U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
June
20,
2003
Revised
Draft
Agenda
Monitoring
ECA
Technical
Workgroup
Meeting
Monday,
June
23,
2003
1:
00­
4:
00
PM
Mission
Statement:
The
Monitoring
Workgroup
will
develop
ECA
proposal(
s)
for
screening­
level
environmental
monitoring
of
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors
as
identified
by
the
Plenary
Group.
The
initial
focus
will
be
for
data
needs
identified
in
item
10
of
Table
I
and
item
10
of
Table
II
of
the
EPA
Preliminary
Framework
document,
specifically
addressing
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
in
the
vicinity
of
telomer
and
fluoropolymer
manufacturing
and
use
facilities.
The
interested
parties
were
supportive
of
using
the
existing
3M
and
DuPont
analytical
protocols
and
sampling
methods
as
a
starting
place
to
develop
analytical
protocols
and
sampling
methods
specifically
addressing
PFOA
data
needs
under
the
ECA.
In
addition,
the
Workgroup
will
develop
considerations
for
site
selection
in
monitoring
studies.

Meeting
Objective:
Scoping
meeting
to:
1.
Identify
the
scope
of
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
activities
contained
within
the
industry
LOIs
(
OPPT­
2003­
0012­
0007;
OPPT­
2003­
0012­
0012;
OPPT­
2003­
0012­
0013)
to
allow
all
workgroup
participants
to
understand
fully
what
is
included,
what
protocols
are
used,
what
sites
are
involved,
when
information
will
be
reported
under
the
LOIs,
etc.
2.
Identify
and
discuss
monitoring
activities
within
the
EPA
Preliminary
Framework
and
beyond
the
scope
of
the
LOIs
to
determine
what
activities
may
be
appropriate
for
consideration
during
the
ECA
process.
3.
Identify
workgroup
next
steps
and
assignments.

Workgroup
Participants:
3M;
Bennett
&
Williams;
CPSC;
EPA;
EWG;
FMG;
Little
Hocking
Water
Association;
National
Center
for
Policy
Research
for
Women
and
Families;
Ohio
EPA;
Rich
Purdy;
TRP;
Tuppers
Plains­
Chester
Water
District;
WV
Class
Action
Plaintiffs
Order
of
Meeting:

°
Introductions:
Chair,
Phil
Oshida,
Director,
Chemical
Control
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
EPA
Technical
Lead,
Lawrence
Libelo,
Economics,
Exposure
&
Technology
Division
°
Industry
presentations
on
the
scope
of
all
LOI
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
°
Identification
and
discussion
of
screening­
level
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
activities
within
the
EPA
Preliminary
Framework
and
beyond
the
scope
of
the
LOIs
which
may
be
appropriate
for
consideration
in
the
ECA
process
°
Identification
of
workgroup
next
steps;
determination
of
workgroup
assignments
for
workgroup
and
plenary
meetings
on
July
9
and
10,
2003
PFOA
ECA
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
Meeting
June
23,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
*
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
(
ok~"~
~
k'.
L~
EP/
4
1~
I~(
okO.~
L~)

c
,~
9fJY~

`
21
~

~
/>`
I
€
2.
v~
~
ji~
rt~
L~

T~
a~~
t~~
1~
V')

~
&~)
a~$
S/~
e~
4~
t
~

IT~
C
~

N
~
~
f'~
~

~

USEPA­

~
P/~
Cy2T~(
aC+
6r
~
ID
~
~
~
7o~~
cS~~
it
~
~
19~
~/~
VIo~

~

2~
2­
5~
i4~
C/
t~
o
z~
z~
~
~~
Jt~/
~
Ce~

~
~//~
j1e~
1'~
v~
<~

~
i'v~
i
~

~

J~
1~
Lr~
w
~

LK,
e~
~
~,

Jr~
e
osia~~
j~­~
a
~
r~
s~­~

~
Oh~
I~~
~
cj~
i­~(~

~

~
%
o1x~~
r+`~
x~
k
CP~
c
~
~,
&`~­~
LtQ~
PC.
g~
4
A~
Ac1~~
EPA
~
JERL
~,­~/
tgr~

~
~
B,
r~
f
~
ot­~
g~
~,­
7?
3~
z~
oi~
c~
n~

~

~

1­~
c~
ç
zoz~'

'
/~/
Z~
S6~
5/~
~
q,.
~
5
f'~
l&
nvt4q,
r~
C~
c.~
U
\
C~
o~
v~
~
Ia
QX~~
(?
Y
c~
t.
j~_
JC~
~

~
1
ç~,~
4
~
~
,
z~'
n,~
co~

~
L~
4~
3
~
h
~

A~
­­~
i~
J~
4,4~
w~/
t~
vJ
~
f~
c~
PFOA
ECA
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
Meeting
June
23,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
fl~
fr~
1
1~
M~
~­
OO~­
V1LO~
Lth~~
J3~­
Q~
L
(~
U~

Pe~
e~
ky
~
h~
3h1'
~
o
~
&
PA
~
P4/
°
/
u'~
R~­~
iRL
~
1oc~
c
­~
~
i
:
rn
~

~
f
~
~
fct
.5~
1
~

~
e.
9Q~~
OgI
0
UKtoN
~
Z­
5i5~~
x~)~
p$
~

~­
~/~
r~
qor
/
2/>'~­'~<~
/~
v~
3o/~
~

I~
i~
$
af~
5ki
/~
Y/
2CQ~
U
~
­

kin
~~/
3#
 
j
I
~
~
J~
D
~­
67~
4~

~
JqQ~
F~~
~

~
f~,
i~
a/~
a
62
~
Lrk~~
~
O~))
iD.

~
~

­/~­~

~
S
5
~
3/
hf
~~<
fr~
~
c~
1­
4o/­/
4o~

~
­
3
O~
m~
mM~
j~
 
~

~
 
TA~
AYW((
~)
AK~
At'VRA
c~,
~
 
C­
9S7­
l~
t/~
z~
w4­
a~
d&;~,­~
eKc&
C­
mn­

C,

~
,4~
jt&~,+
I/
k~'­~
k~
i
~

~

V
sP~(
oe~
~
~
uT~~
r
~
/~~~
Po't4'

~­~`
b
z/~­
i~~
~
2­
7Ty'­~
W3
~
o~­
1t~_
ioi~

~
~
2~.'
jo
~
71S
2S~
b~
X~
fO
~
bi~
ic~
r,

)
tc
­\
p­~
r)
Li~.
corn
~
~

~

~

~
X~
ffilh/
1JC~
t
~
1
I
r
PFOA
ECA
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
Meeting
June
23,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
fr~
o~
L
~
~
Lrr,~/
4G(
w~,
JCW4i~&
7'~
Iu
 
1~
 
2.19
1
/
A
~
i~
ei­
&
is
~,
i~
et
L
~
~
i
/
e~.
t~
i/
a~
s(~
ii/~
ff')
­~
i/
Z2
Laii~~­
A,~­~
z~
ii
&
i
~`/;~
i,~
s.
(
Th~,
i
ç:
A
/

A~
(
k
~/`~(
c
~
rs
~
~

th~
L~
~/~
e'~~
iL
`
1­
1
?
~
g
 
?
9s'­
s~
33,~
~
S~
O)
fZir~
a­
i~
~
c~­
psc.~
ix~
i
0
~
t4d~
c>~
oc/
e
&
e~'~~
e
A~
rve/
Co,
fq
t~
ra~'
c;
z­
~
rn
.
~

r~
cc~
LO2~
6~&~
3
Z,~
6~/
cLtcc~
4~
côu
KP~
tE~
M'Cf~­~
c~.

~

~
4
T~
P
~
6~
H~
a
r~
4

~
b~
?
o3.4t3~
1tco~
W
~

~~­
62~&
6'
~­~
1?
j
~~%
te~
rand.
pr~

~
~

~
~
y
1ot~
J~
Aativ'~
pth7w,
7~(
cY?,
7
mc~
r.~

ñIUi~
t
~
E
ti~)

~
~
9
~
i3~
j
.733
6~

~
e~'~~

gli
mi/
fM?
41Vk/
1I.
~
Pc~~
l~
om~~

I~
c~~
q~/
­~
v~
4~
27
~
LL~
J
~
WOc~~
SPt
~`
c~
3~(~

~
z
~
~
K
A~­~
C~
O
­

T3~~~
J
/`,
4~
1
`
yr
~,~­
q~
9~
jtc~

V~­~\
Q~
hickL
~
c'A/
e~
cc
~
4~'
Q~
C~
Ot.
~
Site
Monitoring
Activities
°
APFO
User
Sites
°
APFO
Manufacturing
Sites
°
Dispersion
Processor
Sites
°
Telomer
Manufacturing
Site
°
Telomer
User
Site
PFOA
Users
Site
Monitoring
LOI
Commitments
Intent
°
Create
portraits
of
potential
PFOA
exposure
due
to
fluoropolymer
manufacturing
activities
 
Airborne
 
Water
adjacent
to
or
on
site
 
Phased
approach,
based
on
results
of
first
phase
 
Three
PFOA
User
sites
are
included
Water
Monitoring
°
Surface
water
at
sites
­
River
and
creeks
 
Upstream
 
At
sites
 
Downstream
°
Plant
WWT
Outfalls
°
Groundwater
under
sites
 
using
existing
wells
Air
Modeling
°
EPA's
Industrial
Source
Complex
Short
Term
Model
(
ISCST3)
model
 
Site
specific
model
 
Found
to
be
useful
for
PFOA
environmental
monitoring
efforts
Other
Media
°
LOI
considered
other
media
at
sites
 
Soil
 
WV
MMCO
results
showed
PFOA
did
not
tend
to
adsorb
to
soil
 
Fish
­
PFOA
not
bioaccumulative
in
fish,

 
Surface
film
vs
sub­
surface
water:
WV
MMCO
study
showed
little
or
no
stratification
of
PFOA
in
surface
water
Screening
Levels
°
Screening
levels
set
in
WV
will
be
used
to:

 
Assess
results
of
site
study
 
Determine
if
additional
actions
needed
Methods
Employed
°
Sampling,
Chain
of
Custody,
etc:
Standard
protocols
°
Extractions
and
Analytical
Methods:

Validated
methods
°
EPA
QA/
QC
guidelines
will
be
followed
for
new
studies
Monitoring
Study
Status
°
Daikin
 
Decatur,
AL
 
underway
°
Dyneon/
3M
Plant,
Decatur
AL
 
underway
 
Interim
report
by
September
15,
2003
°
DuPont
 
Washington
Works,
Parkersburg
WV
 
complete
and
submitted
APFO
User
Site
°
Washington
Works,
WV
°
Multi­
media
consent
order
signed
11/
2001
Multi­
Media
Consent
Order
°
Purpose
 
"
to
determine
whether
there
has
been
any
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment.."

°
Parties
 
WV
DEP
(
with
consultation
with
US
EPA
Region
3)

 
WV
DHHR
 
DuPont
MMCO
Requirements
°
Groundwater
and
Surface
Water
Investigation
°
Toxicological/
Human
Health
Assessment
°
Ecological
Assessment
°
Air
Emission
Modeling
C8
Assessment
of
Toxicity
Team
°
Purpose:

 
"
determine
risk­
based
human
health
protective
screening
levels .
in
air,
water,
and
soil"

 
"
provide
health
risk
information
to
the
public"

 
"
determine
an
ecological
health
protective
screening
level 
in
surface
water."
CATT
Toxicologists
°
Dee
Ann
Staats
WV
DEP
°
John
Cicmanec
US
EPA
ORD
°
Samuel
Rotenberg
US
EPA
Region
3
°
Jennifer
Seed
US
EPA
°
Michael
Dourson
Toxicology
Excellence
for
Risk
Assessment
°
Joan
Dollarhide
Toxicology
Excellence
for
Risk
Assessment
°
Andrew
Maier
Toxicology
Excellence
for
Risk
Assessment
°
Dan
Briggs
Toxicology
Excellence
for
Risk
Assessment
°
John
Wheeler
Agency
for
Toxic
Disease
Registry
°
John
Whysner
American
Health
Foundation
(
DuPont
consultant)

°
Gerry
Kennedy
DuPont
Invited
Guests
°
John
Butenhoff
3M
°
Jim
Sferra
Ohio
EPA
CATT
Results
°
Human
Health
Screening
Levels
 
Water
150
ppb
 
Soil
240
ppm
 
Air
1
microgram/
cubic
meter
°
Aquatic
Life
Advisory
Concentration
 
Surface
Water
1,360
ppb
Developed
by
Menzie­
Cura
&
Assoc.
for
the
CATT.
*
Not
enough
data
to
develop
an
AWQC
like
number
for
ingestion
of
fish
Groundwater
Investigation
Steering
Team
°
Purpose
­
"
assess
the
presence
and
extent
 
in
drinking
water,
groundwater,
and
surface
water "

°
Scope
 
Washington
Works
 
3
Nearby
landfills
GIST
Members
°
David
Watkins
WV
DEP
Groundwater
Protection
°
George
Dasher
WV
DEP
°
Dee
Ann
Staats
WV
DEP
°
Garth
Connor
EPA
Region
3
°
Jack
Hwang
EPA
Region
3
Hydrogeologist
°
Roger
Rheinhart
EPA
Region
3
Environmental
Engineer
°
Andrew
Hartten
DuPont
Hydrogeologist
°
Bill
Toomey
WV
DHHR
°
Don
Criss
WV
DEP
Non­
voting
members
°
Steve
Williams
Ohio
EPA
°
Sara
Wallace
Ohio
EPA
Chronology
°
1
mile
radius
water
results
in
WV
°
Ohio
River
public
water
systems
°
CATT
results
°
Ohio
River
surface
water
results
°
2
mile
radius
water
results
in
WV
°
1
mile
radius
water
results
in
OH
°
Air
modeling
results
°
2
mile
radius
water
results
for
OH
°
Soil
results
for
OH
°
Ongoing
monitoring
1
mile
radius
water
results
in
WV
°
Objective:
sample
water
sources
within
1
mile
radius
of
each
site
 
Door
to
door
survey
(
434
homes
contacted)

 
101
Wells,
14
Cisterns,
12
Springs
were
sampled
°
Highest
results­
ppb
(
highest
source/
highest
drinking
water
source)

 
Washington
Works/
Local
Landfill
(
10.9/
2.8)

 
Dry
Run
Landfill
(
0.422/
0.422)

 
Letart
Landfill
(
0.636/
0.139)

Note:
CATT
limit
is
150ppb
°
Decisions
 
No
need
to
extend
radius
around
Letart
and
Dry
Run
Landfills
 
Extend
to
two
mile
around
WW/
Local
°
No
CATT
results
at
that
time
°
Levels
observed
above
pre­
testing
level
agreed
to
in
MMCO
Ohio
River
Public
Drinking
Water
Systems
(
Systems
withdrawing
from
Ohio
River
Surface
water
or
alluvial
aquifer)

°
10
miles
upstream
through
50
miles
downstream
°
15
Public
drinking
water
systems
sampled
°
Range
of
Results
(
ppb)
:
Production
Finished
wells
water
 
1
mile
to
10
miles
upstream
NQ
­
0.141
NQ
­
0.113
 
0
miles
(
DuPont)
0.129
­
0.568
NA
 
0
miles
(
Little
Hocking)
0.42
­
8.58
1.69
­
4.29
 
1
mile
to
10
miles
downstream
0.248
­
1.21
0.60
­
0.69
 
10
to
20
miles
downstream
0.235
­
0.726
0.246
­
0.363
 
20
to
30
miles
downstream
ND
ND
 
30
to
40
miles
downstream
0.061
­
0.102
NA
 
40
to
50
miles
downstream
0.208
­
0.491
NQ
Note:
CATT
limit
is
150ppb
2
mile
radius
water
results
in
WV
°
Objective:
sample
water
sources
within
1
to
2
mile
radius
 
Door
to
door
survey
(
667
homes
contacted)

 
52
Wells,
8
Cisterns,
5
Springs
sampled
°
Highest
results­
ppb
(
highest
source/
highest
drinking
water
source)

 
Washington
Works/
Local
Landfill
(
2.32/
0.899)

Note:
CATT
limit
is
150ppb
°
Decisions
 
No
need
to
extend
radius
°
Results
well
below
CATT
levels
°
Decreased
concentrations
as
compared
to
1
mile
radius
LANDFILL
LOCAL
WASHINGTON
WORKS
1
­
M
I
L
E
R
A
D
I
U
S
MAIN
PLANT
2
­
M
I
L
E
R
A
D
I
U
S
<
0.05
ug/
L
0.05­
1.0
ug/
L
1.0­
10.0
ug/
L
10.0+
ug/
L
LEGEND:
LAKE
WASHINGTON
OHIO
RIVER
Blennerhassett
Island
OHIO
ROUTE
50
ROUTE
618
ROUTE
50
ROUTE
892
Ohio
River
Sampling
°
Surface
water
samples
at
various
depths
and
widths:

 
Extended
20
miles
upstream
and
20
miles
downstream
 
10
Transects,
3
depths
and
46
sample
locations
°
Maximum
Results­
ppb:

 
upsteam
ND
 
1.5
miles
downstream
0.123
 
3.0
miles
downstream
1.09
 
10
miles
downstream
0.298
 
20
miles
downstream
0.239
Note:
Surface
Water
Aquatic
Life
Advisory
concentration
is
1360
ppb
°
No
difference
observed
at
different
depths
1
mile
radius
water
results
in
Ohio
°
Work
covered
under
voluntary
agreement
between
DuPont
and
OEPA
°
Objective:
sample
water
sources
within
1
mile
radius
 
Door
to
door
survey
(
361
homes
contacted)

 
47
Wells,
5
Cisterns,
15
Springs
were
sampled
 
Maximum
results
ppb
(
highest/
highest
dw)

°
(
23.6/
8.59)

Note:
CATT
limit
is
150ppb
°
Decisions
 
Extend
to
2
mile
radius
even
though
results
are
well
below
CATT
results
°
Assure
that
peak
concentrations
are
in
the
one
mile
radius
2
mile
radius
water
results
in
Ohio
°
Objective:
sample
water
sources
within
2
mile
radius
 
Door
to
door
survey
(
1131
homes
contacted)

 
58
Wells,
3
Cisterns,
1Spring
sampled
°
Maximum
results­
ppb
(
highest
source/
highest
dw
source)

 
(
8.68/
6.5)

Note:
CATT
limit
is
150ppb
°
Decisions
 
No
need
to
extend
beyond
the
2
mile
radius
°
Decreased
concentrations
as
compared
to
the
1
mile
results
°
Results
well
below
the
CATT
screening
level
LANDFILL
LOCAL
WASHINGTON
WORKS
MAIN
PLANT
DRAFT
1­

M
I
L
E
R
A
D
I
U
S
2
­

M
I
L
E
RA
D
I
US
LAKE
WASHINGTON
OHIO
RIVER
Blennerhassett
Island
WEST
VIRGINIA
NQ
(<
0.05
ug/
L)

0.05­
1.0
ug/
L
1.0­
10.0
ug/
L
10.0+
ug/
L
LEGEND:

ND
(<
0.01
ug/
L)
ROUTE
50
ROUTE
618
ROUTE
892
ROUTE
50
OHIO
Ohio
Soil
Results
°
Investigation
conducted
at
LHWA,
directly
across
Ohio
River
from
DuPont
°
Soil
samples
collected
from
surface
to
bottom
of
alluvial
aquifer
°
Results­
ppb
 
surface
(
0­
1
ft.)
170
 
5.0­
5.6
ft.
13
 
15.5­
16.0
ft.
3.3
 
30­
30.5
ft.
ND
Note:
near
gw
interface
 
47.5­
48
ft.
ND
CATT
soil
limit
is
240,000
ppb
°
Results
demonstrate
very
low
tendency
for
adsorption
onto
soils
Air
Dispersion
Modeling
Methodology
°
EPA's
Industrial
Source
Complex
Short
Term
Model
(
ISCST3)

model
run
in
regulatory
default
mode
°
Procedures
included
in
EPA's
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Models
40
CFR
Part
51(
Appendix
W)

°
BPIP
model
to
evaluate
building
downwash
effects
­
EPA
recommended
model
°
Receptor
grid
with
100­
meter
spacing
°
Terrain
elevations
imported
from
USGS
electronic
file
°
Hourly
meteorological
data
from
on­
site
or
nearest
airport
Site­
Specific
Input
°
Emission
rate
of
compound
­
based
on
stack
sampling
and
mass
balance
°
Stack
location
(
coordinates)

°
Stack
height
°
Stack
diameter
°
Stack
gas
exit
temperature
°
Stack
gas
flow
rate
or
exit
velocity
°
Detailed
plant
layout/
plot
plan
showing
 
Exact
locations
of
all
sources
 
Scale
 
Property
line
 
Building
locations
and
dimensions
Modeling
Results
at
Washington
Works
Emissions
Scenario
Emissions
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Average
Average
Average
Annual
Annual
Annual
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
At
fence
in
WV
in
Ohio
Community
community
(
lbs/
yr)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ug/
m3)

Year
2000
Actual
31,341
2.67
0.36
0.87
Year
2002
Actual
14,479
1.36
0.18
0.36
Year
2003
Projected
5,185
0.48
0.06
0.11
2000
Modeling
Results
­
Predicted
Ground
Level
Concentrations
440000
440500
441000
441500
442000
442500
443000
443500
444000
444500
4346000
4346500
4347000
4347500
4348000
4348500
C8
2000
Actual
Emissions
Annual
Average
Vapor
Concentrations
(
ug/
m3)

Location
of
maximum
concentration
439000
440000
441000
442000
443000
444000
445000
meters
4345000
4346000
4347000
4348000
4349000
meters
Washington
Works
C8
2003
Projected
Emissions
Annual
Average
Concentrations
(
ug/
m3)
There
are
no
regions
greater
than
1.0
ug/
m3
Ongoing
Monitoring
°
On­
site
Groundwater/
Outfalls:

 
Washington
Works
 
Local,
Letart,
Dry
Run
Landfills
 
Monthly
at
outfalls
and
quarterly
at
monitoring
wells
 
Requirements
are
being
integrated
into
WVDEP
permits
for
each
facility
°
Public
Water
Systems:

 
LHWA/
Lubeck/
Tuppers
Plains
are
sampled
quarterly
°
Off­
site
Residential
Wells:

 
GIST
is
developing
plan
to
conduct
periodic
monitoring
for
locations
in
both
WV
and
OH
Key
Learnings
°
Air
models
may
help
predict
locations
of
higher
ground
water
concentrations
°
With
low
surface
water
concentrations
(
as
compared
to
the
aquatic
life
advisory)
and
low
bio­
concentration
factors,

fish
testing
is
not
justified
°
Tendency
for
adsorption
onto
soils
is
very
low
3M
LETTER
OF
INTENT
MONITORING
COMMITMENTS
°
Letter
of
Intent
­
Dated
March
13,
2003
°
Detailed
Monitoring
Plan
­
Dated
May
7,
2003
°
Focus
on
Former
3M
PFOA
Manufacturing
Sites
°
Monitoring
Program
has
been
Initiated
and
is
part
of
Voluntary
State
Programs
3M
LETTER
OF
INTENT
MONITORING
COMMITMENTS
(
cont.)

°
Purpose
 
Monitor
for
the
presence
of
PFOA
and
other
fluorochemicals
in
certain
media
at
2
manufacturing
sites
 
Assess
the
trend
resulting
from
the
3M
production
phase­
out
 
Fulfills
the
monitoring
commitment
of
the
FMG
LOI,
as
related
to
fluoropolymer
manufacturing
at
the
Decatur,
AL
location
3M
LETTER
OF
INTENT
MONITORING
COMMITMENTS
(
cont.)

°
Scope
of
Monitoring
Plan
 
Cottage
Grove,
MN
°
Site
Description
°
Ground
Water
(
5
existing
wells)

°
Plant
Effluent
 
Decatur,
AL
°
Site
Description
°
Ground
Water
(
8
existing
wells)

°
Plant
Effluent
°
Environmental
Sampling
 
Surface
water,
sediments,
fish
 
Provides
a
picture
of
impact
of
all
production
operations
in
the
vicinity
Activity
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Cottage
Grove
ground
water
Biannual
Biannual
Biannual
Biannual
Biannual
Cottage
Grove
effluent
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Decatur
ground
water
Biannual
Biannual
Biannual
Biannual
Biannual
Decatur
effluent
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Decatur
surface
water,

sediment
&
fish
Once
Once
Report
Submission
By
Aug.
1
By
Aug.
1
By
Aug.
1
By
Aug.
1
By
Aug.
1
By
Aug.
1
3M
LETTER
OF
INTENT
MONITORING
COMMITMENTS
(
cont.)

Monitoring
and
Reporting
Plan
APFO
Manufacturing
°
Pre­
startup
water
testing
 
4
monitoring
wells
 
waste
water
effluent
°
Air
dispersion
modeling
­
predictions
°
Ongoing
monitoring
 
Annual
TITLE:
DRAWN:
CHECKED:

FILE
NAME:
APPROVED:

DATE:
REVISION:
PROJECT
NO.:

FIGURE
NO.:

#

S
#

S
#

S
#

S
#

S
CAPE
FEAR
RIVER
MW­
1S
SMW­
02
SMW­
01
NAF­
01
Outfall
002
N
h
CORPORATE
REMEDIATION
GROUP
An
Alliance
between
DuPont
and
URS
Diamond
6324
Fairveiw
Road
Charlotte,
NC
28210
January
2003
­
Baseline
C­
8
Sampling
Locations
DuPont
Fayetteville
Works
Fayetteville,
North
Carolina
plantcoord3.
apr
3/
6/
03
500
0
500
1000
Feet
EMA
1
1
Air
Modeling
at
Fayetteville
°
Emissions
include
APFO
plus
APFO
acid
fluoride
°
Emissions
at
capacity
rates
°
Scrubber
efficiency
will
be
validated
via
stack
testing
(
underway
now)
694000
695000
696000
697000
698000
699000
700000
701000
meters
3853000
3854000
3855000
3856000
3857000
3858000
3859000
3860000
3861000
meters
Fayetteville
C8
­
Annual
Average
1997
Met
Data
Contour
Interval
0.0001
ug/
m3
Maximum
concentration
0.00141
ug/
m3
Air
Modeling
°
Airborne
monitoring
not
practical
or
time­
efficient
 
Monitoring
slow
due
to
low
aerial
concentrations
 
Concentrations
fluctuate
with
time
and
mfg
activity
 
Detection
methods
not
sensitive
enough
for
real
time
monitoring
 
Model
correlates
with
surface
exposure
in
W
Va
Dispersion
Processors
Mass
Balance
(
DPMB)

°
Purpose
 
Account
for
APFO
Fate
during
Dispersion
Processing
 
Only
remaining
significant
quantity
°
Selection
criteria
 
Representative
processes
chosen
 
Processing
Category
(
Method)

 
Finishing
temperature
 
Industry
segment
DPMB
Study
Plan
°
Plan
Components
 
Process
description
questionnaire
 
Validated
sampling
and
analytical
methods
 
Use
and
consumption
data
 
Application
descriptions
°
Third
party
environmental
consultant
 
Complete
process
description
 
Collect
samples
of
process
emissions
(
water/
air)

 
Collect
samples
of
input
raw
materials
 
Analysis
by
qualified
outside
lab
°
Validated
methods
Study
Program
°
FMG
to
approve
protocol
and
identify
environmental
consultant
and
analytical
lab
°
Survey
form
similar
to
manufacturer
survey
 
All
incoming
and
outgoing
pathways
included
 
Sampling
where
necessary
to
obtain
data
°
Aggregate
data
and
report
by
total
industry
and
industry
segment
PROCESSING
CATEGORY
VS
TEMPERATURE
100
 
1000
Inadequate
data
for
disclosure
100
­
1000
ALL
OTHERS
Inadequate
data
for
disclosure
100
 
1000
100
 
1000
ADDITIVES
>
3000
Inadequate
data
for
disclosure
No
Data
GLASS
CLOTH
COATING
No
Data
No
Data
1000
 
3000
METAL
COATING/
FORMULATORS
kg
APFO
kg
APFO
kg
APFO
CATEGORY
>
250O
C
250O
C
150O
­

<
150O
C
TEMP
PROCESS
Status
°
Laboratory
selected,
contract
in
process
°
Technical
consultant
contract
let
°
Statement
of
work
for
environmental
consultant
in
draft
°
Report
to
EPA
targeted
by
end
of
2003
TRP
Telomer
Research
Program
Monitoring
Letter
of
Intent
Commitments,

ECA
Discussion
and
ECA
Candidate
Additions
23
June
2003
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
2
Telomer
Research
Program
TRP
ECA
Technical
Work
Groups
(
TWG)


Monitoring,
ECA
Item
#
10,
LOI
Items
#
3/
4
and
Appendix
1.;

23
June
2003

Communication,
ECA
Item
#
1,
LOI
Item
#
1;
24
June
2003

General
Technical
Working
Group,
ECA
Items
#
2­
9,
12,
LOI
Items
#
1,
2,
5,
6,
and
Related
Activities;
24
June
2003
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
3
Telomer
Research
Program
TRP
Approach
to
the
Monitoring
Processes

TRP
is
Committed
to
Processes
which

Focuses
on
relevant
releases
and
exposures
during
the
life­
cyle
of
telomer­
based
polymeric
products
and
treated
articles

Telomer
product
and
treated
article
manufacure

Focuses
on
fate
and
monitoring
studies
based
on
release
and
exposure
analyses
and
considerations

Considers
testing
and
measurements
in
an
iterative
step­
wise
approach
triggered
by
improved
knowledge
gained
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
4
Telomer
Research
Program
Background
Product
Trail
:
Textiles
Fabric
Producer
Finisher
Retailer
"
Cut
&
Sew"

°
Converter
°
Jobber
°
Mill
°
Manufacturer
Distribution
Consumer
Disposal
°
landfill
Where
the
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
is
Applied
to
the
Article
Telomer
Product
Supplier
DISTRIBUTION
USE
DISPOSAL
Production
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
5
Telomer
Research
Program
Background
Product
Trail
:
Carpet
Where
the
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
is
Applied
to
the
Article
Disposal
°
landfill
°
recycle
Consumer
:

Commercial
&

Residential
Carpet
Mill
Telomer
Product
Supplier
Install
DISTRIBUTION
USE
DISPOSAL
Production
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
6
Telomer
Research
Program
Background
Product
Trail
:
Paper
Paper
Mill
Assembler
Packagers
Disposal
°
incineration
°
landfill
°
RECYCLE
Consumer
Converter
/

Finisher
Retailer
RECYCLE
Telomer
Product
Supplier
Where
the
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
is
Applied
to
the
Article
Distributor
DISTRIBUTION
USE
DISPOSAL
Production
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
7
Telomer
Research
Program
Telomer
Product
Application
Process
Potential
Environmental
Releases
°
Water
°
Air
°
Solid
Wet
Application
°
immersion
°
spray
°
foam
Drying
°
Bath
concentration
°
Application
Rate
°
Trimming
Waste
Treated
Article
"
Input"
Substrate
°
carpet
°
textile
fabric
°
paper
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Application
Process
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
8
Telomer
Research
Program
Characterize
Releases
form
Article
Manufacture
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Application
Process
Treated
Article
Solid
mg/
g
Water
mg/
L
Air
pg/
m3
Potential
Environmental
Releases
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
9
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Release
Estimation
Model
:
Input
Variables

Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Variables

wt.%
active
ingredient
in
product

wt.%
fluorine

wt.%
telomer
raw
materials

wt.%
eight­
fluorinated
carbon
chain

Mill
Processing
Variables

average
daily
product
usage
(
kg/
day)


number
of
user
locations

application
bath
concentration
g/
L

wt.%
application
bath
to
wastewater

wt.%
fluorine
to
air

wt.%
fluorine
to
solid
waste
°
From
these
input
variables,
releases
to
water,
air
and
solid
waste
can
be
estimated
for
each
"
user"
site,
including
predicted
environmental
concentrations
(
PEC's)
for
air
and
water.

°
This
is
critical
information
required
in
order
to
define
"
fitness
for
purpose"
for
sampling
and
analysis
methods.
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
10
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Release
­
Mill
Pilot
Study

To
Follow
the
Release
Estimation
Modeling
 ...


A
Controlled,
Scientific
Study
to
Verify
the
Release
Model

"
pilot"
production
line,
with
capability
for
water
and
air
sampling

free
from
other
contribution
sources,
past
or
present

based
upon
capabilities
to
determine
VOC
emissions
for
textile,
carpet
and
paper
chemicals

begin
with
total
organic
fluorine
analysis
to
verify
overall
mass
balance

chemical­
specific
determination
:
PFOA

need
to
develop
and
validate
sampling
and
analysis
methods
consistent
with
estimated
releases
for
each
analyte
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
11
Telomer
Research
Program
ECA
Framework
Item
#
10,
LOI
#
3/
4
Release
and
Exposure
Assessments
adjacent
to
Telomer
manufacturing
and
customer
use
facilities,
including
control
areas
Summary
of
LOI
Commitments
LOI
#
3
­
Manufacturing
ECA
Candidate?
Nature
of
Potential
ECA
Work
Describe
specific
telomer
manufacturing
process
chemistry
by
member
companies
and
submit
information
about
potential
release
of
PFOA
or
exposure
points
from
telomer
manufacturing
and
processing
in
US
operations
(
under
CBI)
No
None.
Submission
completed
by
each
TRP
member
company
Develop
action
plans
to
investigate
the
potential
for
PFOA
release
and
exposure
in
US
manufacturing
operations
(
by
TRP
member
companies;
under
CBI)
No
Work
underway
already
by
each
company
as
part
of
the
LOI
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
12
Telomer
Research
Program
ECA
Framework
Item
#
10,
LOI
#
3/
4
(
Cont)

Release
and
Exposure
Assessments
adjacent
to
Telomer
manufacturing
and
customer
use
facilities,
including
control
areas
Summary
of
LOI
Commitments:

LOI
#
4
­
Articles
ECA
Candidate?
Nature
of
Potential
ECA
Work
Develop
article
manufacture
release
estimations
of
PFOA
in
major
market
end
uses:
carpet,
textiles,
paper
No
None.
Work
underway
as
part
of
the
LOI.

Develop
and
demonstrate
sampling
and
analytical
methods
for
PFOA
determination
in
mill
pilot
studies
 
during
Qtr
3
/
2003
No
TRP
will
add
the
analysis
of
Telomer
8­
2
alcohol
in
the
mill
simulations
to
the
LOI.

Conduct
mill
pilot
studies
of
potential
releases
of
PFOA
from
telomer­
treated
article
manufacture
in
carpet,
textile,
and
paper
 
begin
in
Qtr
3/
2003
No
TRP
will
add
the
analysis
of
Telomer
8­
2
alcohol
in
the
mill
pilot
studies
to
the
LOI.
A
validated
method
for
alcohol
analysis
will
need
to
be
developed
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
13
Telomer
Research
Program
ECA
Candidate
Addition
to
TRP
LOI

ECA
Item
#
10,
Release
and
Exposure:

consider
addition
of
Telomer
8­
2
alcohol
analysis
along
with
PFOA
in
the
article
mill
pilot
study
efforts
.
Need
discussion,

agreement,
and
method
development
2003­
06­
23/
24,
page
14
Telomer
Research
Program
Next
Steps
