Ms. Drusilla Hufford Director, Stratospheric Protection Division Office of Atmospheric Protection USEPA Headquarters William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Mail Code: 6205T Washington, DC 20460

February 8, 2016

BY EMAIL AND LETTER

Dear Ms. Hufford:

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) would like to offer the following input to

the Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) as it develops the next round of listing and change of status updates under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. In particular, we are pleased to inform EPA that the U.S. domestic refrigeration industry has established a goal of phasing down the use of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants in refrigerators and freezers, and we call on EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and other key players to work with

us to eliminate barrier s to this goal. For the reasons outlined below, we urge EPA not to propose a transition date for these products any earlier than 2024.

Separately, we urge EPA to refrain from imposing transition dates in the next SNAP rule for ending the

use of HFC ref rigerants in room air conditioners (RACs), portable air conditioners (PACs) and dehumidifiers (DHs) (collectively, air conditioning home appliances)

— or commercial ice makers, since

this end use includes stand

- alone icemakers designed for household use

— give n the absence of proven, viable alternatives and/or safety standards that permit the use of flammable refrigerants in sufficient quantities for these products. Even more time is needed for transition of these products than for refrigerators and freezers. No rational SNAP date can be set at this time for these products. If EPA commits to work with us, however, it not only could possibly accelerate the transition but would result in a deeper real

- time understanding of the

— in this case global

— issues that ar e barriers to transition.

AHAM represents manufacturers of major, portable and floor care home appliances, and suppliers to the industry. AHAM’s more than 150 members employ tens of thousands of people in the U.S. and produce

more than 95% of the househo ld appliances shipped for sale within the U.S. The factory shipment value of these products is more than $30 billion annually. The home appliance industry, through its products and innovation, is essential to U.S. consumer lifestyle, health, safety and con venience. Through its technology, employees and productivity, the industry contributes significantly to U.S. jobs and economic security. Home appliances also are a success story in terms of energy efficiency and environmental protection. New appliances often represent the most effective choice a consumer can make to reducep 2 home energy use and costs, and no SNAP date can be rationally set at this time. If EPA will commit to work with us, however, it not only could possibly accelerate the transition but w ill result in a deeper real

time understanding of the

— in this case global

— issues that are barriers to transition.

In the following pages, we highlight the challenges to transitioning away from HFC refrigerants, which include the charge size limits for flammable alternatives in existing safety standards, product design and feasibility challenges, market dynamics and the need for direct engagement by third parties from government and the private sector. We believe these challenges underscore the need for a reasonable timeline for achieving the changeover in refrigerants in our products and justify the timeline we are proposing for refrigerators and freezers. We urge EPA to work with us in a non

- regulatory posture to

evaluate and facilitate the removal of barriers to transition. 1

The History of Refrigerants in Home Appliances

As EPA is well aware, the home appliance industry has a long history of transitioning to refrigerants that maintain energy efficiency, cost effectiveness and safety while reducing impacts on the environment. In recent history, the industry has transitioned from CFCs, which were ozone depleting substances (ODS) with high global warming potential (GWP), to HCFCs (also ODS) and then to HFCs, which are non

ozone depleting but still hig her GWP than certain new alternatives. Each of these transitions required millions of dollars of R&D and capital investment by industry. Balancing performance and other product issues along with cost and energy efficiency parameters is a complicated and ever

- evolving challenge. Above all, product safety is paramount.

In 2011, EPA approved the use of isobutane, which is not an ODS and has a very low GWP, as a refrigerant for use in residential refrigerators and freezers. In 2013, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) also approved its use. Since that time, the indu stry has worked to remove technical barriers to transitioning to isobutane, including evaluating appropriate changes to the applicable safety standards that protect consumers while allowing a transition from HFCs. We have been urging the CPSC to participa te in the development of safety standards for a number of years. Within the last year, the CPSC has been participating in the CANENA 2 committee on Safety Requirements for Household Refrigerators and
Freezers, a consensus safety standards process for refri geration appliances.

In addition, the industry is currently transitioning out of high

- GWP HFCs in foam insulation by 2020, per EPA’s most recent SNAP rule. This is achievable, but it is requiring significant expenditures and the diversion of a variety of important industry resources.

Moving beyond this history of voluntary transitions by the appliance industry, we now intend to eliminate HFC refrigerants in refrigerators and freezers after 2024. Such products, of course, already exist around the world, but unique North American design and safety challenge must be overcome. Factories must be reengineered, and education, logistics and disposal systems must be established to manage the safe transportation, servicing and disposal of flammable refrigerants. Nevertheless, this transition decision has been made without any existing regulatory mandate.

For air conditioning home appliances and commercial ice

- makers, on the other hand, we urge EPA not to

mandate a transition to non

- HFC refrigerants at this tim e. The industry needs adequate time to responsibly

1 As AHAM has noted in previous communications to EPA, we do not believe the agency has the authority under

the Clean Air Act to “de

- list” non

- ozone

- depleting substances (ODS) that had previously been approved as alternatives to ODS under the SNAP program. Nonetheless, this letter is offered in a spirit of c ooperation.

2 CANENA is a tri

- national body setting standards for the US, Canada and Mexicop 3 address the benefits and limitations of viable alternatives for these products. These products are manufactured outside the U.S., and this development work is still in a nascent stage globally.

Current Refrigerant Use, Alternatives and Existing Charge Size Limits

Refrigerators and Freezers Refrigerators and freezers today mainly use the HFC refrigerant 134a. It is a highly effective chemical with a very low flammability index and a GWP of 1430, much lo wer than many other refrigerants currently used in other products. Only a few ounces of refrigerant are used in refrigerators and freezers, typically less than the amount of butane in a cigarette lighter. In addition, these refrigerants are in sealed

sys tems, so leaks are exceedingly rare.

The primary alternative for higher

- GWP HFC refrigerants is isobutane (R600) in refrigerators and freezers. Isobutane is a hydrocarbon, so while it has a very low GWP, it is flammable and requires that appropriate pre cautions be taken against the associated risks. For refrigerator/freezers, air conditioning home appliances and commercial ice

- makers , specific safety standards are in place that govern the use of HC refrigerants, which are flammable and require careful c ontrols on use conditions. The current refrigerator/freezer standards from UL, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and CANENA limit the charge size in any refrigerant loop used in these products to 57 grams. Europe follows the

International Electrot echnical Commission (IEC) standard, which sets the limit for HC for refrigerants at 150 grams.

Air Conditioning Home Appliances

– RACs, PACs and DHs Most air conditioning home appliances currently use R134a or R410A (GWP=2088). Others use R32, a mildly flammable HFC with a GWP of 675. For RACs and PACs, the total amount of refrigerant used ranges from less than a pound in smaller products to more than four pounds in larger RACs. DHs tend to be smaller and thus have smaller charge sizes, closer to half a pound.

The safety, design and energy issues of alternative refrigerants for these products

— unlike refrigerators

and freezers

— are relatively unexplored, particularly in the North American context. For example, a possible alternative for higher

- GWP HFC r efrigerants in air conditioning home appliances is R32. Notably, R32 has equipment patent

- related and possibly supply issues that need to be fully understood and resolved. AHAM members are understandably concerned about situations in which there may be

l imited chemical suppliers or patent issues, and it would be inadvisable and inappropriate for EPA to push industry into potentially costly, restrictive agreements. In addition, the transportation of even mildly flammable refrigerants and the warehousing a nd recycling of air conditioning home appliances containing

them all need further evaluation.

The UL and CSA limits and the proposed CANENA limit for RACs and PACs are 114 grams (~4 oz.) for propane and 918 grams (~2 lbs.) for R32. Although there are c urrently no specified limits for HC refrigerants in dehumidifiers in the UL and CSA standards, a proposal is moving forward to use the same

formula as in room air conditioners. A formula used in the IEC 60335

- 2

- 40 standard caps propane use in

air conditio ning home appliances at almost 1kg, but many large RACs will need a refrigerant charge of more than 2kg.

Other Alternatives Other potential alternatives to HFCs must be explored or are not yet vetted for the North American market. Propane and R441A were recently approved for use as refrigerants in the last SNAP rule, and manufacturers are now evaluating these new options. As noted above, the safety standards for AHAM products are very restrictive on the charge size for a unit using flammable refrigerants, so it isp 4 questionable whether and to what extent manufacturers will opt to make this switch. Other potential

alternatives that have been considered and rejected as unworkable include carbon dioxide and ammonia. Blends with HFOs that reduce flammability levels have been suggested recently, but evaluation of these options is just beginning. All that remains that is SNAP

- appro ved are isobutane and propane, both flammable refrigerants. As with transitioning from HFC

- based foam blowing agents, there are no drop

- in alternatives. We seek a dialogue with EPA to discuss these issues.

Changes to Charge Size Limits

To determine the safest and most accurate charge limits and any other requirements for the CANENA standards for refrigerators and freezers, AHAM will need the support and participation of EPA and CPSC. The industry already has initiated an internal discussion to ascertain what research is needed to demonstrate where the proper safety limit is. This research will need to have broader input, engagement and support, however, to be widely and more rapidly accepted if it indicates the need for a change in the existing charge l imits. Adding further complexity is the need to coordinate with safety standard organizations and regulators in Canada and Mexico. Updating a safety standard is a multi

- year process.

AHAM has committed to this review and has already begun internal eff orts to this end. We call on EPA, CPSC and the three national standard development organizations to work with us on this analysis of the appropriate charge size limit.

Product Design and Feasibility Challenges

There are significant functional design ch allenges for standard

- sized refrigerators to switch to HC refrigerants under current charge size limits. Redesign options include installing a second compressor and refrigerant loop or microtubes, each of which is expensive and adds considerable cost even to base model units. The U.S. refrigerator market is different from that in Europe, where the products (and the kitchens) tend to be smaller and are able to cool the internal compartments effectively with a single compressor, many of which are protected systems with no exposed evaporator tubing. Adding technical features could drive up the cost of products and put unnecessary financial strain on consumers. While many smaller products like mini

- fridges and wine cabinets are already transitioning to hydroc arbons, the vast majority of refrigerators currently on the market would be affected. These impacts could be particularly hard on low

- income and fixed

- income consumers, who could face either more expensive products or a loss of key features.

Further comp licating the dynamics of this transition for refrigerators are pending changes manufacturers must make to meet new EPA and Department of Energy regulatory requirements. The last iteration of EPA’s SNAP rule requires manufacturers to end the use of HFCs as foam blowing agents by 2020, a thoughtful decision which AHAM had recommended as it coincides with the anticipated publication of the next DOE refrigerator efficiency standard. Each of these new obligations will occupy research and development resources and require considerable capital investment. Adding a refrigerant phase

- out at or around that time would further complicate the transition by adding a third major variable (and related investments) without achieving any efficiencies of scale.

Market Dyn amics The home appliance industry takes its responsibility for the environment seriously and has decided to spend the additional resources needed to expedite its transition to low GWP refrigerants. The percentage of total HFC use represented by home appliances is exceedingly small, and the environmental benefits that will be achieved by eliminating the use of HFC refrigerants in these products are marginal. EPA regulations already require recovery of HFCs at end of product life, meaning that the small amounts u sedp 5 in our products must be captured and either disposed of properly or reclaimed. There is no evidence to suggest that leakage or improper disposal of home appliances are substantial sources of greenhouse gas

emissions. We also note that EPA is taking a ctions to shore up refrigerant management rules under CAA Section 608; this action will further improve refrigerant management in the field.

On the other side of the scale, however, the costs to manufacturers

— and ultimately to consumers

— are significant. There are the obvious unit cost impacts from adding additional technological components or capabilities to achieve the transition to HCs. Other significant costs come from converting manufacturing operations to the use of alternative refrigerants and taki ng the necessary steps to address the risks inherent in working with flammable materials. This includes making operations explosion

- proof and adopting worker safety practices and procedures that are consistent with OSHA regulations governing hazardous

mat erials. In addition, there will be costs associated with the servicing of products containing flammable refrigerants and the related training and other burdens imposed on certified service technicians.

H istory shows that chemical changes never go as qu ickly or as smoothly as anticipated. For example, the industry is still battling serious material compatibility issues with HFO use in foam, despite assurances from suppliers that there would be no such problems. All of these costs are additive to the ob vious burdens on manufacturers: accelerated R&D, process retooling, supply chain disruption, etc. The environmental benefits of a prematurely accelerated phasedown are slight when compared to a more deliberate, less disruptive schedule that includes conti nuous progress toward transition

Next Steps

Despite these challenges and concerns, the appliance industry is moving forward with this transition. The single most challenging aspect is evaluating the restrictions in the existing safety standards for fla mmable refrigerants and determining a safe and appropriate charge size limit and any associated restrictions. As indicated above, AHAM has initiated internal discussions about a proposal on appropriate safety testing on which an updated standard could be based. This will be followed by outreach to relevant stakeholders such as the National Fire Protection Association, CPSC and others who should oversee the necessary technical study. We hope EPA will be involved in this process as well, and we clearly nee d to engage the three national standard development organizations. This process could take three to five years to complete, however.

While the necessary path forward is difficult but clear for refrigerators and freezers, the same cannot be

said for air conditioning home appliances or commercial ice makers . As noted, no alternatives to HFCs currently exist other than propane, R441A and possibly R32, and the charge sizes required for these products to function correctly with flammable refrigerants are wel l beyond what is allowed by the existing safety standards. T he transition dates for RAC, PAC and DH products and for commercial ice makers should necessarily be later than for refrigerators because of the uncertainty regarding alternatives to currently us ed refrigerants and because more information is needed about the particular challenges they face in making the switch to alternatives.

For these reasons, we urge EPA to support our voluntary efforts, to avoid a mandated transition date for

household refri gerators and freezers that is no sooner than 2024 and to not set a date for air conditioning home appliances or commercial ice makers until the available alternatives and related technical and safety

issues are better understood. We appreciate EPA’s willi ngness to work with the appliance industry over the years, and we hope EPA will assist us in this phasedown of HFCs as a refrigerant in residential refrigerators and freezers.p 6 Thank you for considering our recommendations. We would be glad to provide a ny additional detail you may need about our concerns or our intended transition.

Sincerely,

Robert D. McArver Vice President, Policy & Government Relations