Can of Leak Sealer

Charge in CO2e: 95 kg × 2088 = 198 t CO2e. That places the equipment in the 50–500 t band, so leak checks are required at least every six months in the absence of fixed leak detection. With no detection fitted, the six-monthly frequency is the one that applies, and the log shows checks attached to top-ups rather than a schedule.

Refrigerant lost: 41 kg over 18 months = roughly 27 kg per year, or about 28% of the charge annually - and 41 × 2088 ≈ 86 t CO2e released. Three consecutive "no leak found" entries against a loss rate of that size are not credible. A leak check that finds nothing while the plant loses a quarter of its charge each year has not been done properly; the likely reasons are that only one circuit or one section was checked, or that the check was a visual walk-round rather than an instrument check of joints, flare connections, valve glands and the evaporator.

Compliance position: there is a duty to repair leaks without undue delay. Repeatedly topping up without locating the breach is not repair, and the records do not demonstrate that the required checks were carried out. Both the site and the contractor carrying out the top-ups are exposed.

Repair case: the machine still performs - the issue is a leak, not loss of capacity. A properly executed repair is a known cost: isolate each circuit, recover, pressure-test with OFN plus a trace gas or a vacuum-decay test on each section, repair the breach, replace schrader cores and any suspect flare joints, evacuate, recharge with reclaimed or virgin R-410A, and fit fixed leak detection. That is affordable and can be done in the October 36-hour window.

Replace case: R-410A at GWP 2088 is being squeezed by the HFC phase-down. Reclaimed supply is finite and increasingly costly, virgin supply is restricted, and a 12-year-old 210 kW chiller at roughly 28% annual loss is heading for the point where topping up costs more than capital finance on a replacement. A lower-GWP replacement also cuts the site's reported emissions by an order of magnitude.

My recommendation: repair now, with fixed detection fitted at the same time and a leak-check regime reset to the correct frequency - then budget replacement on a 24–36 month horizon, aligned with the sustainability plan rather than the aspirational 2030 date. I would bring the 2030 date forward in the report and say why: the current plant cannot credibly be presented as part of an "F-gas free" pathway while it is leaking a quarter of its charge a year.

I reject the quotation as written. Leak-sealing additive is not a repair, and in many equipment warranties and manufacturer guidance it is explicitly excluded on larger systems - it can contaminate the oil, coat the heat-transfer surfaces and disable a recovery machine. "Top up and issue a certificate" is worse: a certificate asserting the plant is leak-free, issued after adding refrigerant to a plant with a known loss history, is a false record and I will not hold it on my site.

What I require before work starts:

• A written method statement and a programme that fits the October window, showing each circuit isolated and tested separately.
• Named engineers with current F-gas certification, with certificates supplied.
• Pressure-test and evacuation records, the repair location and method, and the quantities recovered and charged - recorded in my equipment log, not just on their invoice.
• Disposal or recycling of the recovered refrigerant with documentation.

Behaviour I want changed: the next time a top-up is requested, the engineer stops and investigates. I would put that in writing to the contractor's management and to my own facilities team, because the pattern in the log is a process failure as much as a plant failure.