P.1 

OAR Box 1846 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

53) ll-H-1 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/18/2008 7:30:16 AM Sheet 53 of 93 
P.2 

? ' 

A -90-07 

IT- H- 1 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES REGISTRATION 

EPA Air Docket [LE-131]; Attention: Docket No. A-90-07 

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 152 / August 7, 1990 

Public Hearing: Domino's Farms, Ann Arbor, MI, Sept. 26, 1990 

Comments by: David C. Zimmerman 

Product Manager, Petroleum Additives 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 

Wilmington, DE, U.S.A. 

& A 

\\ Vi Xi V 

( $ 

9 b •"; v 1 

We welcome this opportunity to comment on the Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Fuels and Fuel 

Additives Registration. We realize that the EPA has a mammoth 

undertaking ahead of it, in dealing with this issue. As stated 

in the Federal Register notice for this meeting, there are many 

complex issues, many fuels and a multitude of additives 

involved. Obviously, the EPA needs as much well thought out, 

sound input as possible from industry, technical groups and 

other interested parties in order to conclude this matter to 

the mutual satisfaction of all involved - without causing the 

results to be "unduly burdensome", and yet resulting in a 

program that provides the information deemed "reasonable and 

necessary". 

Just as the EPA has a major undertaking before it, we who 

would like to provide input in the form of written comments 

also face a monumental task in attempting to respond to the 

many questions and issues raised in the Advance Notice being 

discussed here today. It is realized that these comments, to 

be significant, must be comprehensive and with as much 

documentation as possible. For this reason, we respectfully 

request that the deadline for written comments be extended by 

60 days, to December 24, 1990. 
P.3 

Although we can provide much more input, if the period for 

written comments is expanded, there are two items we would like 

to discuss at this time. The first is the issue of Small 

Business Provisions. 

We do not feel, for fuel additives at least, that a case 

can properly be made for the exclusion from the program of any 

company, or its products, based upon revenues. Instead, we 

feel that any program of this type should be based solely upon 

the use volume and/or potential risk of the product involved. 

While we think, and we believe the industry thinks, that 

the Du Pont Company Petroleum Additives business is a 

substantial factor in the marketplace, it is conceivable that 

our total annual sales of those products specifically falling 

under the proposed requirements are less than the EPA suggested 

small volume trigger of $40 million. This is an extremely 

fragmented industry, made up of many small components - some 

independent and others owned by large corporations. To exclude 

from any proposed requirements those companies whose sales are 

below a certain figure would penalize those businesses owned by 

a larger corporation. 

Any argument that the larger corporations can afford the 

proposed burdens better than the smaller companies is false. 

The businesses within a larger corporation must go to their 

management (just as the smaller companies must go to their 

bankers) for the capital necessary to keep a business healthy 

and to expand upon it. Unfortunately, this is an industry, 

because of its many participants and highly competitive nature, 

with very small profit margins. If costs are not borne equally 

by all participants, managements of the larger corporations 

will be hesitant to continue to invest needed capital in 

businesses in which they have a non-competitive position. 

This, in time, could reduce competitive activity by causing the 

companies burdened by testing to leave the business to the 

smaller firms, who would then be exempted from the program 

-*"Vms defeating its purpose. 
P.4 

Also, larger corporate businesses tend to have a larger 

product line - the number of currently active Du Pont Petroleum 

Additives potentially falling under the proposed regulations is 

approximately 125. While many of these products' annual 

volumes are insignificant, they could be included in the 

program because of the manufacturer's total revenues from all 

businesses. At the same time, a smaller private corporation, 

with only a few products in the line, could have individual 

product volumes manyfold greater, yet be excluded from the 

program. This, again, seems contrary to the intent of the 

program, both in the assessment of the risk and the desire to 

avoid an unnecessary testing and registration evaluation 

burden. 

Therefore, should it become necessary to propose 

regulations for the testing of fuel additives, we would propose 

that such rules apply to all manufacturers equally. 

You will note that I just said "should it become necessary 

to propose regulations for the testing of fuel additives". 

This leads us into the second area we would like to discuss 

today -that of which fuel additives, if any, need to be 

tested for human health and environmental effects. 

Most fuel additives are sold via drum or tank truck for 

use in refineries or, in some cases, oil company product 

terminals. The addition process is conducted by well trained, 

industrial personnel, and the additives are already well 

diluted, to levels of 2-650 ppm, before they reach the 

consumer. Thus, exposure potential is minimal. Additionally, 

in most cases, the significant hazards presented by the 

additives are those which can be attributed to the solvents 

used as carriers or diluents. These solvents, since they are 

all common petroleum-based materials, are already well known to 

the petroleum industry personnel handling them, are well 

documented as to health hazards, and are generally no more 

hazardous than the fuels into which they are being added. We 

fe**1. that the low exposure potential of these products as they 

are normally handled, coupled with their relatively low health 

hazards, presents a risk to human health and environment below 

that which would justify additional testing and evaluation 

under a "reasonable and necessary" program. Further 

quantification of the exposure potential can be provided 

through written comments. 
P.5 

As for the 

come up with an 

contradictory -

concentrations, 

our air quality 

that air quality 

improve the qual 

engines in which 

deterioration of 

emission effects of petroleum additives, we can 

argument which at first glance seems 

that most additives, used in small 

have a positive effect on the effort to improve 

yet are of no impact, by and of themselves on 

To explain further, additives are used to 

ity of the fuels or the performance of the 

they are consumed. By the prevention of 

fuel quality and the process of keeping the 

components of the engine clean and performing as designed, 

these additives are beneficial to the effort to improve the air 

quality around us. At the same time, the combustion products 

of these additives are negligible - being, for the most part, 

water vapor and carbon dioxide. This argument is not 

contradictory when one realizes that the case for beneficial 

effects on the environment is due to the action of the additive 

in question upon the fuel in which it is used, while by 

themselves, the combustion products of an additive are minimal 

when compared to that of the fuel. As an example of this 

latter point, note the information given below for some typical 

additives at normal use concentrations. 

lbs. Consumed per Mile Driven 

Source 

Air 

Gasoline 

PFI Detergent 

IVD Detergent 

Phenol Antioxidant 

Diamine Antioxidant 

Corrosion Inhibitor 

C 

_ 

0.35 

0.000013 

0.0042 

0.000013 

0.000006 

0.000006 

H 

— 

0.06 

0.0000017 

0.00063 

0.0000016 

0.0000008 

0.0000008 

N 

4.7 

— 

0.0000005 

0.00026 

-

0.0000010 

-

0 

1.3 

— 

0.0000003 

0.00023 

0.0000013 

-

0.0000007 

Given the above statements, we would therefore propose 

that, as a first screen, additives comprised of only Carbon, 

Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen, and used at concentrations less 

than 0.1% (wt./vol) in fuels be exempted from further 

evaluation under this proposed rulemaking. 
P.6 

We are grateful for the opportunity to present our input 

to this massive undertaking by the EPA. We plan to expand 

on the comments already presented here today as well as discuss 

additional areas of concern for which the EPA has requested 

comments, in a written submission. Again, in order to address 

these issues as well as possible, we reiterate our request that 

the EPA extend the comment period to December 24, 1990. 

Thank you.