MEMORANDUM

TO: Greg Macek, EPA/OPPT/CEB

Maj’d El

- Zoobi, EPA/OPPT/CEB

FROM: Jason Sese , ERG

Kurt Rindfusz , ERG

DATE: May 31 , 2013

SUBJECT: Glymes SNUR

– Method Used to Identify Existing Consumer Uses

ERG has been supporting EPA since 2009 to identify current existing consumer uses of the Glymes Chemical Category in support of the Glymes Significant New Use Rule (SNUR). On February 13, 2013 (with subsequent direction on April 9, 2013 and May 20, 2013), EPA directed ERG to provide documentation of the methods used to identify these current existing consumer

uses. EPA indicated that the documentation should include:

1. Data sources inve stigated ; 2. Contacts made and how chosen ; 3. Discussion of any hierarc hy used in reviewing the data. For example, was higher weigh t giv en to one source over the other;

4. The EP A reviews provided along the way; and
5. Step

- by

- step approach employed from the beginning of the project up to and including the recent deliverables

.

Section 1.0 describes an overall summary of the methods used to identify existing consumer uses, whil e Section 2.0 outlines the chronological order of activity since 2009.

1.0 S UMMARY OF M ETHOD

EPA tasked ERG with identifying consumer uses of glymes associated with the proposed

SNUR in 2009 . Over time a series of modifications to the original task were issued, ultimately leading to support for determining which glymes have been associated with confirmed (actual)

con sumer uses and unconfirmed (reported or potential ) consumer uses. The methodology used to
make determinations is outlined in the following steps :

Step 1: EPA provided a list of six glymes with potential consumer uses.

Step 2: ERG c onduct ed a litera ture search to find support ing or contradict ing

evidence for the listed potential consumer uses. The following information
sources were used: the 2006 IUR database, the Hazardous Substance Database (HSDB), the Kirk

- Othmer Encyclopedia of Technology, the NIH Household Products Database, and a general internet search.May 31 , 2013

Page 2

Using the available information, ERG identified existing consumer uses

through two criteria: (1) whether a use currently exists; and (2) whether that use is a consumer use. In instances where a use was defined broadly (paints, coatings, batteries, etc.), ERG assumed that there may be potential

consumer use.

Step 3 : ERG then contacted industry representatives from Novolyte and Clariant

,

as directed by EPA (ERG was not provided the specific reasons w hy those companies were selected for contact)

. ERG completed this phase of the effort by updat ing the results from step 2 based on informat ion provided by the industry contacts. I n cases where the technical contact could not specifically state whether there were consumer uses, ERG assumed that there was potential consumer use.

EPA then tasked ERG with follow up work starting in 2012 . These efforts and the methodology used to complete the associated tasks are summarized in Steps 4 and 5 as follows :

Step 4 : EPA directed ERG to expand the work to include the eight additional

glymes that were included in the Proposed SNUR

.

Step 5 : EP A directed ERG to review the following additional sources for use

information :

 I nformation developed by EPAB that included information from the following sources : 1986

- 2006 IUR public database

, SRI Chemical Economics Handbook and SRI Specialty Chemicals Program books

, i ndustry and trade magazines such as industry and trade magazines
such as the “Chemical Market Reporter” and the “Chemical Engineering News”

, EPA Website ; NIH’s Hazardous Substances Databank (HSDB)

, Score Card: The Pollution Information Web site (Scorecard)

, and a g eneral web search ;

 I ndustry comments prepared in response to the proposed rule ;

 Information from the draft 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR)
Rule ; and

 The NIH Household Products Database (which was previously
searched for the ini tial list of six glymes, but not for the additional eight glymes in the expanded work).

Step 6: EPA revised the scope of the work and directed ERG to limit the analysis

from 14 glyme chemicals to a list of seven glyme chemicals

.

ERG divided the uses for each of the seven glymes into three different categories , using the criteria described in step 2. ERG used all availableMay 31 , 2013

Page 3

data to determine whether a particular use currently exists, but used direct

i nformation from industry comments and contacts to det ermin e whether
there was consumer use. The three categories are as follows:

 Category 1 included the uses where there is a strong indication that
there is an actual current consumer use . These uses were identified
based on the previous discussions with technical contacts from Clariant and Novolyte, if explicitly discussed by industry in comments on the proposed SNUR , or if listed in the NIH Household Products
Database.

 Category 2 included the uses where there is a strong indication that
there is no actual current consumer use. As with Category 1, these
determinations were based on discussions with technical contacts from industry or from information provided in the SNUR comments.

 Category 3 included both potential consumer and non

- consume r uses that have been reported in various sources but have not been confirmed by direct contact with industry. These uses were identified through internet and literature searches, but were not definitively
classified in Categories 1 or 2.

2.0 C HRONOLOGICAL H ISTORY

The fol lowing is a chronological summary of the work completed since 2009

.

2.1 May 8, 2009 Technical Direction

EPA p rovided a table of six glymes to ERG with a preliminary list of uses for each chemical. EPA directed ERG to review the uses and provide a “ Yes/No ” determination of whether the uses provided were potential consumer uses.

ERG submitted a deliverable on May 22, 2009 (Glymes Review_052209.doc) that provided a consumer use determination for each of the uses listed by EPA and a basis for each determination. ERG reviewed the following sources for this effort : the 2006 IUR database, the Hazardous Substance Database (HSDB), the Kirk

- Othmer Encyclopedia of Technology, the NIH Household Products Database, and a general internet search. The main sour ces of information obtained from the general internet search were Novolyte and Clariant websites.

2.2 May 29, 2009 Technical Direction

On May 29, 2009, EPA directed ERG to contact industry representatives from Ferro, Novolyte and Clariant to refine consumer use determinations provided in the May 22, 2009
deliverable. In separate emails from Greg Macek (via Amy Breedlove) to Dan

- Tam Nguyen on June 2, 2009, EPA indicated that Ferro was bought by a company and renamed Novolyte andMay 31 , 2013

Page 4

provided ERG with contact infor mation for Clariant and Novolyte

. EPA did not provide background on how the contacts were chosen.

ERG provided a deliverable on June 15, 2009 (Glymes Review_061509.doc) that updated the May 22, 2009 deliverable with information from Novolyte and Clariant contacts. In cases
where broad use s were possible (paints, coatings, etc.) , but the technical contact could not specifically state w hether there were consumer uses , ERG assumed that there was potential

consumer use. The Novolyte contact indicated at the time that that Ferro transferred all glyme production to Novolyte and no longer manufacture d those chemicals.

2.3 February 29, 2012 T echnical Direction

On February 29, 2012, EPA directed ERG to update the June 15, 2009 memorandum
ba sed on the following criteria and documents:

 T he additional glymes that were included in the proposed rule ( ERG’s June 15, 2009
memorandum covered the initial six glymes, while the proposed rule covered 14 glymes) ;

 A dditional use information gathered by EPAB after preparation of the June 15, 2009

memo , as reported in a September 9, 2009 memo from Abt Associates, Inc. (Abt) to Nishkam Agarwal of EPAB that was also presented in the 2011 Economic Analysis ;

 All of the comments provided to EPA on the proposal, which were submitted by the following trade associations and companies:

o American Chemistry Council ;

o Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ;

o American Coatings Association ;

o Boeing ;

o Global Automakers ;

o Novolyte Performance Materi als ;

o PRBA

– The Rechargeable Battery Association ; and

,

o West Kern Water

.

 Follow

- up conversations by ERG with the comment ers for clarification if needed; and

,

 A ny updated information from key databases such as IUR (after completion of the 2009
work ).

On March 22, 2012, ERG delivered an updated memorandum to EPA that compiled the
information from the various data sourc es. ERG also incorporated the “actual” versus “reported” notations as used by the Abt analysis. For each use, the table assigned two separate classifications: (1) actual versus reported use; and (2) consumer versus non

- consumer use. Confirmed uses were designated as “actual” while unconfirmed uses were designated as “reported” (this includes industri al, commercial, and/or consumer use). Uses were designated as “actual” only when verified through industry contacts or comments. ERG made a separate determination as to whether there was a potential consumer use.May 31 , 2013

Page 5

2.4 May 29, 2012 Technical Direction

On May 2 9, 2012, EPA directed ERG to further refine the March 22, 2012 memorandum, dividing the single t able into three separate tables, one for “ strong Yes’s,” one for “ strong No’s,” and one for everything in between. ERG delivered the memorandum on May 31, 2012

, including
the following details about each table:

 T able 1 in cluded the uses where there is a strong indication that there
is an actual current consumer use. These uses were identified as “strong Yes’s” based on discussions with technical contacts from
Cl ariant and Novolyte, or if explicitly discussed by industry in

comments on the proposed SNUR.

 Table 2 include d the uses where there is a strong indication that there is no actual current consumer use. As with Table 1, these
determinations were based on discussions with technical contacts from industry or from information provided in the SNUR comments.

 Table 3 included both potential consumer and non

- consumer uses that have been reported in various sources but have not been confirmed by
direct contact w ith industry. These uses were identified through internet and literature searches, but were not definitively classified in
Tables 1 or 2.

2.5 July 23, 2012 T echnical D irection

ERG’s May 31, 2012 deliverable was forwarded to the Glymes workgroup with a r eques t for review and comment. On July 23, 2012, EPA directed ERG to address comments from three workgroup members ( Glen Farber, Jasbir Sama, and Kirsten Hesla)

. On August 3, 2012, ERG
delivered a comment response and revised glymes use memorandum based on the comments that
were received

.

2.6 December 6, 2012 Technical Direction ( replaced with updated direction provided December 12, 2012)

EPA provided ERG with technical direction on December 6, 2012, which was superceded by direction that was provided on December 12, 2012. ERG was directed to propose updates to Table 1 of the July 12, 2011 proposed SNUR for the Glymes Chemical Category . This table listed consumer uses of glymes that EPA was aware of at the time of publication

. EPA directed ERG to propose updates to Table 1 based on the additional information tha t was received and reviewed, including data from the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) R ule

. EPA also directed ERG to prepare a separate CBI memorandum for information found in the CDR database, if necessary

.May 31 , 2013

Page 6

ERG delivered a non

- CBI memorandum on Decembe r 14, 2012 , which proposed updates to Table 1 of the SNUR, primarily based on information received from industry comments. ERG
delivered a revised version December 17, 2012 that stated that the consumer uses found in the
draft 2012 CDR database (versions 1 and 2) were consistent with those reported in industry

comments. Hence, ERG did not provide a separate CBI deliverable.

2.7 December 20, 2012 Technical Direction

On Dec ember 20, 2012, EPA directed ERG to prepare a summary of CBI information
from the draft 2012 CDR (versions 1 and 2) pertaining to consumer uses for each of the 14

g lymes and to obtain select production volume information. Also, EPA requested that the December 17, 2012 memo be revised so that the basis for original inclusion of consumer use (from the June 15, 2009 deliverable) be included. ERG delivered the CBI CDR data on January 3, 2013 and the revised memorandum on Jan 4, 2013.

2.8 January 30, 201 3 T echnical D irection

On January 30, 2013

, EPA directed ERG to a dd the identi t y of the manufacture r /importer
to Table 2 of the January 4, 2013 CDR deliverable

. ERG delivered the CBI CDR d ata on February 7, 2013.

2.9 April 9, 2013 Technical Direction

On April 9, 2013, EPA directed ERG to investigate potential consumer uses reported in
the NIH Household Products database for t etraethylene glycol dibutyl ether (112

- 98

- 1),

p entaethylene glycol diethyl ether (23601

- 39

- 0), and ( t etraethylene glycol diethyl ether 4353

- 28

- 0)

. ERG re

- searched all 14 glymes of interest in the NIH Household Products Database and updated the January 4, 2013 deliverable. ERG delivered the revised memorandum on April 16

, 2013.

2.10 May 20, 2013 Technical Direction

On May 20, 2013, EPA indicated that the scope of the Glymes SNUR Rule was reduced
from 14 glyme chemical s to seven. The seven glymes included in the final scope are:

CASRN Common Name

110

- 71

- 4 Monoglyme

111

- 96

- 6 Diglyme

629

- 14

- 1 Ethylglyme

112

- 36

- 7 Ethyldiglyme

112

- 49

- 2 Triglyme

112

- 73

- 2 Butyldiglyme

63512

- 36

- 7 ButyltriglymeMay 31 , 2013

Page 7

EPA directed ERG to revise the following two supporting documents to include just the

seven glymes that are in the c urrent scope for the final rule:

a. August 3, 2012 “Glymes Use Review” memo

b. April 16, 2013 Potential Updates to Table 1 memo

ERG delivered the se revised memorandums on May 31 , 2013.