Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0392-0016
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-02-24T05:00Z

Meeting Osram Sylvania with Chemical Control Division re: Proposed
Clarification on Activated Phosphors.  March 5, 2008

Chair, Dave Schutz, CCD

OS suggested the following agenda items for this meeting, plus whatever

additional topics EPA wished to address:

      1.  Introductions

      2.  Description of Osram Sylvania's interest in EPA's Proposed

Clarification.

      3.  Discusson/clarification of certain aspects of the Proposed

Clarification -- e.g., proper Inventory nomenclature for future

Section 5 notices for phosphors;  the submittal and EPA review of

Section 5 notices during the one-year period.

The submittal of written comments on or before March 17.

Meeting took place March 5.  Attendees from Osram Sylvania were: Duncan
Turnbull, Carmen Venezia, Joseph Delehant, Blake Biles.

Attendees from EPA were: David Schutz, Donald Sadowsky, Doyoung Lee,
Kent Anapolle, Roy Seidenstein.

Osram noted that it has been relying on EPA’s guidance that activated
phosphors were solid mixtures for many years.  The correction EPA has
proposed will require a number of PMNs from Osram for what seem to be
minor changes.  Osram has submitted PMNs for the host part of the
phosphors it manufactures.  Osram would like guidance on when an
activator is significant, and the extent to which variable compositions
using the same materials will trigger separate identities.  Also, Osram
may have some situations in which it believes its phosphors can be
considered to be solid solutions, that is they could be considered not
to meet the criteria EPA identified in its FR notice as requiring
activated phosphors to have Inventory identities of their own.

As a second issue, Osram stated that this EPA proposal amounts to a
regulation of existing chemical substances.  A number of materials which
will be noticed under the EPA proposal are in manufacture now.  If
testing is required for these materials, and the testing time period
will be longer than the end of the year contemplated for coming into
compliance, a manufacturer can be required to stop production for that
material until the testing is submitted.  This is §6 regulation done
under the color of §5.  Osram thinks that this kind of regulation, if
undertaken, should be done under §§ 4 and 6.  Some of these materials
will likely require 90-day studies if they are in the category
respirable/poorly soluble.   Downstream customers can be required to
change materials.  There will probably not be a consortium for this
testing.