Stefano
C
Crema
<
cremas@
basfcorp
com>

11/
21/
2003
12:
51
PM
To:
Jeff
Herzog/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Subject:
Re:
Solvent
124
Jeff,

nice
to
hear
from
you
that
the
yellow
124
is
still
the
preferred
approach.

I
have
briefly
spoken
with
our
people
in
Europe
and
they
said
it
is
common
over
there
to
mix
the
red
dye
and
the
Yellow
124
in
the
right
ration
and
then
inject
them
together.
Therefore
no
new
equipment
is
needed
in
the
specific
cases
you
mention
below.

As
to
the
patent
question,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
BASF
does
not
have
a
patent
on
yellow
124
manufacture
but
on
the
use
of
the
combination
yellow
124
with
a
red
dye
in
diesel
fiscal
applications.
Furthermore,
we
have
given
royalty
free
licences
in
Europe
and
I
would
bet
that
the
same
thing
would
be
done
here
in
the
US
Further
information
will
be
sent
to
you
monday
or
Tuesday..

Have
a
nice
weekend.

Herzog.
Jeff@
epama
il.
epa.
gov
To:
Stefano
C
Crema
cc:
11/
20/
2003
09:
41
Subject:
Solvent
Yellow
124
AM
Hello
Dr.
Crema,

Alex
related
that
he
had
moved
on
to
another
assignment
and
that
I
should
contact
you
with
questions
re
solvent
yellow
124.
We
are
still
seriously
considering
finalizing
fuel
marker
requirements
under
the
NR
rule
and
SY­
124
continues
to
be
a
candidate.
Currently,
we
are
evaluating
comments
from
terminal
operators
that
requiring
the
addition
of
a
marker
at
the
terminal
would
force
them
to
put
in
a
new
segregated­
dedicated
additive
injection
equipment
on
each
fuel
loading
arm.

*
Certain
terminals
are
likely
to
handle
only
heating
oil
(
and
no
other
non­
highway
fuels).
For
these
terminals,
every
batch
of
fuel
that
would
be
required
to
contain
red
dye
would
also
be
required
to
contain
SY­
124.
In
such
cases,
I
am
wondering
whether
it
would
be
possible
to
mix
the
marker
with
the
red
dye
in
the
same
storage
tank
(
at
the
proper
proportions)
and
adjust
the
injection
rate
so
that
both
products
could
be
delivered
at
their
respective
required
concentrations
through
the
same
injection
system.
This
approach
would
mean
that
there
would
be
no
new
capitol
costs
for
such
terminals.
Are
you
aware
of
any
technical
or
other
considerations
that
would
prevent
such
an
approach?
Terminal
operators
related
that
the
cost
for
new
injection
equipment
would
$
40,000
a
loading
arm
with
the
cost
for
some
terminals
being
as
much
as
$
250,000
(
for
6­
7
loading
arms).
I
am
in
communication
with
injection
equipment
manufactures
regarding
the
potential
options
and
associated
costs.
Currently
it
isn't
clear
to
me
whether
a
complete
duplicate
system
would
be
needed.
I
am
evaluating
whether
it
may
be
possible
to
inject
the
marker
into
the
feed
stream
from
the
heating
oil
storage
tank,
followed
by
a
flush
of
the
loading
arm
used
to
ensure
that
their
was
no
residual
SY­
124
left
in
the
loading
arm
to
contaminate
a
following
batch
of
NRLM
fuel
dispensed
through
the
loading
arm
(
that
must
not
show
evidence
of
the
marker).
If
such
an
approach
was
possible,
it
might
result
in
a
significant
cost
savings
wrt
the
need
for
new
injection
equipment.

Are
you
aware
of
how
the
injection
systems
are
set
up
in
the
EU
to
handle
the
injection
of
the
solvent
yellow
124
marker
and
the
various
other
fiscal
dyes
required?
Our
situation
would
have
red
dye
added
to
all
non­
highway
fuels,
but
solvent
yellow
added
only
one
type
of
fuel
which
is
required
to
contain
red
dye....
In
the
EU,
I
believe
that
all
fuels
that
must
contain
the
fiscal
dye
must
also
contain
the
marker
...
Can
you
confirm
this?

Also,
I
believe
that
in
discussions
with
Alex
that
BASF's
patent
on
solvent
yellow
124
would
expire
before
the
use
of
the
proposed
marker
would
be
required
(
terminals
would
need
to
build
their
stocks
in
early
of
2007).
Can
you
tell
me
the
date
when
the
patent
expires
and
give
the
patent
#
so
that
I
can
reference
it?
The
public
comments
expressed
concern
about
EPA
requiring
the
use
of
a
proprietary
substance
that
could
only
be
manufactured
by
parties
(
other
than
the
patent
holder)
by
paying
a
licence
fee.
This
would
no
longer
be
an
issue
if
the
patent
had
expired.

I
received
some
estimated
marker
costs
from
a
major
marketer
of
fuel
marker/
dyes.
They
estimated
that
a
good
estimate
re
the
cost
for
bulk
deliveries
of
SY­
124
to
terminals
would
translate
to
a
treatment
cost
(
at
6mg/
liter)
of
0.03
cents
per
gallon.
Can
you
comment
on
this?

My
immediate
interest
is
focused
on
answering
the
question
in
the
paragraph
marked
with
the
asterisk.

I
appreciate
your
help
working
through
these
issues.
Jeffrey
A.
Herzog,
Mechanical
Engineer
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
National
Vehicle
and
Fuel
Emissions
Laboratory
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
2000
Traverwood
Drive
Ann
Arbor,
Michigan,
48105
Phone:
(
734)
214­
4227
Fax:
(
734)
214­
4816
E­
Mail:
herzog.
jeff@
epa.
gov
