Phillip McCarter Vice President Nation Ford Chemical 2300 Banks Street Fort Mill, SC 29715 Dear Mr. McCarter: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D

.C

. 20460



## JUL 282014
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics is reviewing the May 21,2014 request for waiver from testing by Nation Ford Chemical for 2,3,5,6-Tetrachloro-2,5- cyclohexadiene

- 1,4-dione (CAS# 118-75-2) (Chloranil) underthe Dioxins/Furans Test Rule (52 FR 21412, June 5, 1987). The issues raised by this request and the novel circumstances associated with the proposed importation ofChloranil from two manufacturers in China present several challenges in making a determination. As you know, the regulatory text related to your waiver request requires the agency to consider whether "the cost oftesting would drive the chemical substance offthe market, or prevent resumption of manufacture or import ofthe chemical substance, ifit is not currently manufactured," and also whet her "the chemical substance will be produced so that no unreasonable risk will occur due to its manufacture, import, processing, distribution, use, or disposal." 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(ii). While we have not yet reached a final decision on your waiver request, we have prepared several follow-up questions. Your response to these questions would be helpful to EPA in making its final determination on your request. IfNation Ford Chemical would like an opportunity to respond to the attached follow

-up questions, please let EPA know, by August 8, 2014, that you intend to respond. To allow EPA time to review your response, your letter should also request an extension ofthe proceedings until 30 days afterthe date that EPA receives Nation Ford Chemical's response. Ifwe do not receive such a letter ofintent from you by August 8, 2014, then we will proceed to a final decision on your waiver request, on the basis ofthe information currently available to us. Our intention in this latter case would be to publish a notice of decision in the Federal Register on or before August 22, 2014. Dataprovided inresponse to this request may be claimed as Confidential Business Information and, if so, will be handled in accordance with the EPA confidentiality regulations at40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. All responses which contain information claimed as CBI must be clearly marked as such. Persons submitting information, any portion ofwhich they believe is entitled to treatment as CBI by the EPA, must assert a business confidentiality claim in accordance with 40 CFR 2.203(b) for each such portion. This claim must be made at the time that the information is submitted to the EPA. Ifa submitter does not assert a confidentiality claim at the time ofsubmission, the EPA will consider this as a waiver ofany confidentiality claim and the information may be made available to the public by the EPA without further notice to the submitter.

Internet Address (URL) • http.//wwwepa gov Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnled w1th Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Poslconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperTo assert a claim ofconfidentiality, the submitter must submit two versions ofany documents containing information claimed as confidential. One copy should 

### be complete, with the information being claimed as confidential marked by bracketing, circling, or underlining. All pages containing such information should also 

### be stamped "CONFIDENTIAL

." Care should be taken to ensure that these markings do not obscure the submission's text. The other copy should have all ofthe information claimed as confidential eitherremoved or completely obscured. This sanitized version will be placed in the EPA's Public Files. My staffwill make every effort to resolve this issue in a timely manner and look forward to your further assistance. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact Hiroshi Dodohara at (202) 566

-0507 or at dodahara.hiroshi@epa.gov.

Enclosure 

# J{9tJ **o~**

**~ ~**  _ wendy Cleland-Hamnett



### Director Office ofPollution Prevention and ToxicsFollow-up Questions Background to Question #1: NFC cited changing market conditions that will make conversion of Chloranil to Pigment Violet 23 (PV23) a more efficient process than conversion ofDianil (CAS# 80546-37-9). NFC identified two manufacturers ofLDC Chloranil in China (Jiangyn Yuhua Chemical Co., Ltd., and Xiangshulxian Yuanda Chemical Co., L td.). NFC estimated that the cost oftesting Chloranil from these two manufacturers would exceed $200,000 and that "failing to receive approval to import Chloranil will prevent the manufacture or import ofthis chemical substance unequivocally." However, the regulations from which NFC seeks a waiver are testing andreporting requirements, not licensing requirements. See 40 CFR 766.20 and 766.35. For example, while a notice ofintent to test imported material (or an exemption application) would be due within 60 days after the commencement ofimport, 40 CFR 766.35(a)(l), the regulations do not establish an obligation to obtain pre-import "approval to import Chloranil," as NFC appears to suppose. Question #1: Specifically addressing NFC's anticipated revenue from the contemplated import of Chloranil, and the particular tim ing provisions under 40 CFR 766.35 for submitting letters ofintent, test protocols, and test results after importhas commenced, why does NFC believe that the cost oftesting would be economically prohibitive (i.e., would effectively preclude the contemplated imports)? Background to Question #2: NFC indicated that Clariant Chemical Ltd. imports Chloranil synthesized in India, is the sole source ofChloranil in the United States market, and is the only company presently producing Chloranil that has done the testing required by the EPA. NFC identified two manufacturers of LDC Chloranil in China: Jiangyn Yuhua Chemical Co., Ltd., and Xiangshulxian Yuanda Chemical Co., Ltd. lfNFC could establish that the starting materials, process conditions, and reaction conditions used to make Chloranil at these facilities are identical to those that have already been tested for Chloranil manufacture (or that they vary only in insignificant ways from tested conditions), then NFC may potentially qualify for a testing exclusion under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(l), even ifNFC would not qualify for a test waiver under 40 CFR766.32(a)(2). Question #2: Can NFC provide information regarding the starting materia ls, process conditions, and reaction conditions used by Jiangyn Yuhua Chemical Co., Ltd., and Xiangshulxian Yuanda Chemical Co., Ltd., and, more specifically, how these materials and conditions compare to those ofClariant Chemical Ltd. 's manufacturer in India?