![](media/image1.wmf)

June 26, 2003

Air and Radiation Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 6102T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

Attention: Docket ID NO. OAR 2002 0064

RE: Initial Comments to Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of
Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances - n-Propyl bromide: Proposed
Rule Federal Register Vol. 68 No. 106, June 3, 2003.

The following are comments regarding the above described Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and we respectfully request that they be entered
into Docket ID NO. OAR 2002 0064 and considered in the Final Rulemaking
regarding the issues discussed herein.

Enviro Tech International, Inc. is the manufacturer of the ***EnSolv***
Family of Solvents, which are based on n propyl bromide. Since bringing
the first nPB based solvent to the market in 1996, our patented
***EnSol***v formulations have provided a necessary and successful
replacement for ozone depleting substances such as CFC-113, methyl
chloroform and HCFC-141b for vapor degreasing, ultrasonic and other
precision cleaning applications. Enviro Tech supports the EPA decision
to list n propyl bromide as approved. Considering that n propyl bromide
has been under SNAP review for nearly eight years while being subjected
to a level of scrutiny unprecedented in the SNAP program, we expect that
this proposal will proceed with all due speed to a final rule making.

Although we support the ultimate proposal to list n propyl bromide as
acceptable, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has raised a number of
issues which Enviro Tech will address in detail at a later time.
However, because of the high level of confusion the Notice already
caused in the marketplace, we feel it is necessary to make these initial
preliminary comments.

First, EPA is well aware (and even representatives of competing products
agree) that users often compare AELs as a safety benchmark. EPA readily
admits it used a methodology vastly different from that of OSHA in order
to derive an AEL. EPA offers no reasoning as to why a different
methodology is necessary or advisable, and offers no direction or
guidance on how a recommendation based on yet another entirely different
set of criteria might have any benefit in the real world of the
workplace.

As we have said, EPA recommends an AEL based on methods and criteria
which have not been used to make any other similar recommendation.
Therefore, unless EPA is publishing a new standard of review of chemical
compounds under SNAP, its process is violative of equal protection. If
EPA is indeed announcing a new standard of review, it is then to be
assumed that all subsequent SNAP reviews, such as is currently underway
for HCFC-225ca/cb, will apply this same standard. It is also then
correct to assume that any subsequent review of compounds such as
trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, 1,2 trans-dichloroethylene or
other *trans* based mixtures, etc. pursuant to 42 USC 7671k(d) will also
be subject to this same standard. If this is EPA's intent, it should
state this in no uncertain terms.

Next, we are concerned that EPA did not even acknowledge the existence
of the expert assessments and reports listed below, all of which are
critical of ICF Consulting's report, even though they were in the EPA's
docket A-2001-07 before, at or around the same time as the reviews by
Drs. Brock and Dodd which EPA cites for as support. Since no mention of
any of the following reports, reviews and assessments are mentioned in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we will be submitting them with
additional commentary as part of the Public Comments to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking:

1\) **August 24, 2001** Letter from Dr. John Doull and Dr. Karl Rozman
stating the use of results from the 2^nd^ generation of a two generation
study are not relevant to an occupational exposure level. A-2001-07 Doc.
#II-D-26 and attachment to II-D-41.

2\) **May 31, 2002**. Letter from Dr. John Doull and Dr. Karl Rozman
criticizing ICF Consulting's derivation of an occupational exposure
limit for nPB. A-2001-07 Attachment to Doc. #II-D-41.

3\) **May 29, 2002.** Dr,. Marc Stelljes, SLR International, Inc. Memo
criticizing ICF Consulting's derivation of an occupational exposure
limit for nPB. A-2001-07 Attachment to Doc. #II-D-41-4.

4\) **August 21, 2002.** Dr. F. Jay Murray, Murray & Associates. Letter
regarding inappropriate use of F1 generation endpoints for derivation of
AEL. A-2001-07 Doc. #II-D-58

5\) **October 21, 2002.** Dr. Joseph Rodricks. Letter criticizing ICF
Consulting's derivation of an occupational exposure limit for nPB.
A-2001-07 Doc. #II-D-65

For comparison, reports cited by EPA were Dr. Dodd's assessment is dated
July 17, 2002, Dr. Brock's assessment dated July 19, 2002 and the
California HESIS assessment dated September 27, 2002. II-D-62.

Number range CHAPTERFurther, EPA fails to discuss positive data
regarding the ozone depletion potential of nPB included in the reports
it does cite. As EPA well knows, the MOZART 3D model used to compute the
ODP of 0.013 - 0.018 for nPB was incomplete at the time of testing and
the resulting ODP's were "likely still too large." Since then,
additional work has been done on the model and it is expected that an
analysis of nPB under the more complete MOZART 3D model will result in a
lower ODP for nPB at all latitudes, including equatorial regions. In
fact, as Dr. Wuebbles points out, 7553 tons of nPB (the estimated world
nPB production for 2002) emitted across North American, European and
Asian latitudes would result in ozone depletion that is too small to be
measured. Additionally, Dr. Wuebbles explains that "\[o\]nly in the case
that all emissions occur in the equatorial region would the resulting
effects on ozone be larger." Wuebbles, Donald J. 2002. *The Effect of
Short Atmospheric Lifetimes on Stratospheric Ozone* A-2001-07 Doc. \#
II-D-29. *This* information is also extremely relevant to other
interested parties

Further, it is exasperating that EPA equivocates on the issue of
flammability. Calling this characteristic of nPB into question also
calls into question the flammability of all other halogenated compounds
(including methylene chloride, trichloroethylene as well as HFE and
HCFC-4310mee mixtures with 1,2, trans dichloroethylene) because they all
share similar characteristics. By raising this issue, EPA questions the
very definition and understanding of the term "flammable" into question
and in doing so, demonstrates a remarkable lack of expertise in this
area.

Finally, although some commenters may expound pet theories as to
supposed EPA "obligations", it is axiomatic that an agency has literally
no power to act unless Congress confers that power upon it. *Louisiana
Pub. Serv. Comm. v. FCC*, 476

U.S. 355, 374 (1986); *Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp.*, 488 U.S. 204,
208 (1988).

As the Federal Courts have repeatedly made clear, it is not within EPA's
prerogative to disregard statutory limitations on its discretion because
it concludes that other remedies it has created out of whole cloth are
better. *Whitman v American Trucking Assoc.* 531 US 457(2001); *Ethyl
Corp. v. USEPA*, 51 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir.1995); *Sierra Club and Missouri
Coalition for the Environment v. USEPA*, 311 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002).

Richard G. Morford

General Counsel

Enviro Tech International, Inc.

[[www.ensolv.com]{.underline}](http://www.ensolv.com/)

rmorford@ensolv.com