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 2 8 2014 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution 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) under the 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 of Chloranil 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 of testing would drive the chemical substance off the market, or prevent resumption of 

manufacture or import ofthe chemical substance, if it is not currently manufactured," and also whether 

"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. 

If Nation 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 of the proceedings until 30 days after the date that 

EPA receives Nation Ford Chemical's response. If we do not receive such a letter of intent from you by 

August 8, 2014, then we will proceed to a final decision on your waiver request, on the basis of the 

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. 

Data provided in response to this request may be claimed as Confidential Business Information and, if 

so, will be handled in accordance with the EPA confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. 

All responses which contain information claimed as CBI must be clearly marked as such. Persons 

submitting information, any portion of which 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. If a submitter does not 

assert a confidentiality claim at the time of submission, the EPA will consider this as a waiver of any 

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 Paper 
To assert a claim of confidentiality, the submitter must submit two versions of any 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 of the information 

claimed as confidential either removed or completely obscured. This sanitized version will be placed in 

the EPA's Public Files. 

My staff will make every effort to resolve this issue in a timely manner and look forward to your further 

assistance. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Hiroshi Dodohara at (202) 566-0507 or 

at dodahara.hiroshi@epa.gov. 

Enclosure 

~ ~ _

J{9tJ wendy Cleland-Hamnett 

o~ Director 

Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics 
Follow-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., Ltd.). NFC estimated that the cost of testing 

Chloranil from these two manufacturers would exceed $200,000 and that "failing to receive approval to 

import Chloranil will prevent the manufacture or import of this chemical substance unequivocally." 

However, the regulations from which NFC seeks a waiver are testing and reporting requirements, not 

licensing requirements. See 40 CFR 766.20 and 766.35. For example, while a notice of intent to test 

imported material (or an exemption application) would be due within 60 days after the commencement 

of import, 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 timing provisions under 40 CFR 766.35 for submitting letters of intent, test 

protocols, and test results after import has commenced, why does NFC believe that the cost of testing 

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 of Chloranil 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 CFR 766.32(a)(2). 

Question #2: Can NFC provide information regarding the starting materials, 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 of Clariant 

Chemical Ltd.'s manufacturer in India?