Call w/John Durkee, 830-238-7610

5/30/2007

Q1) Why does it matter?  What does SNAP apply to?  (if not currently
using ODS)

Would like some justification.

Q2) Why not start over with a requirement for an AEL?  Won’t allow to
start over.

A: We would need a significant increase in risk to justify this for
solvents.  We take comment on it in the proposal for aerosols/adhesives.

3) Why not regulate as HAP?  A:  It’s a statutory list.  Would need a
petition from the public.

Aerosols –nPB is unacceptable (proposal).

Mr. Durkee is concerned about handwipe applications and people misusing
nPB (receiving excessive exposure).

Mr. Durkee has been looking at cleaning performance of alternatives to
nPB that are VOC exempt.

Methyl acetate & water (VOC exempt)

TBAC & water (VOC exempt)

Propylene glycol ether

Heptane & water

Justification

III.D.1.b  59 FR 13048

b.	Review of Existing versus New Substitutes

	A number of commenters believed that EPA's SNAP program has no
authority to restrict existing substitutes, which companies may have
switched to in an effort to eliminate the use of CFCs prior to the
publication of this final rule.  Arguments in support of this position
include the prospective language of the statute, which says EPA must
make it "unlawful to replace" an ODS with a substitute deemed
unacceptable.  Many of these commenters recommended grandfathering of
these existing uses, so as not to disrupt industry's transition away
from ODSs.  An extension of this concern appears in several comments, in
which commenters expressed the fear that SNAP will revisit prior
decisions, removing substitutes previously deemed acceptable as newer
and more environmentally benign substitutes are developed.  

	Under the Agency's interpretation of section 612, in order to fulfill
the Congressional mandate to review "any" substitute substance that may
present adverse effects to human health and the environment, both new
and existing substitutes must be included under SNAP.  In addition,
section 612(e) specifically requires notifying the Agency before new or
existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce.  EPA
believes that class I and II substances are "replaced" within the
meaning of section 612(c) each time a substitute is used, so that once
EPA identifies an unacceptable substitute, any future use of such
substitute is prohibited.  Under any other interpretation, EPA could
never effectively prohibit the use of any substitute, as some user could
always start to use it prior to EPA's completion of the rulemaking
required to list it as unacceptable.  EPA believes Congress could not
have intended such a result, and must therefore have intended to cover
future use of existing substitutes.  

Section IV.A.2.f & g

f.	Second-Generation Substitutes  59 FR 13052

	A key issue is whether there exists a point at which an alternative
should no longer be considered a class I or II substitute as defined by
section 612.  The Agency believes that as long as class I or II
chemicals are being used, any substitute designed to replace these
chemicals is subject to review under section 612.  In this final rule,
the Agency has determined that second-generation replacements, if they
are non-ozone depleting and are replacing non-ozone depleting
first-generation alternatives, are exempt from reporting requirements
under section 612.  Other regulatory programs (e.g., other sections of
the CAA, or section 6 of TSCA) exist to ensure protection of human
health and the environment in these situations.  

	Where second-generation substitutes replace first-generation
substitutes that are themselves ozone-depleters (e.g., HCFCs), these
second-generation substitutes are bound by the same notification and
review requirements under section 612 as first-generation substitutes to
ozone-depleting chemicals.  For example, if a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is
introduced as a first-generation refrigerant substitute for either a
class I (e.g., CFC-12) or class II chemical (e.g., HCFC-22), it is
subject to review and listing under section 612.  Future substitutions
to replace the HFC would then be exempt from reporting under section 612
because the first-generation alternative did not deplete stratospheric
ozone.  If, however, a class I or class II chemical is used as a
first-generation substitute (e.g., use of HCFC-141b as a transitional
replacement in foam blowing), the second-generation substitute is still
subject to review under section 612 because it is replacing a class I or
class II chemical. 

	The key to determining whether a substitute is exempt or not as a
second-generation substitute is, as discussed above, what it is designed
to replace.  For example, SNAP reviews are not meant to cover cases in
which a technology is designed for use primarily in replacing existing
non-ozone depleting evaporative cooling systems.  In general, if most
intended uses for a possible substitute are to replace a non-OD
substitute for a class I or class II substance, then this substance
would therefore be a second-generation substitute, and SNAP review is
unlikely to be required.  In those situations where class I or class II
substitutes have already been replaced in most applications, the small
use exemption could also eliminate the need for review of next
generation substitutes.

			g.	Applicability to Existing Uses  59 FR 13052

	The prohibition on use of an alternative applies only to substitutions
to unacceptable substitutes made after the effective date of any final
rulemaking for unacceptability.  However, for this final rule, any
person who has transitioned to a substitute for an end-use prior to any
SNAP final rulemaking designating it as unacceptable may continue to use
the substitute until their existing supply of the chemical, as of
[insert date of publication], is depleted.

	Existing inventory of final products manufactured with or containing a
substitute designated unacceptable as a result of final EPA rule-making
within an end-use covered under SNAP could theoretically be legally sold
after listing.  Producers should be aware, however, that they will be
effectively barred from selling a substitute for use once it has been
deemed unacceptable under SNAP, because potential purchasers will not be
able to use it.  After the effective date of this final rule, users will
not be able to use any additional supply of a banned substitute
purchased after the publication date of the unacceptable listing.

