P. 1



# OAR Box 1846 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 53 ) ll-H- 1
Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 7

Printed 11/18/20087:30:16

AM Sheet 53 of 93P. 2



### ? ' A-90-0 7 IT- H
- 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y ADVANCE D NOTIC E O F PROPOSE D RULEMAKIN G FUEL S AND FUE L ADDITIVE S REGISTRATION

EPAAi r Docke t [LE-131] ; Attention : Docke t No . A-90-0 7

Federa l Registe r / Vol
. 55 , No . 15 2 / Augus t 7 , 199 0 Publi c Hearing : Domino' s Farms , Ann Arbor , MI , Sept . 26 , 199 0

Comment s by : Davi d C . Zimmerman

Produc t Manager , Petroleu mAdditive s E . I . du Pon t d e Nemour s & Co. , Inc . Wilmington , DE , U.S.A . 

### & A \\ V i X i V

( $ 

### 9 b •" ; v1

W e welcome thi s opportunit yt o commen t o n th e Advance d Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking regarding Fuel s an d Fue l Additive s Registration
. W e realiz e tha t th e EPAha s a mammot h undertaking ahead o f it , i n dealing wit hthi s issue
. A s state d i n th e Federa l Registe r notic e fo r thi s meeting , ther e ar e man y comple xissues , man yfuel s an

d a multitud e o f additive s involved
. Obviously , th e EPAneed s a s muc hwel l though t out , soun d inpu t a s possibl e fro mindustry , technica l group s an d othe r intereste d partie s i n orde r t o conclud e thi s matte r t o th e mutua l satisfactio n o f al l involve d - withou t causing th e result s t o b e "undul yburdensome" , an d ye t resulting i na progra mtha t provide s th e informatio ndeeme d "reasonabl e an d necessary" . Jus t a s th e EP

Aha s a majo r undertaking befor e it , w e wh o woul d lik e t o provid e inpu t i nth e for mo f writte ncomment s als o fac e a monumenta l tas k i nattempting t o respon d t o th e man yquestion s an

d issue s raise d i nth e Advanc e Notic e being discusse d her e today
. I t i s realize d tha t thes e comments , t o b e significant , mus t b e comprehensiv e an d wit ha s muc h documentatio n a s possible
. Fo r thi s reason , w e respectfull y reques t tha t th e deadlin e fo r writte ncomment s b e extende d b y 6 0 days , t o Decembe r 24 , 1990
.P. 3

Althoughw e can provid e muc hmor e input , i f th e perio d fo r writte n comment s i s expanded , ther e ar e tw o item s w e woul d lik e t o discus s a t thi s time
. Th e firs t i s th e issu e o f Smal l Busines s Provisions
. W e d o no t feel , fo r fue l additive s a t least , tha t a cas e can properl yb e mad e fo r th e exclusio nfro mth e progra

mo f an y company , o r it s products , base d upo nrevenues . Instead , w e fee l tha t an

yprogra

m o f thi s typ e shoul d b e base d solel yupo n th e us e volume and/o r potentia l ris k o f th e produc t involved
. Whil e w e think , an

d w e believ e th e industrythinks , tha t th e Du Pon t Compan

yPetroleu

mAdditive s busines s i s a substantia l facto r i n th e marketplace , i t i s conceivabl e tha t ou r tota l annua l sale s o f thos e product s specificall yfalling unde r th e propose d requirement s ar e les s than th e EP Asuggeste d smal l volume trigge r o f $4 0 million
. Thi s i s an extremel y fragmente d industry , mad e u p o f man

ysmal l component s - some independen t an

d other s owne d b

ylarg e corporations
. T o exclud e fro man ypropose d requirement s thos e companie s whos e sale s ar e belo wa certai n figur e woul d penaliz e thos e businesse s owne d b y a large r corporation
. An yargumen t tha t th e large r corporation s canafford th e propose d burden s bette r tha nth e smalle r companie s i s false
. Th e businesse s withi n a large r corporatio n mus t g o t o thei r managemen t (jus t a s th e smalle r companie s mus t g o t o thei r bankers ) fo r th e capita l necessaryt o keep a busines s health y an d t o expan

d upo n it
. Unfortunately , thi s i s an industry , becaus e o f it s man

yparticipant s an

d highl ycompetitiv e nature , wit hverysmal l profi t margins
. I f cost s ar e no t born e equall y b yal l participants , management s o f th e large r corporation s wil l b e hesitan t t o continu e t o inves t neede d capita l i n businesse s i n whic htheyhav e a non-competitiv e position
. This , i n time , coul d reduc e competitiv e activit yb ycausing th e companie s burdene d b ytesting t o leave th e busines s t o th e smalle r firms , wh o woul d the nb e exempte d fro mth e progra

m -*"Vm s defeating it s purpose .P. 4

Also , large r corporat e businesse s ten d t o hav e a large r produc t lin e - th e numbe r o f currentl yactiv e Du Pon t Petroleu m Additive s potentiall yfalling unde r the propose d regulation s i s approximatel y125
. Whil e man yo f thes e products ' annua l volume s ar e insignificant , theycoul d b e include d i nth e progra mbecaus e o f th e manufacturer' s tota l revenue s fro mal l businesses
. A t th e same time , a smalle r privat e corporation , wit honl ya fewproduct s i n th e line , coul d hav e individua l produc t volume s manyfol d greater , ye t b e exclude d fro mth e program . This , again , seem s contraryt o th e inten t o f th e program , bot hi n th e assessmen t o f th e ris k an d th e desir e t o avoi d an unnecessarytesting an d registratio n evaluatio n burden
. Therefore , shoul d i t become necessaryt o propos e regulation s fo r th e testing o f fue l additives , w e woul d propos e tha t suc hrule s appl yt o al l manufacturer s equally
. Yo u wil l not e tha t I jus t sai d "shoul d i t become necessary t o propos e regulation s fo r th e testing o f fue l additives"
. Thi s lead s u s int o th e secon d are a w e woul d lik e t o discus s toda y-tha t o f whic hfue l additives , i f any , nee d t o b e teste d fo r huma n healt han d environmenta l effects
. Mos t fue l additive s ar e sol d vi a dru m o r tank truc k fo r us e i n refinerie s or , i nsome cases , oi l compan yproduc t terminals
. Th e additio nproces s i s conducte d b ywel l trained , industria l personnel , an d th e additive s ar e alread ywel l diluted , t o level s o f 2-65 0 ppm , befor e theyreac hth e consumer . Thus , exposur e potentia l i s minimal
. Additionally , i n mos t cases , th e significan t hazard s presente d b yth e additive s ar e thos e whic hcan b e attribute d t o th e solvent s use d a s carrier s o r diluents
. Thes e solvents , sinc e theyar e al l commo n petroleum-base d materials , ar e alread ywel l know

nt o th e petroleu

mindustrypersonne l handling them , ar e wel l documente d a s t o healt hhazards , an d ar e generall yn o mor e hazardou s than th e fuel s int o whic htheyar e being added
. W e fe**1

. tha t th e lowexposur e potentia l o f thes e product s a s they ar e normall yhandled , couple d wit hthei r relativel ylowhealt h hazards , present s a ris k t o human healt han d environmen t belo w tha t whic hwoul d justif yadditiona l testing an d evaluatio n unde r a "reasonabl e an d necessary " program . Furthe r quantificatio n o f th e exposur e potentia l ca nb e provide d throughwritte n comments .P. 5

A s fo r th e come u p wit han contradictory- concentrations , ou r ai r qualit y tha t ai r qualit y improve th e qua l engine s i n whic h deterioratio n o f emissio neffect s o f petroleu madditives , w e can argumen t whic ha t firs t glanc e seem s tha t mos t additives , use d i n smal l hav e a positiv e effec t o n th e effor t t o improve ye t ar e o f n o impact , b yan d o f themselve s o n T o explai nfurther , additive s ar e used t o ityo f th e fuel s o r th e performanc e o f th e theyar e consumed
. B yth e preventio n o f fue l qualit yan

d th e proces s o f keeping th e component s o f th e engin e clean an d performing a s designed , thes e additive s ar e beneficia l t o th e effor t t o improve th e ai r qualit yaroun

d us . A t th e same time , th e combustio nproduct s o f thes e additive s ar e negligibl e - being , fo r th e mos t part , wate r vapo r an

d carbo n dioxide
. Thi s argumen t i s no t contradictorywhe n on e realize s tha t th e cas e fo r beneficia l effect s o n th e environmen t i s du e t o th e actio no f th e additiv e i n questio n upo n th e fue l i n whic hi t i s used , whil e b y themselves , th e combustio n product s o f an additiv e ar e minima l whe n compare d t o tha t o f th e fuel
. A s anexampl e o f thi s latte r point , not e th e informatio n give n belowfo r some typica l additive s a t norma l us e concentrations
. lbs
. Consume d pe r Mil e Drive n Sourc e Ai r Gasolin e PF I Detergen t IVD Detergen t Pheno l Antioxidan t Diamin e Antioxidan t Corrosio n Inhibito r C

_ 0.3 5 0.00001 3 0.004 2 0.00001 3 0.00000 6 0.00000 6 H

— 0.0 6 0.000001 7 0.0006 3 0.000001 6 0.000000 8 0.000000 8 N

4. 7

— 0.000000 5 0.0002 6

- 0.000001 0

- 0

1. 3

— 0.000000 3 0.0002 3 0.000001 3

- 0.000000 7 Give n th e abov e statements , w e woul d therefor e propos e that , a s a firs t screen , additive s comprise d o f onl yCarbon , Hydrogen , Nitroge n an d Oxygen , an

d use d a t concentration s les s tha n 0.1 % (wt./vol ) i n fuel s b e exempte d fro mfurthe r evaluatio n unde r thi s propose d rulemaking
.P. 6

W e ar e gratefu l fo r th e opportunit yt o presen t ou r inpu t t o thi s massiv e undertaking b yth e EPA . W e plan t o expan d on th e comment s alread ypresente d her e todaya s wel l a s discus s additiona l area s o f concernfo r whic hth e EPAha s requeste d comments , i n a writte n submission
. Again , i norde r t o addres s thes e issue s a s wel l a s possible , w e reiterat e ou r reques t tha t th e EPAextend the commen t perio d t o Decembe r 24 , 1990
. Thank you .