*

Al-lAM 

ASSOCIAnoN OF HOME 

APPUANCE MANUFACTURERS 

1111 19th Street NW Suite 402 Washington, DC 20036 

Testimony of 

Robert D. McArver 

202.872.5955 202.872.9354 www.aham.org 

Vice President, Policy & Government Relations 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

Before the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Regarding EPA's Proposed Rulemaking on the Change of Listing 

Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program 

Docket ID No. EPA -HQ- OAR- 2014-0198 

August 27, 2014 

Leadershtp ,.. Know/ed~ ,.. novation 
Good morning. My name is Rob McArver, and I am the Vice President of Policy and 

Government Relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. I appreciate the 

opportunity to explain why AHAM is opposed to the proposed delisting rule as it applies to 

refrigerator foam. This proposed action is well beyond the authority delegated to EPA under the 

Clean Air Act, is unnecessary to protect the environment, exposes a lack of regulatory 

coordination among federal agencies and creates significant burdens to US businesses. 

AHAM represents manufacturers of major, portable and floor care home appliances, as well as 

suppliers to the industry. AHAM's more than 150 members employ tens of thousands of people 

in the US and produce more than 95% of the household appliances shipped for sale within the 

US. 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 US consumer lifestyles, 

health, safety and convenience. Through its technology, employees and productivity, the 

industry contributes significantly to US 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 reduce home energy use and costs. 

The US appliance manufacturing industry has been at the forefront of providing consumers 

increasingly sustainable and environmentally preferable products. Over time, we have 

transitioned our products to highly efficient, non-ozone depleting substances, which has cost 

manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars. All of these transitions (from CFCs to HCFCs to 

HFCs) have been encouraged- actually urged and applauded - by EPA, including the extremely 

beneficial move to HFCs. With these new generations of products, we have eliminated almost 

all use of ozone depleting substances. As a consequence of our efforts, along with EPA's Energy 

Star program and the DOE appliance standards, we offer products that have dramatically 

increased energy efficiency without sacrificing features or high quality. Indeed, it is well 

understood that the energy efficiency benefits that we provide with fluorocarbons far outstrip the 

impact of the modest amount of resulting HFC emissions. 

We recognize that HFCs are ultimately transitional chemicals. Although it not sufficiently 

reflected in EPA's analysis, in fact a significant portion of products sold in the US market no 

longer use HFCs as foam blowing agents, opting instead for hydrocarbons or HFO. Despite this, 

the EPA proposal goes well beyond the actions that were suggested in pre-proposal workshops, 

indeed going so far as to propose unnecessarily accelerated delisting of widely used chemicals 

that still have significant beneficial uses in the United States. This action only serves to insert the 

federal government into the marketplace by forcing investments that are economically unsound. 

These actions exceed EPA's legal authority and are unnecessary, and thus we oppose them. 

What EPA has proposed is not authorized under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The statute 

requires the "replacing" of ozone-depleting substances with substitutes as a trigger for regulatory 

action, but nowhere in the United States are ODSs being substituted for non-ODS materials in 

refrigerator foam-blowing agents. The HFC-based foam blowing agents used in domestic 

refrigerators today are not alternatives for ozone depleting substances. Virtually none of our 

current refrigerator models existed when ODSs were used, and these models never contained 

CFCs or HCFCs. At present, we are on the second, third or fourth generation of refrigerator 

products since ODSs were used in US production. It is misguided for EPA to interpret its SNAP 

p2 
authority as allowing it to regulate the use of chemicals in product categories generations beyond 

their use of ozone depleting substances and without any end date. There is simply no ODS 

substitution taking place, and thus EPA does not have authority to regulate further in this area. If 

at some point, EPA is authorized to phase out HFCs consistent with future international 

obligations, then that may constitute a more appropriate avenue for phasedown measures. 

Even if the SNAP authority somehow applies here, there have been no changes in the human 

health or environmental impact of refrigerator HFC use since they were approved by EPA that 

would justify this proposal. No facts about the toxicity or climate impact of these chemicals have 

changed. Nor have their emissions profile and climate impact changed, other than that their use 

in the US market is significantly less than EPA estimates [verify]. Obviously, alternatives exist, 

but the Clean Air Act and numerous presidential executive orders require the careful 

consideration of costs and benefits and the necessity of regulation before US business of all sizes 

are further burdened. 

AHAM is working on a current valid estimate of the reduced level of HFC usage in refrigerator 

foam and what is forecasted for future demand, and we will provide that data in our written 

comments. Initial analysis indicates, however, that by 2015 many refrigerators sold in the US 

will not use high GWP foam blowing agents, and the trend of dramatic reductions in the use of 

high GWP HFCs by this responsible industry will accelerate in the future. Regardless of these 

trends, manufacturers of all sizes will be impacted by this rule. For those that have not fully 

transitioned from HFC foam-blowing agents and do not have the time or the capital to invest in a 

100% transition by an arbitrary January 1, 2017 date, the impact of these proposals could be 

devastating. 

These same firms have invested millions of dollars in new DOE efficiency requirements that 

become effective in less than a month. The DOE requirements were based on the assumption of 

the availability of HFCs and have diverted the scarce capital that is available for regulationdriven investment. To make matters worse, the major new burdens EPA proposes are 

unnecessary because the use and potential emissions of high GWP HFCs for refrigerators sold in 

the US market are far less than were estimated. This is a classic example of the cumulative 

regulatory burden that falls on manufacturers when EPA and DOE fail to coordinate their 

rulemaking activity. 

EPA also significantly underestimates the costs of this proposal. One particularly disappointing 

example is the suggestion that refrigerator manufacturers seeking to replace HFCs in foamblowing agents have "drop-in" substitutes. In fact, there are no available drop-ins. That false 

but convenient misnomer overlooks the years and millions of dollars of work necessary to ensure 

continued manufacturing efficiency; product quality, performance and longevity; an evaluation 

of potential impacts on energy efficiency; and the compatibility of plastics used. On top of that, 

it is well known that the use of hydrocarbon foam in US factories requires an investment in 

bomb-proofmg such production to protect employees, sometimes new VOC controls, and careful 

reformulation analyses to ensure continued energy efficiency. 

These steps are neither cheap nor easy, and the significant burdens they impose were 

inadequately addressed in the proposal. By forcing 1 00% across the board transition in such a 

p3 
short period of time, this proposal would put companies and their products at risk, given the 

limited alternatives that are currently available. 

We also note that without any legal rationale, EPA has proposed to reverse its long-standing 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act with respect to the import of products containing HCFC 141-

b as a foam-blowing agent. EPA is required by the Administrative Procedures Act to explain 

why its previous legal evaluation was incorrect and it has not done so. We ask that EPA release 

to the public all previous legal analyses on this issue, including an explanation of why the earlier 

interpretation was incorrect. The proposal does not offer an adequate rationale for reversing such 

a long-standing interpretation. 

AHAM urges EPA to drop this ill-considered effort after more carefully and accurately taking 

into account the realities of the marketplace and the true costs and benefits of this effort. There is 

not much point in promoting an international regulatory regime if the agency is going to apply 

this blunt and inappropriate regulatory instrument domestically, regardless of the shape of a 

future international scheme. The appliance industry's transition away from HFCs is well 

underway. EPA's proposal should reflect and support this progress, rather than impede it. 

Thank you for consideration of our comments. 

p4