Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0188-0060
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-10-25T04:00Z

July
28,
2004
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Docket
No.
OAR­
2003­
0188
FROM:
Kelly
Rimer,
REAG
SUBJECT:
Summary
of
and
Response
to
Public
Comments
Received
on
the
November
21,
2003
Proposed
Rule
to
Delete
Ethylene
Glycol
Monobutyl
Ether
1.0
Overview
We,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
also
referred
to
as
"
EPA"
and
"
the
Agency")
are
amending
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
contained
in
section
112(
b)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
the
Act)
by
removing
the
compound
ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
(
EGBE)
(
2­
Butoxyethanol)
(
CAS
No.
111­
76­
2).
This
action
is
being
taken
in
response
to
a
petition
submitted
by
the
Ethylene
Glycol
Ethers
Panel
of
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(
formerly
the
Chemical
Manufactures
Association)
on
behalf
of
EGBE
producers
and
consumers
to
delete
EGBE
from
the
HAP
list.
Petitions
to
remove
a
substance
from
the
HAP
list
are
permitted
under
section
112(
b)(
3)
of
the
Act.

Our
proposal
to
delist
EGBE
appeared
in
the
Federal
Register
on
November
21,
2003
(
68
FR
65648).
The
notice
summarized
the
American
Chemistry
Council's
petition
to
delist
EGBE
and
our
analysis
of
that
petition.
We
also
provided
a
detailed
rationale
for
delisting
EGBE.

The
proposal
notice
invited
comment
from
interested
parties
on
the
proposal
to
delist
EGBE.
We
received
comments
from
a
number
of
industry
and
other
commenters.
These
comments
are
summarized
below
in
Section
2.0.
Section
3.0
presents
a
table
identifying
the
commenters.
Section
4.0
presents
a
table
identifying
supplemental
materials
submitted
by
the
petitioner
that
have
not
been
included
in
the
comment
summary.

2.0
Support
for
and
Opposition
to
the
Proposed
Delisting
2.1
Support
for
Delisting
EGBE
Many
citizens
(
30,
31,
32)
and
industry
commenters
(
34­
36,
38­
46)
support
the
proposal
to
delist
EGBE
from
the
HAP
list
as
specified
in
section
112(
b)
of
the
Act.
These
commenters
generally
believe
that
the
proposed
delisting
is
supported
by
adequate
data.

One
citizen
(
31)
and
several
industry
commenters
(
36,
38,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44,
45,
46)
noted
that
adverse
human
and
ecological
effects
are
not
likely
based
on
results
from
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessment
modeling
performed
by
the
CMA,
and
based
upon
these
findings,
the
chemical
should
be
delisted.
Some
citizen
and
industry
commenters
(
30,
35,
46)
noted
that
the
chemical
properties
of
EGBE
(
high
boiling
point,
low
vapor
pressure)
lead
to
low
concentrations
at
atmospheric
pressure
and
temperature,
which
support
the
delisting
of
this
chemical.
One
industry
commenters
(
44)
noted
that
while
EGBE
may
be
an
ozone
presursor,
it
is
inappropriate
to
keep
EGBE
on
the
HAP
list
unless
EGBE
independently
meets
the
HAP
list
criteria.

An
industry
commenter
(
34)
that
manufactures
industrial
coatings
noted
that
EGBE
is
especially
useful
in
the
production
of
waterborne
coatings,
which
offer
very
significant
reductions
in
VOCs
over
solventborne
coatings.
This
commenter
noted
that
EGBE's
efficiency,
broad
effectiveness,
and
low
cost
make
it
the
co­
solvent
of
choice
for
waterborne
coatings.
The
commenter
added
that
delisting
this
chemical
will
help
the
industrial
coating
industry
compete
more
effectively
against
products
produced
in
countries
where
little
or
no
concern
is
given
to
air
quality.
Another
industry
commenter
(
36)
that
manufactures
water­
base
finishes
noted
that
his
company
currently
uses
diethylene
glycol
butyl
ether
(
DGBE)
(
which
is
a
HAP)
in
its
finishes,
but
will
be
able
to
replace
some
of
the
DGBE
with
EGBE
if
EGBE
is
delisted,
thereby
reducing
HAP
emissions.
The
commenter
noted
that
since
both
EGBE
and
DGBE
are
regulated
as
VOCs,
the
substitution
will
not
increase
VOC
emissions.
A
third
industry
commenter
(
42)
that
makes
waterbased
cleaners
and
degreasers
remarked
that
by
using
EGBE,
the
industry
has
been
able
to
move
away
from
100
percent
VOC,
solvent­
based
degreasers
that
are
more
toxic
and
nonbiodegradable
and
by
removing
EGBE
from
the
HAP
listing,
others
will
also
be
able
to
move
toward
the
use
of
these
water­
based
degreasers.

One
industrial
commenter
(
45)
that
uses
coatings
on
steel
products
noted
that
EPA
has
long
encouraged
the
use
of
low­
VOC,
water­
reducible
paints
despite
the
slightly
higher
HAP
content
(
typically
EGBE).
Delisting
EGBE
would
help
preserve
the
pollution
prevention
benefits
associated
with
low­
VOC,
water­
reducible
coatings.

One
commenter
(
43)
urged
EPA
to
move
forward
on
this
and
other
delistings
without
delay.
This
will
enable
manufacturers
that
use
EGBE
in
their
products,
such
as
coatings
manufacturers,
to
determine
reformulation
or
operational
changes
needed
in
order
to
supply
their
customers
with
low­
HAP
coatings
to
meet
the
many
surface­
coating
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standards.

Comment:
A
citizen
commenter
(
32)
supported
the
delisting
of
EGBE
and
asked
for
clarification
that
this
delisting
also
applies
to
Diethylene
Glycol
Mono
Butyl
Ether
(
DEGBE)
(
a
footnote
in
the
112(
b)
listing
notes
that
all
entries
containing
glycol
ether
includes
both
the
mono­
and
di­
ethers
of
ethylene
glycol).
This
commenter
supports
including
DEGBE
in
this
proposed
delisting
due
to
the
similarities
between
DEGBE
and
EGBE,
and
noted
that
DEGBE
has
a
higher
molecular
weight
and
boiling
point
than
EGBE
and
hence
a
lower
propensity
to
become
airborne.
Another
commenter
(
36)
also
mentioned
using
DEGBE,
and
noted
that
if
only
EGBE
were
delisted,
they
would
use
less
DEGBE
and
more
EGBE
than
current
levels,
but
would
still
control
for
volatile
organic
content
(
VOC's).

Response:
The
final
rule
applies
only
to
EGBE,
one
of
the
compounds
included
in
the
group
of
glycol
ethers
listed
in
the
section
112(
b)(
1)
HAP
list.
The
petition
requested
that
one
single
compound,
EGBE,
be
delisted;
it
did
not
request
EPA
to
consider
removing
any
other
compounds
in
the
group
of
glycol
ethers.
Therefore
this
action
pertains
only
to
EGBE.

Comment:
One
commenter
(
45)
urged
EPA
to
address
the
"
Once
In,
Always
In"
policy
in
the
final
rulemaking
for
facilities
that
will
no
longer
be
major
sources
for
MACT
standards
once
EGBE
is
not
considered
to
be
a
HAP
because
it
is
likely
that
the
compliance
date
for
several
MACT
standards
will
precede
the
final
rulemaking.
This
commenter
further
requested
that
the
"
Once
In,
Always
In"
policy
not
apply
to
delistings
in
general,
since
a
facility
that
was
only
over
the
major
source
threshold
due
to
emissions
of
a
subsequently
delisted
HAP
may
never
have
been
a
"
major
source"
from
a
health
perspective,
and
therefore
never
really
"
in."
The
commenter
noted
that
the
purpose
of
the
policy,
that
sources
not
be
allowed
to
backslide
from
MACT
standards,
is
not
applicable
to
delistings
because
in
such
cases
the
health
and
environmental
protection
of
a
standard
is
not
undermined
(
since
the
delisted
chemical
has
been
determined
not
to
be
a
health
and
environmental
threat).

Response:
This
action
addresses
a
request
to
remove
a
specific
pollutant
from
the
HAP
list.
Any
questions
about
the
"
Once
In
Always
In
Policy"
are
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
action.
The
EPA
will
address
the
"
Once
In
Always
In
Policy"
in
the
future.

2.2
Opposition
to
Delisting
EGBE
Three
comments
(
29,
33,
37)
were
received
that
oppose
the
delisting
of
EGBE.
One
commenter
who
submitted
two
comments
(
29,
37)
believes
that
not
enough
precautions
are
presently
taken
in
using
any
chemicals.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
American
public
will
be
negatively
impacted
by
the
release
of
EGBE.
The
other
commenter
(
33)
declared
that
much
data
are
available
which
suggest
EGBE
should
not
be
delisted.
In
addition,
this
commenter
was
opposed
to
less
stringent
regulations,
as
they
may
lead
to
increased
non­
compliance
in
a
situation
where
employees
and
organizations
are
already
compliance
resistant.
None
of
the
commenters
provided
substantive
information
with
their
comments.
3.0
Commenters
The
commenters
on
the
proposal
to
delist
EGBE
are
listed
below
in
Table
1.
The
table
provides
the
document
number
from
the
rulemaking
docket
(
OAR­
2003­
0188),
the
author,
the
author's
company
or
affiliation,
the
position
taken
on
the
proposed
delisting
(
support
or
oppose)
and
the
category
into
which
the
commenter
falls.

The
categories
in
this
case
are
"
industry"
and
"
other."
The
"
other"
categories
includes
citizens
and
one
environmental
consultant.
When
a
commenter
did
not
give
any
indication
of
a
company
or
other
affiliation,
we
assumed
that
he
or
she
was
commenting
as
an
interested
citizen.

The
petitioner
submitted
a
considerable
amount
of
supplemental
information.
Although
these
items
were
entered
into
the
e­
docket
for
the
rulemaking
as
comments,
they
are
not
included
in
the
table
or
the
comment
summary.
See
Section
4.0
below
for
a
listing
of
these
materials.
Table.
1.
Commenters
on
the
EGBE
Delisting
Proposal
Document
Numbera
Author
Company/
Affiliation
Positio
n
Categor
y
(
I,
C)
b
29
B.
Sachau
Citizen
Oppos
e
O
30
Antoine
Courdi
Citizen
Support
O
31
Anonymous
Citizen
Support
O
32
Troy
Virgo
Citizen
Suppor
t
O
33
Jose
Puente
Alamo
Environmental
Consulting
Services
Oppos
e
O
34
Anonymous
Unnamed
manufacturer
of
industrial
coatings
Suppor
t
I
35
Pravin
Kapadia,
Technical
Service
Manager
Solvents
and
Chemicals,
Inc.
Suppor
t
I
36
Ken
Wintersten,
Senior
Chemist
Glitsa
American,
Inc.
Suppor
t
I
37
B.
Sachau
Citizen
Oppos
e
O
38
Geoffrey
Cullen,
Director
of
Government
Relations
Can
Manufacturers
Institute
(
CMI)
Suppor
t
I
39
Marcia
Y.
Kinter,
Vice
President
­
Government
Affairs
Gary
Jones,
Manager,
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Affairs
Doreen
M.
Monteleone,
Director,
Membership
&
Environmental
Affairs
Graphic
Arts
Coalition
Suppor
t
I
40
Patrick
L.
Gibson,
Product
Safety
Specialist
­
Regulatory
Equistar
Chemicals,
LP
Suppor
t
I
Table.
1.
Commenters
on
the
EGBE
Delisting
Proposal
Document
Numbera
Author
Company/
Affiliation
Positio
n
Categor
y
(
I,
C)
b
41
Patrick
L.
Gibson
Product
Safety
Specialist
­
Regulatory
Lyondell
Chemical
Company
Suppor
t
I
42
Anonymous
representative
of
Kafko
International,
Ltd.
Kafko
International,
Ltd.
Suppor
t
I
43
Alison
A.
Keane,
Counsel,
Government
Affairs
and
David
F.
Darling,
Director,
Environmental
Affairs
The
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
(
NPCA)
Suppor
t
I
44
Valeris
Ughetta,
Director
of
Stationary
Sources
Alliance
of
Automobile
Manufacturers
Suppor
t
I
45
Steven
J.
Rowlan,
General
Manager,
Environmental
Affairs
Nucor
Corporation
Suppor
t
I
46
D.
Dougals
Fratz,
Vice
President
Consumer
Specialty
Products
Association
(
CSPA)
Suppor
t
I
58
Identical
to
43
a
Document
number
in
rulemaking
docket
OAR­
2003­
0188
b
I
=
Industry,
both
manufacturers
and
users;
O
=
Other
(
including
individual
citizens)
4.0
Supplemental
Materials
The
petitioner
submitted
supplemental
materials
in
support
of
the
EGBE
delisting
petition.
Although
these
materials
were
entered
in
the
rulemaking
docket
as
public
comments,
we
have
not
summarized
them
as
such.
These
materials
are
currently
the
subject
of
a
peer
review
process
being
administered
by
our
Office
of
Research
and
Development.

The
supplemental
materials
are
listed
in
Table
2
below.
Two
copies
of
the
materials
are
included
in
the
docket,
reflecting
the
fact
that
the
petitioner
submitted
them
electronically
and
by
mail.

Table
2.
Supplemental
Materials
Submitted
by
the
Petitioner
Document
Numbera
Document
47
Comment
supporting
US
EPA
proposal
to
remove
ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
from
Courtney
M.
Price,
Vice
President,
Chemstar,
American
Chemistry
Council.
Presents
additional
information
and
attachments.

48
(
attachment
to
47)
Boatman,
R.
J,
Corley,
R.
A.,
Green,
T.,
Klaunig,
J.
E.,
and
Udden,
M.
M.
(
2004).
Review
Of
Studies
Concerning
The
Tumorigenicity
Of
2­
Butoxyethanol
In
B6C3F1Mice
And
Its
Relevance
For
Human
Risk
Assessment,
(
accepted
for
publication
in
the
Journal
of
Toxicology
and
Environmental
Health).

49
(
attachment
to
47)
Deisinger,
P.
J.
and
Boatman,
R.
J.
(
2004).
In
vivo
metabolism
and
kinetics
of
ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
and
its
metabolites,
2­
butoxyacetaldehyde
(
BAL)
and
2­
butoxyacetic
acid
(
BAA),
as
measured
in
blood,
liver
and
forestomach
homogenates
from
mice.
R&
D
Report
of
Eastman
Kodak
Company,
Rochester,
NY
to
the
American
Chemistry
Council.

50
(
attachment
to
47)
EGBE
PK
Data
Appendix
­
600mg/
kg
EGBE
In
Vivo
Oral
Doses
in
Female
Mice;
10­
29­
03;
TX­
2003­
197.

51
(
attachment
to
47)
Tyler,
T.,
Corley,
R.
A.,
Boatman,
R.,
Faber,
W.,
Gingell,
R.,
Lewis,
S.,
and
Marty,
S.
The
role
of
butoxyacetaldehyde
(
BAL)
in
the
interpretation
of
butoxyethanol
(
EGBE)
NTP
bioassay
results.
Vol.
22,
No.
6,
Nov­
Dec,
2003,
24th
Annual
Meeting
of
the
American
College
of
Toxicology.
Washington
DC
November
2­
5,
2003.

52
(
attachment
to
47)
Klaunig,
J.
and
Kamendulis,
L.
(
2004).
Effect
Of
2­
Butoxyacetaldehyde
On
The
Induction
Of
DNA
Damage
(
Comet)
In
Rodent
Endothelial
Cells.
R&
D
Report
of
Indiana
University
School
of
Medicine
to
the
American
Chemistry
Council.
Table
2.
Supplemental
Materials
Submitted
by
the
Petitioner
Document
Numbera
Document
53
(
copy
of
document
number
47)
Comment
supporting
US
EPA
proposal
to
remove
ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
from
the
list
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
54
(
copy
of
document
number
48)
Boatman,
R.
J,
Corley,
R.
A.,
Green,
T.,
Klaunig,
JE,
and
Udden,
M.
M.
(
2004).
Review
Of
Studies
Concerning
The
Tumorigenicity
Of
2­
Butoxyethanol
In
B6C3F1Mice
And
Its
Relevance
For
Human
Risk
Assessment,
(
accepted
for
publication
in
the
Journal
of
Toxicology
and
Environmental
Health).

55
(
copy
of
document
number
49)
Deisinger,
P.
J.
and
Boatman,
R.
J.
(
2004).
In
vivo
metabolism
and
kinetics
of
ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
and
its
metabolites,
2­
butoxyacetaldehyde
(
BAL)
and
2­
butoxyacetic
acid
(
BAA),
as
measured
in
blood,
liver
and
forestomach
homogenates
from
mice.
R&
D
Report
of
Eastman
Kodak
Company,
Rochester,
NY
to
the
American
Chemistry
Council.

56
(
copy
of
document
number
51)
Tyler,
T.,
Corley,
R.
A.,
Boatman,
R.,
Faber,
W.,
Gingell,
R.,
Lewis,
S.,
and
Marty,
S.
The
role
of
butoxyacetaldehyde
(
BAL)
in
the
interpretation
of
butoxyethanol
(
EGBE)
NTP
bioassay
results.
Vol.
22,
No.
6,
Nov­
Dec,
2003,
24th
Annual
Meeting
of
the
American
College
of
Toxicology.
Washington
DC
November
2­
5,
2003.

57
(
copy
of
document
number
52)
Klaunig,
J.
and
Kamendulis,
L.
(
2004).
Effect
Of
2­
Butoxyacetaldehyde
On
The
Induction
Of
DNA
Damage
(
Comet)
In
Rodent
Endothelial
Cells.
R&
D
Report
of
Indiana
University
School
of
Medicine
to
the
American
Chemistry
Council.

a
Document
number
in
rulemaking
docket
OAR­
2003­
0188