Document 6wwmx3rrKdGyRJO6Ny0M44bq9

I u lO exhibit V jOaSsm s. eCLh.cs jCSOmc *. accxman william 0 soscmcSan*, js, MAlBOaM D MaeASTMwe v BhAea TtiHMCK JWLCf 8 *** 6**0vf "ASS'S mast msSTma w*ama4* *,mCnaci wOBBONt MAS* res CVSAS >0M I.M4W4N jONkSIvSMa CM* LNwlm fHBiSTmCA MCAOMCK MiBLSv \MiMgTO LAWBCMCS * fWhLPlMN balPm a. s*mmOmb TCA.iLMCB 0 Mufli i .uHm NOT AAMiTTCfi IH Q.C A WLLAB MSlVIm a. BBOICN C9*a8 e. atSK# recACAiCev MAB> f. CBClNt^fiM* maSB*a a SOmaw WTBtCA 0. My** 8. BBAfO TAWTTSST Haim A HCVCM MIOMACL B. BCNACT 8. PBANBwN AO0NT1 ftVmCMMC M. B8EMCB BtCBABB A OAffC* jtmt *. BCBB* AIMS ANNf a#eTtlV" IWT Nwh8 L. BCWMAM BV*A 8 *s* maB* l. iTcnoer I0win e. wowscB Law offices 1 Keller and Heckman j 1150 IT'* STREET, N.W. SUITE lOOO WASSIMOTON, C.C. 90095 (BOS) 955-5500 September 5, 1989 K'Cwrtr.c tTA*r QABICL 8. fttSLE*. Pw. b. CmaSl.CS v. secocs. *M. p. BOpcat A. matwc**. a. WO**N P, 06t**M, Pi* o MOu.t Huratsc rogfv ggftIN 0. POWtlL, *m. 9. TeLtcgMegpicAtiONS tvOtWtt* CneMtLSB f, rv**c* CLCX (toTtC)MtCHgeittcas ii CABlt AOBBCB8 "HCLMAI,- wbitcw frBee* >al *jmqcs (202) 956-5625 Ms. Margaret Rogers The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. 1275 K Street, N.M. Suite 401 Washington, D.C. 20005 t' l' Pe: SPI - IMC - Occupational Health and. Environmental Issues Committee Dear Margaret; Confusion prevails over the interpretation of the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) regulations' at S 720.30(h)(7), which describes, as not subject to S 720 prBmanufacture notification, any chemical substance which results from a chemical reaction that occurs when a pH neutralizer, inter alia, functions as intended. On May 18, 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (EFA) attempted to clarify this TSCA provision in a letter (attached) to the National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers (NAPIM). i This;letter will be of interest to many company memb rs of SPI because it advises that TSCA Inventory corrections may be required for many existing neutralized polymers, and it suggests that any neutralized polymers that are not on the TSCA Inventory may be subject to premanufacture notification even though the base polymer is on the TSCA Inventory. NAPIM asked the EPA about their interpretation of S 720.30(h)(7). The position of NAPIM was ,that neutralized polymers were "transient salts" that were not subject to reporting or xempt as nonisolated intermediates under VEV 000046268 Ms. Margaret Rogers September 5, 1989 Page 2 'O f Keller and Heckman $ 720.30(h)(8). The response to NAPIM provides neither (1) explicit assurances that manufacture of such hew salts can continue while PMM's are being reviewed, nor (2) assurance that penalties will not be incurred for what could be interpreted as self-confessions of manufacturing prior to th submission of PMN's. EFA rejected both the 720.30(h)(7) and (8) arguments. The most interesting message of EPA's letter does not appear in what is stated. The most interesting message is what is unstated in context. The EPA letter says that the misinterpretation of the pH neutralizer exclusion may be widespread, it does not say that previously confused manufacturers should cea?e manufacturing. The letter suggests avenues for confused manufacturers to come into compliance, including submission of a PMN referencing the Agency's guidance on this matter. It does not say that enforcement discretion exists and has be n practiced in certain eases where there have been late notices of commencement of manufacture as a consequence of prior manufacture. The letter says subsequent clarification will be published. It does not say that previous Manifestations of viewing such salts as nonreportable will not be "grandfathered." An unstated message is not heeded without risk. However, the Office of Toxic Substances is not likely to issue a letter such as the one to NAPIM without the knowledge and cooperation bf the Office of Compliance Monitoring and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring. Informally, EPA staff says they are unlikely to take the position that their case-by-case advice on this matter has been wrong all along. Moreover, there are broader implications for a review of the EPA's policy on all of $ 720.30 or at least all of subsection (h). It is in the interest of all manufacturers and producers of polymer salts to evaluate this situation and potentially take advantage of the remedies offarad therein before the EPA work group could potentially void the currant guidanoa. Company members are oautioned to seek legal and teohnieal'counsel in investigating and pursuing compliance for such polymer salts. Justin C. Powell, a Ph.D. chemist on our senior science staff, gave some of the case-by-case guidance of the Agency when he was formerly with the EPA. Dr. PoWell also served as VEV 000046269 ,`t* u Ms. Margaret Rogers September 5, 1989 Page 3 KelLer akd Heckma>- Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Toxic Substances for Compliance and Enforcement.1 If yob have any questions, please call me or Justin at (202)- 956-5621. Enclosure cc: Larry Thomas Lewis Freeman H. Pat Toner K:/H&3/EPA/SP3l20/JC?9827L.vrc FILEi SPI - P1KC ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT VEV 000046270