HORIZONS
REGULATORY AFFAIRS UPDATE
Thirteenth Issue
Spring 2001
INTRODUCTION
HORIZONS is a communications vehicle published by Sun Chemical’s
Regulatory Affairs Department to address issues related to both Sun’s
and our customers’ businesses. It regularly explores subjects related
to the impact of regulatory conformance and product data outputs.
This issue, focuses on current regulatory activities that may
impact our businesses. We have been through several years of relatively
little new regulatory activity. However, we see two issues that have
come into focus over the past months that could affect us and, at the
very least, raise questions from our customers. They are the new Lead
Regulations and the definition of Cyanides within the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Our first HORIZONS for the year
2001 reviews their likely impact on the printing industry.
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, Section 313
On
January 17, 2001, the EPA promulgated a final rule lowering the
reporting threshold for lead and lead compounds to 100 pounds per year
for these chemicals, which are subject to reporting under EPCRA Section
313. Currently, the reporting thresholds are 25,000 pounds for
facilities that manufacture or process and 10,000 pounds for facilities
that otherwise use. This final rule was to take effect February 16,
2001 with the first reports at the lower threshold due by July 1, 2002
for calendar year 2001.
On January 20, 2001, the new administration requested that all
agencies delay implementation of the new rules by 60 days. As a result,
the effective date of this final rule was delayed from February 16,
2001 to April 17, 2001. On April 17, 2001, EPA Administrator Whitman
announced this rule will go forward as promulgated.
In the final rule, the EPA classifies lead and lead compounds
as highly persistent and at least bioaccumulative. The criteria for
classifying a chemical as persistent and bioaccumulative were defined
in the final rule EPA promulgated on October 29, 1999, which enhanced
reporting requirements for a unique group of toxic chemicals that
persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. These chemicals are
commonly referred to as persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals or
PBT chemicals.
The final rule states that EPA would charge its Scientific
Advisory Board (SAB) with reviewing the rate at which lead
bioaccumulates in the environment. The result of this review could
impact the 100 pound reporting threshold just finalized. A
determination that lead is highly bioaccumulative as well as highly
persistent would place lead in the sub-set of PBT chemicals that
require a 10 pound per year reporting threshold. On the other hand,
industry continues to argue that metals, such as lead, should not be
classified as PBT chemicals and that the SAB review should have been
completed before this final rule was promulgated.
The final rule, as promulgated on January 17, 2001, lowers the
reporting threshold for lead and lead compounds to 100 pounds per year,
eliminates the de minimus exemption for threshold reporting
determinations, eliminates range reporting and eliminates the
half-pound rule.
Prior to the promulgation of this final rule, the de minimus
level for lead and lead compounds was 0.1%. Any mixture that did not
contain lead or lead compounds above this de minimus level was exempt
from consideration in a facilities determination of meeting the
reporting threshold. It was also exempt from the supplier notification
requirement under EPCRA Section 313.
EPA, however, did not modify the de minimus exemption to the
supplier notification requirements under EPCRA 313. The Agency believes
there is sufficient information available to the regulated community to
make threshold determinations. EPA has stated that regulated facilities
can rely on the information available from suppliers and do not have to
implement additional information gathering processes in order to comply
with this rule.
In the "response to comments" section of this final rule, EPA
discusses the use of trace contaminant levels of lead and the
statistical accuracy of these contaminant levels. Where such data
exist, they are to be applied to a facilities threshold reporting
determinations.
In the Fall 1999 HORIZONS (Tenth Edition), Sun Chemical
reviewed the impact of the proposed rule for lowering the reporting
threshold for lead and lead compounds to 10 pounds per year.
Information on the trace contaminant level of lead in printing ink
products was discussed. The background contaminant levels of lead in
organic pigments supplied from all sources is a reality, and is not
going away. As stated then, Sun Chemical has had a program to analyze
random batches of manufactured printing ink for lead in order to have
statistical data on which to base CONEG compliance. Elemental lead has
consistently been non-detectable. Based on our data and dilution
factors, Sun Chemical can conservatively report that lead content in
our printing inks is less than 10 ppm. (In its "response to comments,"
EPA assumes lead is present at the detection limit in determining
reporting threshold.)
Using the 10 ppm detection limit as the lead contaminant level
in a printing ink product, only those customers who convert 10,000,000
pounds or more of printing ink supplied by Sun Chemical will reach the
reporting threshold. Therefore few, if any, printing ink customers
would be required to file a Form R for lead and/or lead compounds for
calendar year 2001.
Since the EPA has not modified the de minimus reporting
exemption under the supplier notification requirement of EPCRA Section
313, printing ink manufacturers are not required to provide information
on lead levels below 0.1% in a product. Since all of Sun Chemicals
products have statistical lead levels of 10 ppm (none detected)
maximum, this final rule does not require any changes to our EPCRA
Section 313 notification processes.
Cyanides
Both suppliers and customers in the printing
industry tend to pay little attention to the topic of cyanide
chemistry. Cyanides are generally regarded as a toxic class of
chemicals that are usually felt to be outside of our mutual raw
materials, so, we do not closely monitor regulatory issues related to
them.
However, we tend to forget that the pigment Iron Blue is a
ferric ferrocyanide (FFC) complex. We don’t focus on it as being a
cyanide because pigments are insoluble as they must be in order to
function as colorants. Most health, safety or environmental concerns
for cyanides have to do with their water solubility.
During the latter half of 1995, an environmental contamination
incident involving Iron Blue pigment raised the question of whether it
should be defined as one of the "cyanides" within the meaning of the
list of toxic pollutants under the Clean Water Act guidelines. The EPA
was asked to rule on that issue in the latter part of that year. An
administrative determination document was issued on January 25th. of
this year by EPA, thus starting a commentary period that ended on March
13, 2001. EPA ruled that Iron Blue pigment is a "cyanide" under the
Clean Water Act because it contains the hexacyanoferrate (HCF) complex
as part of its makeup. Under appropriate pH conditions, the (HCF)
complex can be freed from the pigment and then can further degrade
under the influence of sunlight to release free cyanide. The
question that remains is under what conditions the HCF can be released
from the insoluble pigment. The commentary period has been extended to
June 10th by the EPA.
Iron Blue is one of the least expensive of the workhorse blue pigments
available to our industry. While not having the cleanliness of the
preferred phthalo blues that are copper based chemistries, it is often
used where cost is a factor. It is the alternate pigment of choice in
the corrugated industry when "low or no" copper content blue inks are
often required. It would seem more prudent than ever now for the
corrugated printers to take precautions not to discharge any inks or
wash waters directly into sewerage systems. In general, we feel that
the recent EPA decisions in no way affect the proper usage of this
important pigment.
CONCLUSION
Based on an evaluation of the background
information on these two different regulatory issues, we expect the
impact to our mutual interests to be minimal.