aaronbray@comcast.net 

06/13/2007 03:30 PM	To

	Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	cc

	

	bcc

	

	Subject

	Re: rules on n-propyl bromide available in Federal Register

	

						

	History:	

		This message has been forwarded.			

Margaret,

Thank you very much for updating me on the nPB.  I responded but had 

problems when I tried to go forward in the screen.  I have enclosed my 

statement even though I understand this ruling has no affect on the 

drycleaner side.  I have emailed the three parties you gave me that do 

have someting to do with dryclenaing but unlike you never got a
response.  

Again, thank you and I hope my meger response might  spur someone to
look 

into this growing use of nPB.

________________________________________________________________________
___

_________

Having waited for some time to finally read the agency's ruling
concerning 

nPB, I would now like to express my concerns of other non scientific 

trials using nPB as a solvent in the cleaning of textiles.  In order to 

side step the current regulations relating to perchloroethylene in the 

drycleaning industry, there is an alarming trend within the industry to 

convert to nPB as a cleaning solvent.

I understand the SNAP program and it's opinions offered in this document


do not cover the drycleaning industry but something must be done to 

calarify the misconception that nPB is completely safe and free of the 

agency's regulation for this particular use.  The users that have been 

questioned about the health concerns related to the solvent are under
the 

impression there are no risks.  A drycleaning machine is not designed to


deal with the vapor pressures related to nPB and placing this solvent in
a 

drycleaning machine offers the workers within the facility no protection


from exposure based on normal ambient temperatures within a typical 

drycleaning plant.

Due to the normal time frame involved with addressing such issues, by
the 

time this use of nPB is noticed, there could very well be thousands of 

drycleaners across the country experimenting with it.  That is hundreds
of 

thousands of employees, customers and ajoining businesses that could be 

exposed to very high doses of nPB.

________________________________________________________________________
___

_____________

Sincerely,

Aaron C Bray

 -------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Sheppard.Margaret@epamail.epa.gov

> 

> I am pleased to inform you that on May 30, the Federal Register

> published EPA's rules on n-propyl bromide (nPB), available at

> www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ .

> 

> EPA has issued two rules:

> 

> (1) a final rule, in which EPA determines that nPB is an acceptable

> substitute for methyl chloroform and CFC-113 in the solvent cleaning

> sector (metals, precision, and electronics cleaning) , and

> 

> (2) a proposed rule, in which EPA proposes to list nPB as:

>       -acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a substitute for
methyl

> chloroform, CFC-113, and HCFC-141b in the coatings end use ( and

>       -unacceptable as a substitute for methyl chloroform, CFC-113,
and

> HCFC-141b when used in adhesives or in aerosol solvents.

> EPA also takes comment on alternate options that would find nPB

> acceptable subject to use conditions in adhesives or in aerosol

> solvents.

> The public comment period on the proposal lasts through Monday, July
30.

> You may find relevant materials or submit public comments through the

> online docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064, available at www.regulations.gov.

> 

> Thank you for your continued interest.

> Margaret Sheppard

> USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

> SNAP Program

> Tel. 202-343-9163

> Fax 202-343-2362

> email: sheppard.margaret@epa.gov

> 

