Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Legal Group 2 Righter Parkway Wilmington. DE 19803 Heather C. Wlnett Tel. (302) 476-21 12 Fax (302) 476-2012 heather.winettesyngenta.com Via Federal Express August 30,2001 Kathleen 

### Franklin U.S. 

### Environmental ProtectionAgency Ariel 

### Rios Building 

### -5104 

### 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

### Washington, 

### DC 20460 

### Re: Requested De-Listing 

### ofParaquatDichloridefrom SARA Title IZI, Section 302; Zeneca Ag Products Inc. v. 

### US. EPA Dear Ms. Franklin: 

### Endosed is the information you 

### and your colleagues requested 

### at our 

### meeting in 

### EPA's office in 

### December 1999to 

### demonstratethat 

### Paraquat dichloride, though classified 

### as a restricted 

### use pesticide, would not be a 

### danger to the communityif 

### it were delisted

### from the SARA 

### 302Extremely Hazardous Substance

### List. We 

### have presented this information 

### in a 

### "Q&A7' format to 

### reflect the specific 

### questions raised by 

### EPA. Responses to Questions 

### 5 and 

### I1will be 

### provided in 

### a supplement in 

### the near future. 

### By way 

### of clarification,in 

### January 2001, 

### Zeneca Ag 

### Products merged 

### into S

### yngenta Crop Protection, 

### Inc. (while the name 

### of the 

### originalregistrant

### of Paraquat in 1978 was ICIAmericas 

### Inc.); 

### for the 

### purposes of this 

### matter, these various 

### names now all 

### refer to the 

### same company - Syngenta. 

### After 

### you have 

### had a 

### chance

### to review this 

### material, 

### S yngenta 

### representatives would be 

### glad to meet 

### with 

### you again 

### or convene 

### a conferencecall 

### to determine next steps. 

### Withespect

### to the 

### matter currently

### before the 

### District 

### Court for 

### the District 

### of Columbia, 

### as you know, the 

### parties have 

### asked the court 

### to hold this 

### matter in 

### abeyance pending 

### settlement discussions.



### Question 1: Why is 

### Paraquat a Restricted

### Use pesticide? 

### Is this classification

### relevant to EPCRA? Answer 

### 1: EPA originally classified all Paraquatproducts 

### asRestricted 

### Use pesticidesfor 

### FIFRA registration

### purposes based 

### on acutetoxicity 

### and the potential 

### for intentional 

### or inadvertent exposure.' 

### More recent acute data indicate lower toxicity for 

### oral and 

### dermal routes 

### of 

### exposure. EPA considers inhalation

### exposure

### not to be 

### a concern, stating that 

### "the spray droplets 

### of 

### Paraquat 

## ' 43 FR 5782,February 9,1978. "Intentionaland inadvertent exposure"typically involves poisoning by ingestion of humans and animals (e.g., suicide).Ms. Kathleen Franklin August 30,200 t Page 2


### from all 

### current1 

### y registered products 

### are not of respirable 

### size and inhalation is not an 

### exposure route of concern 

### [emphasis added]."2 

### EPA further 

### underscores this point 

### in its occupational

### exposure assessmentin its 

### 1996

### RED: Inhalation exposure 

### and doses 

### were not calculated since 

### spray 

### particles used in 

### applying Paraquat 

### are well beyond the respirable 

### range and Paraquat 

### has a 

### very 

### low 

### vapor pressure.3 

### Notwithstanding the Iack of 

### acute toxicity 

### concerns,EPA has maintained the 

### Restricted Use 

### classification 

### for all 

### Paraquat products "based on the 

### severity of 

### effects 

### from Paraquat oral ingestion 

### and inappropriate dermal 

### exposure, limited effectiveness of therapeutic 

### treatment after 

### exposure and in order to continue to deter misuse ofthis product [emphasis 

### added]." Clearly, then, 

### this classification 

### for FlFRA

### registration 

### purposes is 

### not relevant for EPCRA purposes. 

### Paraquat is 

### a Restricted Use 

### pesticide due to 

### oral and dermal 

### exposure concern, whereas 

### the concern 

### for EPCRA is 

### inhalation exposure,which 

### is the 

### most reIevant 

### exposure pathway 

### for EPCRA. 

### By contrast, 

### Paraquat was placed 

### on the 

### EPCRA Section 302 

### list based 

### on a level 

### of concern 

### for inhalation 

### exposure. The 

### reasons for 

### classifyingParaquat as 

### Restricted 

### Use pesticide, 

### therefore, 

### are unrelated to 

### its classification the 

### on the 

### EPCRA list.


### Question 2: Are most 

### Restricted 

### Use pesticides 

### on the EPCRA 

### list 

### of Extremely Hazardous Substances? 

### Answer 

### 2: 

### No. See Attachment 2, 

### which is a 

### table listing 

### aIl Restricted Use 

### pesticides and shows which are on 

### the SARA 

### 302 list. 

### This table 

### is based 

### on readily available 

### information 

### from the Office 

### of Pesticide 

### Programs. Of the 

### 163Restricted 

### Use pesticides, 

### only 54 

### (33 

### percent) are 

### on the 

### EPCRA list. Of 

### the top 

### ten selling 

### pesticides for agricultural use (see EPA's Pesticides Idustry Salesand Usage: 1996and 1997Market Estimates), six are Restricted 

### Use (atraine, 

### rnetolachIor, metam sodium, 

### methyl bromide, 

### dchloropropene, and 

### acetochlor). However, 

### of these six, only methyl bromide is 

### on the SARA 302 list. 

### Question3: Why did 

### EPA require 

### an inhalation 

### study 

### forParaquat, and 

### what particle 

### sizes were used in 

### the study? 

### Confirm that it was 

### a rat study. 

### How dtd the laboratory

### create inhalable particles?

Re-registrationEligibility Document for Paraquat, EPA 1996 ("RED) at p. 116 (copy enclosed,Attachment 1) 1996 RED at p. 49. 4 1996RED at p. 116. The Restricted Use classificationsignificantly controIs access to the productby the general public and thereby helps controI its rnis-useas a poisonby ingestion forhumans and animals.Ms. KathleenFranklin August 30,2001 Page 3
Answer 

### 3: An 

### acute inhalation 

### study is 

### part of the standard 

### test battery 

### for registering 

### a pesticide (see

### 40 

### CFR 158.340). The acute 

### inhalation study referencedin 

### the 

### RED included 

### a 6-hour exposure,to 

### Alderley Park SPF 

### to respirable 

### Paraquatpmcleswith an aerodynamic diameter 

### of 2.5 

### microns 

### or less5. The LCso

### for this 

### study was 1 pg/L 

### (or 0.001 

### g/m3). This study was used by EPA 

### to 

### set the Level 

### of Concern 

### forParaquat in 

### the EPCRA program. The laboratory

### created inhalationparticles with 

### an atomizer.


### Question 4: 

### Is Paraquat 

### ever in solid 

### form in the 

### production 

### process? Answer 4: 

### No.
Question 5: Would the 

### proposed change 

### to Paraquat dichloride's 

### status in 

### EPCRA 

### affect all solids 

### in solution? 

### Are many other

### pesticides solids in solution? 

### Answer 5: Syngentais still in the 

### process 

### of researching 

### this 

### issue and 

### will.provide 

### a response in its 

### supplement, forthcoming in the 

### near 

### future.
Question 6: Please provide a process flow diagram 

### for the 

### Paraquat dichloride production 

### process. 

### Answer 

### 6: See Attachment 4.


### Question 

### 7: WouIdn't the decision 

### in HulsAmerica, 

### Inc. v. 

### Carol

### Browner, 83 

### F.3d445 (D.C. Cir. 

### 1996) [upholdingEPA's denial 

### of 

### a petition to 

### &list isophorone diisocryanate 

### ("'IPDI")] be dispositive of the 

### arguments Syngentaadvances 

### forremoving Paraquat dichloride 

### fmm the EHS list? 

### Answer 

### 7: 

### No. The

### Huh America 

### caseis easily 

### distinguished from 

### ~yngenta'sposition; in particular, S

### yngenta's legd 

### challenge to 

### EPA's denial 

### of thepetition to delis

### t Paraquat

### presents two new 

### issues forjudicial review 

### not addressedby 

### the HulsAmerica 

### court, Please see the 

### legal 

### memorandum prepared by 

### McKenna & 

### Cuneo, Attachment 

### 5. 

### Question

### 8: Does the SARA 

### 3

### 11/312 tax 

### in Florida 

### apply directly to 

### growers and farmers? 

### Answer 8: 

### Yes. Additional infomation can be obtained from the 

### FloridaFruit 

### and Vegetable Association.

Gage, J.C., 'ToxicityofParaquatand DiquatAerosols Generatedby a Size-SelectiveCyclone:Effect ofParticle Size Distribution," BritishJod ofIndustrial Medicine,25,304-3 14, 1968Ms. Kathleen Franklin August 30,2001 Page4 Question

### 9: Is anyone else bringing Paraquat 

### dichloride into the 

### United States? Answer 

### 9: To the best of Syngenta's knowledge,

### only 

### one other company, 

### Griffin 

### LLC, currently imports Paraquat 

### (asfinished 

### product under the brand 

### name ~0s~) into the 

### U.S. As far as Syngenta is aware, there 

### is 

### no powdered 

### form anywhere in the 

### world. 

### Please see 

### also Paraquat Shipment 

### Analysis, Attachment 

### 6.
Question 10: When is Paraquat 

### used by farmers? 

### When is Paraquat 

### on-site: after harvest? 

### month-after-month? Is 

### there a typical 

### applicationrate 

### for Paraquat? Is there 

### a typical size 

### of farm it 

### is used 

### on? Answer 

### 10: Paraquat 

### is used 

### for both pre-emergence and post-emergence purposes 

### (see labe1 description,

### Attachment 7). 

### However, the product 

### is not typically stored on-site 

### formonths at 

### a time; 

### rather, it is 

### used 

### soon after purchase (typically,

### within days), 

### and then 

### more 

### is purchased 

### for subsequent use. 

### Common usage 

### rate is 1.7-2.0

### ptslacre 

### of formulated product. 

### Syngenta'

### s Gramoxoneg ax@ 

### contains 3 Ibs 

### of active ingredient 

### per gallon; 

### thus, in active 

### ingredient 

### terms, common 

### use rate 

### is 

### .64 - .75 lbs 

### per 

### acres. Griffin's ~oa' contains 2.5 lbs per 

### gallon, but 

### the lbs A.1.lacrerate is 

### the 

### same. There 

### is 

### no "typical" 

### size 

### of farm or 

### orchard about which 

### Syngenta has information. 

### Additional technical information, including the MSDS 

### for Gramoxone 

### g ax", is in 

### Attachment 7.
Question 

### 11: 

### Please provide a 

### summary of the incident 

### history of Paraquat. 

### Answer 11: S

### yngenta has reviewed the 

### six publicly available databases relatedto chemical incidents and is in the 

### process of updating that 

### review. A 

### summary will be 

### provided in 

### Syngenta's supplementaryresponse, forthcoming in the near future.

We hope that 

### your questions and concerns

### have been addressed. 

### However, if 

### you need any 

### additional information 

### or discussion, 

### Syngentawould be 

### pleasedto 

### respond

### further,

CC wl attach: 

### Nina Rivera, 

### Esq.,EPA Alan 

### Carpian, DO3 Peter Gray,

### Esq. Richard 

### Reiss SueannePfifferling Heather C. 

### Winett Environmental CounselMs.Kathleen Franklin August 30,2001 Page 5



### Attachments 

### (see tabs): 1. 

### 1996RED 2. Table 1:

### RU & 

### Non-RU EHS 3. [forthcoming with 

### supplement] 4. Process 

### Flow Diagram 

### 5. 

### Memorandumre HullsAmerica decision 

### 6. Shipment Analysis 7. Technical 

### Information (label, tech 

### description;MSDS) 

### 8. Summary

### of Incident History [forthcoming with 

### supplement]