Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0230
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-05-14T04:00Z

Minutes for March 19, 2007 Meeting Concerning EPA’s Rulemaking on
n-Propyl Bromide

Attendees:

Robert Myers, EPA/Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

Drusilla Hufford, EPA/OAR/Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD)

Margaret Sheppard, EPA/OAR/SPD

Julius Banks, EPA/OAR/SPD

Jan Tierney, EPA/Office of General Counsel (OGC)

Jessica O’Donnel, Dept. of Justice (DOJ)/Env’l and Natural Resources
Division

Rich Morford, Enviro Tech International

Bill Thomas, Enviro Tech International

Geraldine Edens, McKenna Long &Aldridge, representing Enviro Tech
International

Fred Anderson, McKenna Long &Aldridge, representing Enviro Tech
International

Marc Stelljes, SLR International

Will Pickrell, Albermarle Corporation

Nancy O’Malley, Albermarle Corporation

	Robert Myers began the meeting by explaining that EPA is currently in
its deliberative process, and thus cannot respond to particular
suggestions or discuss options at this meeting.  He also mentioned that
EPA has a rule on n-propyl bromide currently under review at OMB.

	Will Pickrell and Rich Morford each mentioned projects that their
companies had invested in based on the assumption that EPA’s 2003
proposed rule on n-propyl bromide would soon become final.  They
expressed concern and frustration that the rule had not yet been
finalized, particularly for solvent cleaning uses.  Both companies
clarified that they sell nPB as a cleaner and do not sell it for use in
adhesives.

	Fred Anderson mentioned that the same representatives for Enviro Tech
and Albemarle attended a meeting with OMB while the rule has been under
review there.  Gerry Edens gave a status of Enviro Tech
International’s lawsuits against EPA in the court of appeals and the
district court.

	The representatives from Enviro Tech and Albemarle brought a number of
issues concerning EPA’s review of n-propyl bromide:

The lengthy process and lack of certainty about a final decision

The lack of new scientific data that would result in a new decision
coming out of risk assessment

The length and detail of EPA’s review for nPB, compared to that for
other chemicals under the SNAP program

Reports of cases of overexposure from use of nPB-based adhesives should
not be considered representative of the current situation

Dr. Stelljes reviewed Margaret Sheppard’s presentation from February
in Monterey, California (attached) in discussing the lack of scientific
data that would result in a different decision.  

	Mr. Pickrell and Mr. Morford expressed concern that if EPA were to
repropose a rule with an exposure limit lower than 25 ppm, it would hurt
their industry.  Mr. Anderson said that other agencies could address
exposure concerns (e.g., NIOSH, OSHA).  Mr. Pickrell said that Albemarle
was considering its options for dealing with the delay in final approval
of nPB, and mentioned some possibilities.  

	Robert Myers acknowledged that the Agency’s rulemaking process has
taken a long time.  He also said that, because EPA is still in
deliberation over the rule, he cannot say what the Agency will do or
when.  Mr. Myers and Ms. Hufford both thanked the industry
representatives for sharing their concerns, their viewpoints, and their
information with EPA.

Attachment:  “Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances and nPB
Update”, Powerpoint presentation given by Margaret Sheppard, EPA, at
the 17th Annual Cleaner, Safer Industrial Materials & Processes Workshop
at Monterey, CA, February 21, 2007

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2