U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
Introduction
The
PFOA
ECA
Plenary
session
held
on
July
10,
2003,
approved
an
action
plan
for
the
Telomer
Workgroup
to
form
a
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
test
methods.
This
subgroup
will
assess
the
adequacy
of
available
incineration
test
methods
to
provide
data
on
telomer
degradation
and
the
concurrent
formation
of
by­
products
that
may
result
during
the
process
on
incineration.
Where
needed,
specific
approaches
to
address
the
unique
characteristics
of
telomers
and
telomer
based
polymers
will
be
incorporated
into
the
test
protocol(
s).

Goals
/
Objectives
The
goals
of
this
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
are:

1)
Identify
scope
and
goals
of
proposed
incineration
testing
2)
Develop
a
testing
protocol,
supporting:
a.
Thermogravimetric
analysis
to
define
gasification
temperature
per
ASTM
E1641.
b.
Laboratory
Scale
Thermal
Degradation
Test:
per
the
3M
protocol
[
OPPT­
2003­
0012­
0151]
as
developed
by
the
University
of
Dayton
3)
Identify
intermediate
temperatures
at
which
to
run
the
test,
so
as
to
satisfy
other
incineration
regimes
(
e.
g.,
across
a
variety
of
incinerator
types;
sub­
optimal
operating
scenarios).

4)
Develop
methods
that
will
yield
the
temperature
needed
to
provide
99.99%
destruction
of
each
telomer
test
substance
at
a
residence
time
of
2
seconds
in
the
high
temperature
zone.

5)
Identify
a
list
of
representative
telomers
and/
or
other
telomer­
treated
materials
for
incineration
testing.

6)
Report
back
to
the
Telomer
Workgroup
regarding
incineration
testing
details
that
could
be
incorporated
into
an
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
(
ECA)
for
testing
specific
telomer
chemicals
and/
or
other
telomer­
treated
materials.

Meetings
Meetings
will
be
held
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
Washington,
DC.
The
initial
meeting
will
be
from
9:
00
to
noon
on
Thursday,
August
14,
2003.
Attendance
may
be
via
conference
call
or
in
person.
Meeting
materials
will
be
distributed
one
week
in
advance
of
the
meeting.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
Tentative
Agenda
 
First
Meeting
Thursday,
August
14,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
Noon
EPA
East,
Room
4225
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
 
Discussion
of
Goals
/
Objectives
 
Comments
on
Adequacy
of
Existing
Incineration
Test
Protocol
 
Key
Protocol
Elements
°
Test
Temperatures
°
Residence
time
°
Other
S
Proposed
Methods
Modifications
S
Polymers/
chemicals
to
be
tested
&
criteria
for
choosing
selected
materials
S
Data
Quality
Considerations
 
Next
Steps
Telomer
Research
Program
Proposal
Draft,
8
August,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
Introduction
The
PFOA
ECA
Plenary
session
held
on
July
10,
2003,
approved
an
action
plan
for
the
Telomer
Workgroup
to
form
a
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
test
methods.
This
subgroup
will
assess
the
adequacy
of
available
incineration
test
methods
so
as
to
inform
a
technical
assessor
on
the
details
of
Telomer
thermal
degradation
and
the
potential
concurrent
formation
of
PFOA.
Where
needed,
specific
approaches
to
address
the
unique
characteristics
of
Telomers
and
Telomer­
based
polymers
will
be
agreed
upon.

Goals
/
Objectives
The
goals
of
this
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
are:

1.
Identify
the
scope
and
goals
of
proposed
incineration
testing­
work
toward
agreement
on
a
testing
protocol
that
would
determine
if
incineration
of
Telomers
is
a
potential
source
of
PFOA
at
operating
conditions
that
are
representative
of
relevant
types
of
waste
incinerators.

2.
Work
toward
identifying
a
list
of
representative
Telomers
and/
or
other
Telomer­
treated
materials
for
incineration
testing.

3.
Work
toward
identifying
temperatures
at
which
to
run
the
test(
s)
to
represent
operating
conditions
for
relevant
types
of
waste
incinerators.

4.
Work
toward
developing
a
testing
protocol
using
well­
accepted
laboratory­
scale
incineration
testing
practices
and
suitable
sampling
and
analytical
techniques.

5.
Report
back
to
the
Telomers
Workgroup
regarding
the
testing
details
that
could
be
incorporated
into
an
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
(
ECA)
for
testing
specific
Telomer
chemicals
and/
or
other
Telomer­
treated
materials.

Meetings
Meetings
will
be
held
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
Washington,
DC.
The
initial
meeting
will
be
from
9:
00
to
noon
on
Thursday,
August
14,
2003.
Attendance
may
be
via
conference
call
or
in
person.
Meeting
materials
will
be
distributed
one
week
in
advance
of
the
meeting.
Telomer
Research
Program
Proposal
Draft,
8
August,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
Tentative
Agenda
­
First
Meeting
Thursday,
August
14,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
Noon
EPA
East,
Room
4225
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
 
Discussion
of
Goals
/
Objectives
 
Review
of
Recent
Related
Incineration
Studies
 
Key
Elements
of
Proposed
Test
Protocol
 
Test
Temperatures
 
Residence
time
 
Sampling
&
Analysis
 
Other
 
Criteria
for
choosing
Telomer
chemicals
to
be
tested
 
Data
Quality
Considerations
 
Next
Steps
TRP
Telomer
Research
Program
TRP
Environmental
Fate
:

Incineration
14
August
2003
14
August
2003,
page
2
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
:
Approach

TRP
has
agreed
to
study
the
applicability
of
incineration
to
its
Telomertreated
products
and
related
articles
in
the
U.
S.
in
a
"
Desk
Study"


First,
understand
U.
S.
disposal
methods
for
waste
carpet,
textile
and
paper
and
in
what
uses
incineration
is
applicable

Second,
review
the
U.
S.
incinerator
conditions
to
understand
typical
operating
temperatures

The
"
Desk
Study"
will
frame
the
Experimental
Study

The
Experimental
Study
will

Investigate
incineration
of
telomer­
based
substances
under
laboratoryscale
conditions
representative
of
relevant
incinerator
operations
in
the
U.
S.
to
quantitatively
determine
emission
levels
of
PFOA.
14
August
2003,
page
3
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
:
Desk
Study

Based
on:


Public
Information

U.
S.
EPA,
"
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
The
United
States
:
2000
Facts
&
Figures",
EPA530­
R­
02­
001,

June
2002
(
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
non­
hw/
muncpl/
report­
00/
report­
00.
pdf)


Carpet
America
Recovery
Effort,
EPA/
Industry
"
Memorandum
of
Understanding
for
Carpet
Stewardship"
Appendix
A,
January
2002
(
www.
carpetrecovery.
org/
about/
mou.
asp)


Industry
Knowledge

Uses
of
Telomer­
based
Products
:
carpet,
paper,
textiles

"
Desk
Study"
Objectives

Understand
U.
S.
waste
disposition
by
means
of
disposal
and
type

to
determine
what
telomer­
treated
articles
and
substances
are
likely
to
be
incinerated

Review
U.
S.
Municipal
Waste
Combustors
and
Medical
Waste
Incinerators

typical
incinerator
operating
conditions

use
to
define
study
approach
and
experimental
conditions
14
August
2003,
page
4
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
:
Desk
Study

Municipal
Solid
Waste
Disposition1

55%
to
landfill

30%
recovered

15%
to
combustion
1­
"
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
The
United
States:
2000
Facts
&
Figures"
14
August
2003,
page
5
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
:
Desk
Study

U.
S.
disposal
methods

carpet1

is
landfilled
or
recycled

less
than
1%
of
total
carpet
waste
is
incinerated

textiles,
including
medical
textiles,
are
incinerated2

paper
is
incinerated2
1­
Carpet
America
Recovery
Effort,
"
Memorandum
of
Understanding
for
Carpet
Stewardship,"
Appendix
A
2­
U.
S.
EPA,
"
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
The
United
States:
2000
Facts
&
Figures"
14
August
2003,
page
6
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
:
Desk
Study

U.
S.
Municipal
Waste
Combustors
(
MWCs)


According
to
the
Integrated
Waste
Services
Association
(
IWSA),
there
are
102
waste­
to­
energy
facilities
operating
large
MWCs
in
the
U.
S.
1

Additional
information
from
IWSA
indicates
3
categories
of
large
MWCs:


Mass
Burn:
70
Facilities,
23
million
tons
processed/
year

Refuse
Derived
Fuel
(
RDF):
19
Facilities,
6.7
millions
tons
processed/
year

Modular:
13
Facilities,
400,000
tons
processed/
year

Further
information
from
IWSA
shows
that
large
MWCs
account
for
90%
of
MWC
capacity
in
the
U.
S.

1
­
IWSA,
"
Fast
Facts
about
Waste­
to­
Energy"
(
www.
wte.
org/
facts.
html)
14
August
2003,
page
7
Telomer
Research
Program
1
­
U.
S.
EPA,
Municipal
Waste
Combustion
Assessment:
Technical
Basis
for
Good
Combustion
Practice,
EPA
600/
8­
89­
063,
August
1989
2
­
U.
S.
EPA,
Decision
Maker's
Guide
to
Solid
Waste
Management,
Volume
II,
1995.

3
­
Donnelly,
J.
R.
Waste
incineration
sources:
refuse.
In:
Buonicore,
A.
J.;
Davis,
W.
T.,
eds.,
Air
Pollution
Engineering
Manual.
Air
and
Waste
Management
Association.

New
York,
NY:
Van
Nostrand
Reinhold,
1992,.
pp.
263­
275.

Municipal
Waste
Combustors

U.
S.
emission
standards
for
MWCs
include
Good
Combustion
Practices
(
GCP)


In
multi­
unit
study1,
MWCs
operating
under
GCP
had
secondary
stage
temperatures
ranging
from
885
º
C
to
1071
º
C

Volume
II
of
EPA's
"
Decision
Maker's
Guide
to
Solid
Waste
Management"
2
reports
that
many
incinerators
for
municipal
solid
waste
are
designed
to
operate
in
the
combustion
zone
at
1800
º
F
[
982
º
C]
to
2000
º
F
[
1093
º
C]


In
his
section
on
"
Waste
Incineration
Sources:
Refuse
in
Air
Pollution
Engineering
Manual,"
J.
R.
Donnelly3
explains
that
combustion
gas
in
traveling
grate
mass
burn
units
are
maintained
at
about
1800
º
F
[
982
º
C]
to
ensure
complete
combustion
of
organic
compounds"
prior
to
passing
to
the
boiler
14
August
2003,
page
8
Telomer
Research
Program
Medical
Waste
Incinerators

In
Air
Pollution
Control
and
Waste
Incineration
for
Hospitals
and
Other
Medical
Facilities,

Louis
Theodore1
states
that
3
types
of
incinerators
are
primarily
used
for
medical
waste:

controlled
air
incinerators,
multiple
chamber
incinerators,
&
rotary
kiln
incinerators.


All
three
types
of
medical
waste
incinerators
(
MWIs)
use
two
chambers.


The
ignition
or
primary
chamber

The
second
chamber
is
designed
to
complete
the
combustion
process
Controlled
Air
Multiple
Chamber
Rotary
Kiln2
Primary
Chamber
400
to
980
º
C
540
to
980
º
C
760
º
C
Second
Chamber
980
to
1200
º
C
980
to
1200
º
C
980
º
C
1
­
Theodore,
L.:
Air
Pollution
Control
and
Waste
Incineration
for
Hospitals
and
Other
Medical
Facilities,
Van
Nostrand
Reinhold,
New
York,
1990,
pp
313­
320.

2
­
Note:
Rotary
kilns
for
other
types
of
waste
may
be
operated
at
much
higher
temperatures.

3
­
U.
S.
EPA,
Exposure
and
Human
Health
Reassessment
of
2,3,7,8­
Tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
Dioxin
(
TCDD)
and
Related
Compounds,
Part
I:
Estimating
Exposure
to
Dioxin­

Like
Compounds
Volume
2:
Sources
of
Dioxin­
Like
Compounds
in
the
United
States,
Chapter
3,
EPA/
600/
P­
00/
001Bb,
Draft
Final
Report,
September
2000
EPA
notes
that
97%
of
MWIs
are
controlled
air
modular
furnaces
and
1%

are
rotary
kilns3
14
August
2003,
page
9
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
Study
Proposal

Test
Objective

Investigate
incineration
of
telomer­
based
substances
under
laboratory­
scale
conditions
representative
of
typical
municipal
waste
combustor
(
MWC)
operations
in
the
U.
S.
to
quantitatively
determine
emission
levels
of
PFOA
14
August
2003,
page
10
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
Study
Proposal

Test
Materials

Paper

A
single
representative
composite
mixture
of
the
LOI
telomer­
based
polymeric
products
which
are
applied
to
paper,
as
solids,
in
equal
proportions

Textiles,
including
medical
textiles

A
single
representative
composite
mixture
of
the
LOI
telomer­
based
polymeric
products
which
are
applied
to
textiles,
as
solids,
in
equal
proportions
14
August
2003,
page
11
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
Study
Proposal

Experimental
Apparatus
­
General
Description

a
batch­
charged
continuous
flow
reactor
system

The
test
sample
is
gasified
and
transported
to
a
high
temperature
reactor.


In
the
high
temperature
reactor,
the
sample
vapors
are
subjected
to
controlled
conditions
of
residence
time,
temperature,
and
excess
air.


Combustion
products
are
collected
for
quantitative
analysis.
14
August
2003,
page
12
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
Study
Proposal

Experimental
Conditions

Telomer­
based
polymeric
product
solids
will
be
subjected
to
laboratoryscale
incineration
using
the
experimental
apparatus

Two
test
levels
are
proposed
for
the
high
temperature
reactor:


900
°
C
for
two
seconds
residence
time
(
municipal)


1000
°
C
for
two
seconds
residence
time
(
medical,
municipal)


Three
replicates
for
each
test
level
(
combination
of
test
feed
and
temperature).


Additionally,
a
blank
run
under
each
experimental
condition

The
amount
of
test
material
in
feed
will
be
large
enough
to
assure
ability
to
detect
compounds
of
interest
in
the
emissions,
but
small
enough
to
assure
sufficient
excess
oxygen
to
be
representative
of
MWC
conditions.
14
August
2003,
page
13
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
Study
Proposal

Sampling
&
Analysis

Monitored
exhaust
gas
parameters
are
proposed
to
include
:


flow
rate,
oxygen
(
O2),
carbon
dioxide
(
CO2),
and
carbon
monoxide
(
CO).


Exhaust
gas

will
be
collected
on
suitable
sorbent
cartridge(
s)
and
/
or
in
aqueous
solution
trap(
s)
for
off­
line
analysis
to
quantify
PFOA.


PFOA
Determination
:
sampling
and
analysis
methods

adapt
and
validate
available
methods
for
this
study
14
August
2003,
page
14
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
Study
Proposal

Sampling

Sorbent
Cartridge

OSHA
Versatile
Sampler
(
OVS)


analyze
for
PFOA

Aqueous
Solution

use
one
or
more
impingers
containing
aqueous
solution

analyze
for
PFOA

analyze
for
fluoride
ion
to
assist
in
performing
a
fluoride
balance
across
the
experimental
system.


Analysis
Method
for
PFOA

via
off­
line
LC/
MS/
MS
at
a
qualified
commercial
laboratory
operating
under
suitable
data
quality
guidelines.
14
August
2003,
page
15
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
Study
Proposal

Study
Materials
Characterization

elemental
analysis
to
determine
carbon,
hydrogen,
nitrogen,
chlorine,

fluorine
and
oxygen
by
difference.


PFOA
content
14
August
2003,
page
16
Telomer
Research
Program
Incineration
:
Next
Steps

We
are
willing
to
discuss
in
a
technical
work
group
how
to
conduct
incineration
studies
leading
toward
an
ECA
for
the
work
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Anticipated
Attendees
for
Telomer
Incineration
Subgroup
Meeting
John
Heinze,
Environmental
Health
Research
Foundation
(
by
phone)
Erin
Russell,
Clariant
(
by
phone)
Hiroyuki
Iwai,
Daikin
Satoshi
Komatsu,
Daikin
Ed
Lampert,
Daikin
Yukiko
Nishiyama,
Daikin
Randy
Roussel,
Daikin
Maggie
Martin,
Daikin
Robert
Giraud,
DuPont
Bob
Buck,
DuPont
Steve
Korzeniowski,
DuPont
W.
Michael
McCabe
(
DuPont)
Lisa
Walton,
W.
L.
Gore
Lisa
Campbell,
Bergeson
&
Campbell
(
Gore)
Mike
Wernke,
BBL
Sciences
(
Clariant)
(
by
phone)
John
Blouin,
EPA/
EETD
Eric
Stewart,
EPA/
ORD
Greg
Fritz,
EPA/
EETD
Ward
Penberthy,
EPA/
CCD
Ed
Heithmar,
EPA/
ORD
Rich
Leukroth,
EPA/
CCD
Wendy
Hoffman,
EPA/
EETD
Nhan
Nguyen,
EPA/
EETD
(
Observer:
Julie
Eble,
CPS
[
TRP])
(
Observer:
Katie
Smythe,
RAND
[
TRP])
(
Observer:
David
Menotti,
Shaw
Pittman
[
Asahi])
(
Observer:
Bill
Beers,
OMNOVA
Solutions)
NAME
felomer
Incineration
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
August
14,
2003
cb~
,
Ø6­
6­'
z
,
ø%,
e­
iui
5a/
vsA~
Kmatsu
Y~
t4I­~
7
AJy~
tm~

/
tc~~'

d
17/
U4)~
%
r4
&~
cP~,/~
p~
p
1~
&
a,'
A;
n
~

h~
1
£
44~~
m4~
Amcta
5eci­~
ci7
~
fts~
j~
zSs­
44?~
y,

202
­
6Z~­
3q~?
c,

9/
b63f94612
s~&~

g/_
4°~
9_
6~

~
zOA'
66
s­
c~
7r
Zhdic~
Ebk
flMJPAp4
SE~,
ceS
Cot.
1
~
itMa
fri
(~)
vopesyj'ay
.

7Q#
VShI'.
knnio$
cu~
4?
~
Co
r~'­~­'~
`~`
t~
r­~'
/
7c~
c~'~
k~

dA
~
~
uatd~
shp2fi1o'
t~
Jtt0.~
/

Kc~
cL.
O~,~
I5tL.
E
~
[
3Udc~
c~
13
11c1
44'..
£
ezn2
~

~}
LL
~~
T)

~
~~
€
~
itoV
13;!!
/
Iaccj'e
zki;;
~
~

E~
fot~

fk:
Ai~
4~
r*
tr
/
C~
r.
n'ü..,*

(?~
f44/
vbv#
c,~
yc~:

~
u
Po~
Y
~
r~/~­
n
W/
6oc~
7v~°
 
X~~
S~
9/

7oz­
7ta­~~
t~
t~
t't't.
5T16
3~
u
~

~

~
z­
s~
t­
fl~
t
4'/
O
~
sa~
2fl7
it
Uf,'
n
ba~~(~~
fl'iein~
1t&
fr?

m
y4.
GAN~&
us1.
~
Co
M
\~`~
s&~
o~
M~
c~

/~
fl4­
Vhc$
t4tttJJ)'
Qtfst.
z8v
~
tdL~
e
Cc~
m
;~\~
rc~
tg4~
1~
VL
~/
t
L1)
OtO~
2I~
rn
WL6oreca~
r~

Kt~
ct'~~`
M'uTHE
~
TRS
re~/
c~
Ti9
1O~.
4k3.
UcoxSM
~
v1\~
±
tt@
cundort
y
Aoff~
p/
g.~~
Df,
g.
ç~
CPA
/~
PN
/
10
/

~`
U
PFOA
ECA
Telomer
Incineration
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
14,
2003
rnor(~
ic
Sv~
~
2flTh
s~
o'RvnX~
.
k~
ncn~~
Jc;
~
­
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
UWtJJt
jI~
flr
\
m~
c~

~
i//~
ñi~(
Ap~

~
~
~~
iLt
Pi4%
tE
&
P~

kUT4~
i4s~
x.
4/
i
~
ei~
4~

D~
y;,~
w~
cA
~
v
1i4­
8818
rot
LISc~,

S~
Z%
92.`
ta?.;
~
d~
i1hs.

~
~
qOV
//
i
~
5'
19%
1/
4/
fl/
64/
n4rcItc~
J~
~

t7SiV­~/
67
LQ~~
t~
E?
t9o~

Zsb­
3c45&
°
0
r~
ssQ4~
cXo~
k;
AJ­
4~
o~­~
c~.

Q~
0~
i
"
3S~­
Ri3c
Q~
J~
c~\)~
A.
~

~
CGc~
W~?
ic~
C\
kDY\
3
(
C/
ian
S/?
ac4a~~
GeL>
1Lc~
cs
W$­
i­
5~\
t~­
Lc~

tDZ
wt
 
8r7L
4~
ni~
nckv~
t
~
o\
L~
CieS~
Ct~
Y)
j
5&
gsp*
au.
`
bnqw.
c
E,
°
*
~/

kT&
ri
~
~

k0cL~
£
M
~

CtL43
~
2fl
fl'­
1­
9­,~~

Di~/&~

+
Y?­
6l%
s~­
ThU
I
Wafrrg/~)
Et4.
6­
n­

~

Va
l~
zr.
kcct~
q&
clcir,
cu4­*.
CoLt..~

~
j7­
3Cf~
t~

jc4trv­
L­
4wD
&
in
cps
Q~
ar~~~
Yt~~
ç.
e~
~
Qg~

~
A~
Q
\
kkrnkt
tBLJ
&~
C.
Ce~
adan~
~
nwJ1­@~~
­\
r~
c.
c&
r~

E~
4
1­/
o'/~
~
jig~
i.
~
7~
11\~
~
e1q­
 
i~~
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Biodegradation
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
Introduction
The
PFOA
ECA
Plenary
session
held
on
July
10,
2003,
approved
an
action
plan
for
the
Telomer
Workgroup
to
form
a
Technical
Subgroup
on
Biodegradation
Test
Methods.
This
subgroup
will
assess
the
adequacy
of
available
biodegradation
test
methods
to
inform
telomer
degradation
and
to
develop,
where
needed,
new
test
methods
or
approaches
to
address
the
unique
characteristics
of
telomers
and
telomer­
based
polymers.

Goals
/
Objectives
The
goals
of
this
Technical
Subgroup
on
Biodegradation
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
are:

1)
Develop
an
approach
for
testing
to
determine
the
rate
and
extent
of
biodegradation
of
representative
telomers
and
telomer
based
polymers
to
PFOA
and
other
degradation
products.

(
2)
Modify
existing,
or
develop
new
protocol(
s)
for
biodegradation
testing
of
telomers
and
telomer
based
polymers
in:

(
a)
aerobic
and
anaerobic
soils,
(
b)
aerobic
and
anaerobic
aquatic
sediment
systems,
(
c)
activated
sludge
wastewater
treatment
systems,
and
(
d)
anaerobic
sludge
digestors
(
3)
Report
back
to
the
Telomers
Workgroup
regarding
the
details
of
testing
standards
for
incorporation
into
an
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
(
ECA)
for
testing
representative
telomers
and
telomer
based
polymers
of
interest.

Meetings
The
first
meeting
of
the
Subgroup
will
be
held
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
Washington,
DC
on
Thursday,
August
14,
2003,
from
1:
00
to
4:
00
PM.
Attendance
may
be
via
conference
call
or
in
person.
Meeting
materials
will
be
distributed
one
week
in
advance
of
the
meeting
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Biodegradation
Test
Methods
for
Telomers
Tentative
Agenda
­
First
Meeting
Thursday,
August
14,
2003
1:
00
PM
to
4:
00
PM
EPA
East,
Room
4225
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
 
Review
of
Subgroup
Goals
/
Objectives
 
Discussion
of
Utility
of
Existing
Biodegradation
Test
Protocols
for
Evaluation
of
Telomers
and
Telomer
Based
Polymers
 
Consideration
of
Key
Protocol
Elements
°
Test
Conditions/
Procedures
°
Test
Duration
°
Mass
Balance
°
Analytical
Procedures
°
Other
 
Identification
of
Test
Methods
Modification
Needs
 
Data
Quality
Considerations
 
Test
Method
Development
Schedule
 
Next
Steps
Telomer
Research
Program
Proposal
Draft,
August
9,
2003
Telomer
Biodegradation
Test
Methods
Technical
Subgroup
Goals
/
Objectives
The
goals
of
the
Technical
Subgroup
on
Biodegradation
Test
Methods
for
Telomer­
based
materials
are
to:

1)
Develop
a
study
approach
that
will
determine
whether
and
to
what
extent
representative
telomer­
based
substances
undergo
biodegradation
to
PFOA.

2)
Evaluate
biodegradation
test
method(
s)
/
protocol(
s)
for
telomer­
based
substances
which
 
are
relevant
to
the
environmental
compartments
into
which
telomer­
based
substances
enter
from
use
and
disposal
(
i.
e.
sludge,
soil,
and
water
)
 
and
address
aerobic
and/
or
anaerobic
biodegradation
pathways
3)
Report
back
to
the
Telomers
Workgroup
regarding
the
outcome
of
these
discussions
regarding
the
approach
and
test
details
for
incorporation
into
an
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
(
ECA)
for
testing
representative
telomer­
based
substances
of
interest.

Proposed
Revised
Agenda
­
Review
of
Subgroup
Goals
and
Objectives
­
Logic
for
Telomer
Environmental
Fate
Testing
including
­
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Trees
­
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments
and
corresponding
Study
Approaches
­
Experimental
Design
­
Overview
&
Discussion
:
­
Approach
to
testing
telomer­
based
polymeric
products
­
Analytical
Tools
&
Data
Quality
­
Technical
Hurdles
&
Approaches
to
E­
Fate
Studies
in
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments
­
Specific
Studies
for
Detailed
Discussion
­
Adsorption
 
Desorption
Studies
­
Biodegradation
studies
relevant
to
Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
and
Soil
­
Test
Method
Development
Schedule
­
Summary/
Conclusions
&
Path
Forward
TRP
Telomer
Research
Program
Biodegradation
Approach
Proposal
14
August
2003
2003­
08­
14
,
page
2
Telomer
Research
Program
Biodegradation
Technical
Session
Discussion
Outline

Study
Objectives
&
Approach

Technical
Review
&
Discussion

Part
1:
Environmental
Fate
Testing
Logic

Part
2:
Experimental
Design
Discussion

Summary/
Conclusions
&
Path
Forward
2003­
08­
14
,
page
3
Telomer
Research
Program
Objective

Do
Telomer­
based
Polymeric
Products
biodegrade
to
PFOA?


Literature
references1
indicate
that
non­
polar
polymers
are
not
expected
to
biodegrade
in
the
environment

TRP
recognizes
that
data
is
needed
to
inform
this
question
and
offers
a
study
approach
where
both
Telomer­
based
Polymeric
Products
and
Telomer­
based
Polymers
are
investigated

Proposed
Studies

address
partitioning
and
biotransformation
in
relevant
environmental
compartments

start
with
laboratory
studies
that
are
simple
and
inform
the
question
of
whether
telomer­
based
polymeric
products
and
telomer­
based
polymers
have
the
potential
to
transform
to
PFOA

use
these
to
determine
whether
and
what
longer­
duration
or
complex
studies
may
be
needed

use
test
design
principles
from
established
study
guidelines
1
­
see
presentation
Appendix
1
2003­
08­
14
,
page
4
Telomer
Research
Program
Approach

Focuses
on
relevant
releases
during
the
lifecyle
of
telomer­
based
products
and
articles

Products
and
treated
articles
were
chosen
using
criteria
such
as
market
end
use,
chemistry
type/
class,
chemical
volume,
article
type,
and
potential
for
human
exposure.
TRP
Telomer
Research
Program
Technical
Review
2003­
08­
14
,
page
6
Telomer
Research
Program
Technical
Review
Outline

Part
1:
Environmental
Fate
Testing
Logic

1A:
E­
Fate
Assessment
Studies
Design

1B:
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Trees

1C:
Potential
Release/
Emission
Scenarios

Relevant
Environmental
Compartments

Relevant
E­
Fate
Testing
Approach

Part
2:
Experimental
Design
Discussion

General
Overview

Technical
Hurdles
for
E­
Fate
Tests
in
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments*


Part
3:
Summary/
Conclusions
&
Path
Forward
°
Includes
all
of
the
analytical
method
development
issues
and
need
for
test
design
modifications
2003­
08­
14
,
page
7
Telomer
Research
Program
80%
Water
20%
Telomer
Polymer
°
Aqueous
Dispersion
of .

°
Polymeric
Particles
100­
200
nm
with...

°
Hydrocarbon
Surfactant(
s)

What
is
a
Typical
Telomer­
based
Polymeric
Product's
Composition
?

Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Variables

wt.%
active
ingredient
in
product
(~
20%)


wt.%
fluorine

wt.%
telomer
raw
materials

wt.%
eight­
fluorinated
carbon
chain
C8F17­


PFOA
(
from
product
analysis)


Mol.
Wt.
­
Typically
>
10,000
Daltons

polyacrylates

polyurethanes
2003­
08­
14
,
page
8
Telomer
Research
Program
Part
1A:

Environmental
Fate
Testing
Logic
E­
Fate
Assessments
Studies
Design
Technical
Review
2003­
08­
14
,
page
9
Telomer
Research
Program
Determine
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments
(
i.
e.,
air,
water,
soil,
sediments)

Determine
Appropriate
Abiotic
and
Biotic
Degradation
Tests
Based
on
Environmental
Compartments
of
Concern
(
E­
Fate
Decision
Trees)

Evaluate
Results
and
Determine
If
Needs
for
Testing
Are
Complete
Logic
Flow
Chart
for
E­
Fate
Assessments
2003­
08­
14
,
page
10
Telomer
Research
Program
Determine
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments
(
i.
e.,
air,
water,
soil,
sediments)

Determine
Appropriate
Abiotic
and
Biotic
Degradation
Tests
Based
on
Environmental
Compartments
of
Concern
(
E­
Fate
Decision
Trees)

Evaluate
Results
and
Determine
If
Needs
for
Testing
Are
Complete
Logic
Flow
Chart
for
E­
Fate
Assessments
2003­
08­
14
,
page
11
Telomer
Research
Program
Factors
for
Determining
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments

Use/
Applications

Physical­
Chemical
Properties

Emissions/
Entry
Point
2003­
08­
14
,
page
12
Telomer
Research
Program
Uses
/
Applications
Carpet
Paper
Textiles
°
To
identify
environmental
compartments
to
which
there
are
releases
2003­
08­
14
,
page
13
Telomer
Research
Program
Physical­
Chemical
Properties

Physical­
Chemical
Properties:


Water
solubility

Vapor
Pressure

UV
Visible
Absorption

Hydrolysis
as
a
Function
of
pH

Test
to
determine
surface
film
formation

(
e.
g.,
surface
tension,
specific
gravity,
etc.)


compositional
characterization

molecular
weight,
chemical
structure,
functional
groups,
charge,
density .


Activated
Sludge
Sorption
Isotherm

Soil
/
Sludge
Adsorption/
Desorption

Henry's
Law
Constant

Log
Kow
2003­
08­
14
,
page
14
Telomer
Research
Program
Emissions
/
Entry
Point
into
the
Environment

Sewage
Treatment
Plant
(
STP)


Soil

Land­
Applied
Sludge

Landfill

Air

Water

Sewage
Treatment
Plant
(
STP)
discharge

Other
Discharges
to
Water
2003­
08­
14
,
page
15
Telomer
Research
Program
Part
1B:

Environmental
Fate
Testing
Logic
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Trees
Technical
Review
2003­
08­
14
,
page
16
Telomer
Research
Program
Determine
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments
(
i.
e.,
air,
water,
soil,
sediments)

Determine
Appropriate
Abiotic
and
Biotic
Degradation
Tests
Based
on
Environmental
Compartments
of
Concern
(
E­
Fate
Decision
Trees)

Evaluate
Results
and
Determine
If
Needs
for
Testing
Are
Complete
Logic
Flow
Chart
for
E­
Fate
Assessments
2003­
08­
14
,
page
17
Telomer
Research
Program
Environmental
Entry
Points
Air
Water
STP
Soil
Sewage
treatment
plant
Significant
Effluent?

Entry
via
Air
Entry
via
Soil
Entry
via
Water
(
e.
g.,
Air,
non­
point
sources,
etc.)
Entry
via
STP
Sludge
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?

"
­

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Test
Yes
High
HLC?
High
Land
Applied
Sludge
(
Look
at
soil)
Look
at
Air
Look
at
H2O
Entry
Points
into
Environment
Air
Soil
Water
STP
Code:
Indirect
Photolysis
in
Soil
Land­
Applied
Sludge
­
I
Inherent
Biodegradability
Low/
Mod.

Sludge/
Landfill
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Tree
:
STP
­

Anaerobic
Biodegradation
of
Organic
Compounds
in
Sludge
Entry
via
Air
Entry
via
Soil
Entry
Points
into
Environment
Air
Soil
Water
STP
Code:
Indirect
Photolysis
in
Soil
­
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Tree
:
Soil
Land­
Applied
Sludge
Sludge/
Landfill
Significant
Effluent?

Entry
via
Water
(
e.
g.,
Air,
non­
point
sources,
etc.)
Entry
via
STP
Sludge
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?

"
­

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Test
Yes
High
HLC?
High
Land
Applied
Sludge
(
Look
at
soil)
Look
at
Air
Look
at
H2O
Low/
Mod.

Soil*
Adsorption?

High
HLC?
Mobile
in
soil
and
partitions
to
water;

i.
e.,
potential
mobility
to
groundwater
High
Low
Low
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
OECD
307
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
Look
at
Air
­

Inherent
Zahn­
Wellens
/

.3200)
I
Inherent
Biodegradability:
Anaerobic
Biodegradation
of
Organic
Compounds
in
Sludge
Entry
via
Air
Entry
via
Soil
Entry
Points
into
Environment
Air
Soil
Water
STP
Code:
Indirect
Photolysis
in
Soil
­
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Tree
:
Air
Land­
Applied
Sludge
Sludge/
Landfill
Significant
Effluent?

Entry
via
Water
(
e.
g.,
Air,
non­
point
sources,
etc.)
Entry
via
STP
Sludge
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?

"
­

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Yes
High
HLC?
High
Land
Applied
Sludge
(
Look
at
soil)
Look
at
Air
Look
at
H2O
I
­

Inherent
Biodegradability:

EMPA
Test
(
OPPTS
835.3200)
Low/
Mod.

Soil*
Adsorption?

High
HLC?
Mobile
in
soil
and
partitions
to
water;

i.
e.,
potential
mobility
to
groundwater
High
Low
Low
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
OECD
307
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
Look
at
Air
UV/
Vis
Abs.

>
290
nm?

Direct
Photolysis
In
Air
Indirect
Photolysis
In
Air
>
2
days
in
Air?

Assess
LRT
Potential
Wet/
Dry
Deposition
Potential?

Yes
No
Yes
or
No
Yes
Yes
Look
at
soil
Yes
­

Inherent
Zahn­
Wellens
/

.3200)
I
Inherent
Biodegradability:
Anaerobic
Biodegradation
of
Organic
Compounds
in
Sludge
Entry
via
Air
Entry
via
Soil
Air
Soil
Water
WWTP
Code:
Indirect
Photolysis
in
Soil
­
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Tree
:
Water
Land­
Applied
Sludge
Sludge/
Landfill
Significant
Effluent?
Entry
via
STP
Sludge
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?

"
­

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Yes
High
HLC?
High
Land
Applied
Sludge
(
Look
at
soil)
Look
at
Air
Entry
via
Water
(
e.
g.,
Air,
non­
point
sources,
etc.)

Look
at
H2O
­

Inherent
Biodegradability:

Zahn­
Wellens
(
OPPTS
835.3200)
Low/
Mod.

Soil*
Adsorption?

High
HLC?
Mobile
in
soil
and
partitions
to
water;

i.
e.,
potential
mobility
to
groundwater
High
Low
Low
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
OECD
307
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
Look
at
Air
UV/
Vis
Abs.

>
290
nm?

Direct
Photolysis
In
Air
Indirect
Photolysis
In
Air
>
2
days
in
Air?

Assess
LRT
Potential
Wet/
Dry
Deposition
Potential?

Yes
No
Yes
or
No
Yes
Yes
Look
at
soil
Yes
Sediment
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?

Forms
Film
at
H2O
Surface?

Modified
River
Die­
Away
Test
(
Biodegradability)
Indirect
Photolysis
OPPTS
835.5270
Direct
Photolysis
OPPTS
835.2210
(
uv/
vis
abs
>
290
nm)

Yes
Aerobic
and
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Aquatic
Sediments
Systems
OECD
308
High
Entry
Points
into
Environment
­

Inherent
Zahn­
Wellens
/

.3200)
I
Inherent
Biodegradability:
Anaerobic
Biodegradation
of
Organic
Compounds
in
Sludge
Significant
Effluent?

Entry
via
Air
UV/
Vis
Abs.

>
290
nm?

Direct
Photolysis
In
Air
Indirect
Photolysis
In
Air
>
2
days
in
Air?

Assess
LRT
Potential
Wet/
Dry
Deposition
Potential?

Yes
No
Yes
orNo
Yes
Yes
Soil*
Adsorption?

High
HLC?
Mobile
in
soil
and
partitions
to
water;

i.
e.,
potential
mobility
to
groundwater
Entry
via
Soil
High
Low
Low
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
OECD
307
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
Sediment
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?
HLC?
High
Forms
Film
at
H2O
Surface?

Entry
via
Water
(
e.
g.,
Air,
non­
point
sources,
etc.)

Modified
River
Die­
Away
Test
(
Biodegradability)
Indirect
Photolysis
OPPTS
835.5270
Direct
Photolysis
OPPTS
835.2210
(
uv/
vis
abs
>
290
nm)

Yes
Aerobic
and
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Aquatic
Sediments
Systems
OECD
308
High
Entry
via
STP
Sludge
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?

"
­

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Test
Yes
High
HLC?
High
Land
Applied
Sludge
(
Look
at
soil)
Look
at
Air
Look
at
Air
Look
at
soil
Look
at
H2O
Look
at
Air
Yes
Look
at
H2O
Entry
Points
into
Environment
Air
Soil
Water
STP
Code:
Indirect
Photolysis
in
Soil
Land­
applied
sludge
I
Inherent
Biodegradability
Low/
Mod.

Sludge/
Landfill
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Tree
Anaerobic
Biodegradation
of
Organic
Compounds
in
Sludge
2003­
08­
14
,
page
23
Telomer
Research
Program
Part
1C:

Environmental
Fate
Testing
Logic
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments
for
Telomer­
based
Polymers
Technical
Review
2003­
08­
14
,
page
24
Telomer
Research
Program
These
are
the
areas
to
be
discussed
in
this
biodegradation
work
session
Telomer­
based
Polymers
:
Routes
in
to
the
Environment

STP

from
"
down
the
drain"
disposal
:
sludge
,
wastewater

Soil

Land­
applied
sludge
from
WWTP

from
disposal
of
treated
articles
(
carpet,
textiles,
paper)
to
landfill

Water

no
direct
discharge
to
water;
indirect
considered
via
STP
and
Soil

Incineration

addressed
in
separate
ECA
process
workstream

Air

addressed
by
TRP
mill
release
and
pilot
study
work
Significant
Effluent?

Entry
via
Air
UV/
Vis
Abs.

>
290
nm?

Direct
Photolysis
In
Air
Indirect
Photolysis
In
Air
>
2
days
in
Air?

Assess
LRT
Potential
Wet/
Dry
Deposition
Potential?

Yes
No
Yes
orNo
Yes
Yes
Soil*
Adsorption?

High
HLC?
Mobile
in
soil
and
partitions
to
water;

i.
e.,
potential
mobility
to
groundwater
Entry
via
Soil
High
Low
Low
Aerobic
and/
or
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
OECD
307
Sediment
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?
HLC?

Forms
Film
at
H2O
Surface?

Entry
via
Water
(
e.
g.,
Air,
non­
point
sources,
etc.)

Die­
Away
Test
(
Biodegradability)

Modified
River
Indirect
Photolysis
OPPTS
835.5270
Direct
Photolysis
OPPTS
835.2210
(
uv/
vis
abs
>
290
nm)

Yes
Aerobic
and
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Aquatic
Sediments
Systems
OECD
308
High
Entry
via
STP
Sludge
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?

"
­

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Test
Yes
High
HLC?
High
Land
Applied
Sludge
(
Look
at
soil)

Look
at
Air
Look
at
soil
Look
at
H2O
Yes
Look
at
H2O
Entry
Points
into
Environment
Air
Soil
Water
STP
Code:
Indirect
Photolysis
in
Soil
Land­
applied
sludge
I
Inherent
Biodegradability
Low/
Mod.

Sludge/
Landfill
E­
Fate
Testing
Decision
Tree
Anaerobic
Biodegradation
of
Organic
Compounds
in
Sludge
2003­
08­
14
,
page
26
Telomer
Research
Program
Telomer­
based
Polymers
Environmental
Entry
Point
­
STP

Telomer­
based
Polymers
will
go
down
the
drain,
so
the
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
is
a
relevant
environmental
compartment.


Polymers
will
likely
significantly
adsorb
to
sludge
and/
or
settle
in
sludge,

thus
concentrations
in
the
aqueous
effluent
are
predicted
to
be
low.


Therefore,
water
&
sediments
are
not
expected
to
be
significant
compartments
in
this.


Assuming
sludge
will
potentially
be
land­
applied,
then
soil
is
a
relevant
environmental
compartment.


Aerobic
transformation
in
Soil
is
a
relevant
test
since
Telomer­
based
Polymers
will
likely
be
adsorbed
to
sludge
and
sludge
is
often
applied
to
soil.


Expected
lack
of
mobility
in
soil
would
support
not
conducting
testing
for
anaerobic
transformation
in
soil
for
the
land­
applied
sludge
scenario.
2003­
08­
14
,
page
27
Telomer
Research
Program
Soil*
Adsorption?

Aerobic/
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
HLC?

Entry
via
Soil
High
Low
Entry
via
STP
Sludge
Adsorption
or
Sedimentation?
­

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Test
High
HLC?
Entry
Points
into
Environment
Significant
Effluent?
STOP
Low/
Mod.
No
Land­
Applied
Sludge
STP
Down
the
Drain
Inherent
Biodegradability
Zahn­
Wellens/
EMPA
Test
2003­
08­
14
,
page
28
Telomer
Research
Program
Telomer­
based
Polymers
Environmental
Entry
Point
­
Landfill

For
Telomer­
based
Polymers
that
go
to
a
landfill,
soil
is
a
relevant
environmental
compartment.


Polymers
will
likely
significantly
adsorb
to
soil,
or
remain
adsorbed
to
disposed
treated
articles
(
carpet,
paper,
textile).
As
such,
leaching
to
groundwater
beneath
the
landfill
is
not
expected.


Aerobic
and
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
are
relevant
tests
since
landfills
are
layered
over
time
(
e.
g.,
soil
layering
to
reduce
odor
is
common)


This
testing
would
represent
a
worst
case
for
biotransformation
potential
in
a
landfill
since
anoxic,

dessicant
conditions,
which
are
common
to
landfills,
will
not
allow
for
further
biotransformations
when
these
conditions
are
present.
Therefore,
a
landfill
simulation
is
not
necessary
providing
these
recommended
tests
are
conducted.


Indirect
photolysis
is
irrelevant
for
the
landfill
scenario
due
to:


timing
for
land
covering
(
i.
e.,
typically
daily
to
limit
odor)


textiles,
carpet,
etc.
have
likely
been
previously
exposed
to
UV/
Vis
light
during
the
product
lifetime,
thus
potential
for
photo­
reactivity
will
be
determined
in
the
article
testing
studies.
2003­
08­
14
,
page
29
Telomer
Research
Program
Landfill
Entry
Points
into
Environment
Soil*
Adsorption?

Aerobic/
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil
HLC?

Entry
via
Soil
High
Low
Article
Disposal
2003­
08­
14
,
page
30
Telomer
Research
Program
Telomer
Polymers
Environmental
Entry
Point
­
Air

For
Telomer
Polymers
entering
the
environment
via
a
wastewater
treatment
process,
land­
applied
sludge,
and
landfills,
emissions
to
air
are
expected
to
be
insignificant.


Before
developing
a
hypothesis
for
potential
air
emissions,
we
should
first
evaluate
the
findings
from
the
following
studies:


Mill
Pilot
Study
to
determine
potential
for
Telomer
Polymers
entering
the
Air
via
Process
emissions.


Incineration
studies

Article
Aging
Studies
2003­
08­
14
,
page
31
Telomer
Research
Program
Determine
Relevant
Environmental
Compartments
(
i.
e.,
air,
water,
soil,
sediments)

Determine
Appropriate
Abiotic
and
Biotic
Degradation
Tests
Based
on
Environmental
Compartments
of
Concern
(
E­
Fate
Decision
Trees)

Evaluate
Results
and
Determine
If
Needs
for
Testing
Are
Complete
Logic
Flow
Chart
for
E­
Fate
Assessments
2003­
08­
14
,
page
32
Telomer
Research
Program
Part
2:

Experimental
Design
Discussion
Introduction
&

Proposed
Study
Plan
Technical
Review
2003­
08­
14
,
page
33
Telomer
Research
Program
Environmental
Compartments
and
Biodegradation
Testing

Telomer­
based
polymers
may
be
released
to
the
environment

in
sewage
treatment
plants
(
stp)
adsorbed
to
sludge

in
soil
via
sludge
amendment
to
agricultural
soils

in
soil
(
landfill)
from
sludge
or
disposal
of
treated
articles
(
carpets,

textiles,
paper)


Biodegradation
testing
of
telomer­
based
polymers

has
to
address
the
compartments
given
above

has
to
be
based
on
suitable
test
protocols

has
to
address
the
analytical
methods
for
the
different
matrices
as
well
as
the
detection
limits
needed
for
the
intended
purpose
2003­
08­
14
,
page
34
Telomer
Research
Program
Analytical
Measurement
Limitations

Method
Development
&
Demonstration
needed
for

extraction/
recovery
from
test
matrices:
sludge
and
/
or
soil

What
we
can
measure
:


Fluoride
(
ion­
selective
electrode)


PFOA
:
LC/
MS/
MS

Total
Organic
fluorine
(
Wickbold
torch)


Chemical­
specific
measurement
methods
for
telomer­
based
polymers
are
not
available

may
not
be
able
to
determine
mass
balance
and
transformation
pathway(
s)

without
radiolabeled
test
substance(
s)


radiolabeled
substance(
s)
would
require
substantial
R&
D
effort
2003­
08­
14
,
page
35
Telomer
Research
Program
Proposed
Study
Plan

Telomer­
based
Polymeric
Products
and
"
Isolated"
Polymers

Inherent
Biodegradation
in
Sludge

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Study

Soil
Aerobic
/
Anaerobic
Biodegradation
Study
2003­
08­
14
,
page
36
Telomer
Research
Program
Study
Proposal
Inherent
Biodegradation
in
Sludge

Inherent
Biodegradability
data
will
inform
whether
there
is
potential
for
biotransformation
in
an
Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
(
STP).


OECD
302B
Zahn­
Wellens
28­
day
Study
as
study
design
guideline

high
inoculum
to
substance
ratio

means
the
test
conditions
are
more
favorable
for
biodegradation
than
typical
environmental
conditions

Inherent
study
is
more
favorable
than
actual
STP
conditions

if
the
study
substance
does
not
form
PFOA,
it
would
not
be
expected
to
form
PFOA
in
an
STP

if
the
study
substance
does
form
PFOA,
it
may
or
may
not
form
PFOA
in
an
STP
2003­
08­
14
,
page
37
Telomer
Research
Program
Study
Proposal
Inherent
Biodegradation
in
Sludge
Begin
work
on .


Two
Telomer­
based
Products
and
Two
Telomer­
based
polymers
isolated
from
them

Products
will
be
from
the
12
that
are
included
in
the
TRP
LOI

Two
isolated
polymers
from
the
two
Products

to
understand
whether
the
polymer
alone
undergoes
transformation

characterization
of
the
products
and
isolated
polymers
will
be
done

will
enable
method
development
and
demonstration
Then
 .


Conduct
studies
on
the
remaining
10
Telomer­
based
Polymeric
Products
2003­
08­
14
,
page
38
Telomer
Research
Program
Study
Proposal
Inherent
Biodegradation
in
Sludge

Study
Endpoints

PFOA

Fluoride
[
F­]


LOD's
&
LOQ's
for
each
endpoint
need
to
be
established

Methods

extraction
methods
for
PFOA
need
to
be
demonstrated
in
the
test
system

Timing

protocol
is
being
developed
to
begin
work
as
soon
as
practical
2003­
08­
14
,
page
39
Telomer
Research
Program
Proposed
Study
Plan

Telomer­
based
Polymeric
Products
and
"
Isolated"
Polymers

Inherent
Biodegradation
in
Sludge

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Study

Soil
Aerobic
/
Anaerobic
Biodegradation
Study
2003­
08­
14
,
page
40
Telomer
Research
Program
Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Study:

Proposal
for
Discussion

Partitioning
and
biodegradation
in
an
aerobic
sewage
treatment
system

The
value
of
this
test
is
to
determine
:


Partitioning
to
Sludge
versus
Water

Need
to
understand
sorption
to
sludge
and
sedimentation
in
advance
of
the
study

Biodegradation
under
STP
conditions

It
is
anticipated
that

entry
into
water
via
STP
may
not
be
a
significant
route
into
the
environment
for
telomer­
based
polymers

telomer­
based
polymers
would
likely
be
adsorbed
to
and
/
or
settled
in
sludge

based
upon
OECD
303A
test
guideline

the
simulation
test
guideline
recommends
the
biodegradation
test
to
be
run
at
relevant
concentrations
in
a
dynamic
system

test
duration
up
to
9
weeks

this
system
mimics
the
residence
time
of
a
STP

hydraulic
retention
time
6h

sludge
retention
time
8­
10
d
2003­
08­
14
,
page
41
Telomer
Research
Program
Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Study:

Proposal
for
Discussion

Study
Material(
s)


define
based
upon
results
from
the
Inherent
and
Sorption
Studies

Study
Endpoints

sludge
:
total
organic
fluorine;
PFOA
by
extraction

water
:
total
organic
fluorine;
PFOA;
fluoride
[
F­]


Overall
mass
balance
may
be
accomplished
by
total
organic
fluorine
2003­
08­
14
,
page
42
Telomer
Research
Program
Technical
Hurdles:
Activated
Sludge
Sorption
Guideline

Reliable
Analytical
Methods

Need
methods
with
sufficient
accuracy
to
be
able
to
extract
and
measure
test
substance
in
the
solution
and/
or
the
adsorbed
phase
Issues

Reliable
Analytical
Methods

Total
Organic
Fluorine
is
only
available
tool
but
is
non­
specific

14C­
labeled
polymer
would
be
optimal
to
conduct
this
study,
but
this
would
require
significant
R&
D.
2003­
08­
14
,
page
43
Telomer
Research
Program
Technical
Hurdles:
Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Study
Guideline

Dosage
of
Test
Substance

For
insoluble
substances,
reduce
to
5
mg/
L
DOC
or
even
less,
but
only
if
a
suitable
analytical
method
is
available

Test
at
relevant
substance
concentrations

Measurement
of
Biodegradability

DOC
(
Dissolved
Organic
Carbon)

measurements
are
used
to
assess
bioelimination
(
bioadsorption
plus
biodegradation).


Mass
Balance

Partitioning
of
the
test
substance
is
determined
in
both
the
liquid
and
solid
phases.
Issues

Dosage
of
Test
Substance

Non­
chemical
Specific
Analytical
limitation
for
cold
studies

14C­
labelled
polymer
would
be
optimal
,

but
would
require
significant
R&
D.


Measurement
of
Biodegradability

Analyze
for
PFOA
in
test
system

Mass
Balance

Total
Organic
Fluorine
:
a
non­
chemical
specific
endpoint.
2003­
08­
14
,
page
44
Telomer
Research
Program
Proposed
Study
Plan

Telomer­
based
Polymeric
Products
and
"
Isolated"
Polymers

Inherent
Biodegradation
in
Sludge

Aerobic
Sewage
Treatment
Study

Soil
Aerobic
/
Anaerobic
Biodegradation
Study
2003­
08­
14
,
page
45
Telomer
Research
Program
Aerobic
and
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil:

Proposal
for
Discussion

Soil
will
be
a
relevant
environmental
compartment

Telomer­
based
Polymers
will
likely
partition
to
sludge,
which
likely
will
be
land­
applied
to
some
extent.


Telomer­
based
Polymers
will
likely
end
up
in
landfills
on
disposed
articles.


Test
Objective
:
to
determine
whether
PFOA
is
formed
as
a
result
of
anaerobic
and
aerobic
biodegradation
in
soil

develop
a
study
plan
based
upon
OECD
307
and
304
study
design
guidelines

Begin
with
a
Screening
Study
for
biodegradation
in
soil

120
days
duration

batch
test
in
a
biometer
flasks
2003­
08­
14
,
page
46
Telomer
Research
Program
Aerobic
and
Anaerobic
Transformations
in
Soil:

Proposal
for
Discussion

Study
Materials

two
telomer­
based
polymers

Study
Endpoint
:
PFOA
analysis
in
the
test
system
2003­
08­
14
,
page
47
Telomer
Research
Program
Technical
Hurdles:

Aerobic
and
Anaerobic
Transformation
in
Soil
Guideline

Analytical
Methods

Applicable
to
all
chemical
substances
which
have
analytical
methods
available
with
sufficient
accuracy
and
sensitivity

Biodegradability
&
Mass
Balance

Labelled
(
14C)
material
required
for
determining
transformation
pathways,

rates
and
mass
balance
Issues

Analytical
Methods

Non­
chemical
Specific
Analytical
limitation
for
cold
studies

14C­
labelled
polymer
would
be
optimal
,
but
would
require
significant
R&
D.


Biodegradability
&
Mass
Balance

Analyze
for
PFOA
in
test
system

Total
Organic
Fluorine
:
a
nonchemical
specific
endpoint.
TRP
Telomer
Research
Program
Summary/
Conclusions
&
Path
Forward
2003­
08­
14
,
page
49
Telomer
Research
Program
Summary
and
Conclusion

The
proposed
study
approach

is
based
on
a
step­
wise
progression
based
upon
relevant
routes
into
the
environment,
and
building
upon
knowedge
gained

considers
feasible
and
workable
biotransformation
and
partitioning
studies
that
address
the
central
question
of
EPA

is
based
on
modification
of
available
biodegradation
test
methods

utilizes
available
analytical
methods

such
as
for
PFOA
in
different
matrices
(
sludge,
soil,
surface
water)
and
agreed
LODs
&

LOQs

takes
in
to
consideration
the
ability
to
conduct
work
in
a
timely
manner

is
consistent
with
and
additive
to
the
TRP
Letter
of
Intent
(
LOI)
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Anticipated
Attendees
for
Telomer
Biodegradation
Subgroup
Meeting
Rich
Purdy
Treye
Thomas,
CPSC
John
Heinze,
Environmental
Health
Research
Foundation
(
by
phone)
Volker
Koch,
Clariant
Hiroyuki
Iwai,
Daikin
Satoshi
Komatsu,
Daikin
Ed
Lampert,
Daikin
Yukiko
Nishiyama,
Daikin
Randy
Roussel,
Daikin
Maggie
Martin,
Daikin
Bob
Buck,
DuPont
Bill
Berti,
DuPont
John
Gannon,
DuPont
Steve
Korzeniowski,
DuPont
W.
Michael
McCabe
(
DuPont)
Bill
Hardie,
W.
L.
Gore
Richard
Baillie,
W.
L.
Gore
Erin
Russell,
Clariant
(
by
phone)
Mike
Wernke,
BBL
Sciences
(
Clariant)
(
by
phone)
David
Lynch,
EPA/
EETD
Bob
Boethling,
EPA/
EETD
Andy
Mamantov,
EPA/
EETD
Greg
Fritz,
EPA/
EETD
Laurence
Libelo,
EPA/
EETD
Ward
Penberthy,
EPA/
CCD
Eric
Weber,
EPA/
ORD
Tim
Collette.
EPA/
ORD
Ed
Heithmar,
EPA/
ORD
Rich
Leukroth,
EPA/
CCD
Wendy
Hoffman,
EPA/
EETD
(
Observer:
Barbara
Smyser,
CPS
[
TRP])
(
by
phone)
(
Observer:
Katie
Smythe,
RAND
[
TRP])
(
Observer:
David
Menotti,
Shaw
Pittman
[
Asahi])
(
Observer:
Bill
Beers,
OMNOVA
Solutions)
PFOA
ECATeloiner
Biodegradation
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
14,
2003
~
ll
kovr/
e
i~_~?
L.
óc',
a­

W,
L­,

~
nrC
~
WaSOE
~
S'&?
b4orc/'
e
2­
1to5o~
2­\
M\

*
1
(
V~
z/
CF
L___
fAl,
i
~
&~
u~
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
gJ
]­
j,~
­
L~~

`?:
AtJE
54a,
zws)
7oi­
7fl
­~
c~

Ep,*
~.~
zerc~
W
Bin
ejant
sAEg1vrnutznnJE(~>
eeI4.
caK
,
lsc
n
5~
i%~
k;
k~
m2i~
It?­
Daik'~
Zo
Z
 
~
'
Z~
­
Sin
~/­
i43fq­
4

?
i
,4s*
4
721
cn
 
~

sctfosht.
koj'ngtsa
Wcfct?
kitn1to,.
Jp
~

),~
u~
tØ~~
(~.
/
J~

ro&
t&
4kI~.
c~
4
wll'@
s4i~,'
4z.~
.
cawi
~
oL~~
4\'~
~
~/~
5L~
~
/~
t~
c
Ro~
nc\
y1~
LkSS&
L.

VIA
Vkle',
4t1
U444~
b
D~,
LkLti~

Occ~­
c.~
a
te.
c~

~
t~
tLr~
ykc4;
A~
L
&
kS~
*/­
~

~

lSb3O(
0~
tOO
~
8~
7~
Cc$
tnct
7~?~
St?/

8oR
`
BoETHLAAIC­
~

4
&
LLAEIItt)

Auiuc­
e,
t~
i
MOLI.
J1\~/
EY~
A
kA@
1~

(
2tWX/
c4ttincus>
C
N~
4~
O4!
r
~
7'
1cEfl
2OZ­~
j­
2fl3
ffoe7Igpkc.
a~
R4?
E)@
4.
s­
ev
t~
t
y~
3(~
a
~&

Th'­
63~
/,,//
~
?
øa)
3(
4474~)
VtL;~,
Y,
y~
c=~
U~~
<}
55i*)
AJt(
CSM
­
Zn
­
5t?­
flr
,~
aJ­~
a~
ifou,
t4Ly(~~
q't.
96V'

tZP
two
~
e
wL46.
cc
f~
rcw­
H­
t~
ranô.
Oa~

`

.
zozf~
i~­
io~

ZO2~~
fr6/
~
rt~
n.
hv~~
Q
~
~
ci
ho~
.
ii~

U
 
C)
PFOA
ECA
Telomer
Biodegradation
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
14,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
çps4J
flhidvAkMt~
F
~

ask1c
S~
i~
E~
r~
y~

~
fla4­
k~
1
v~
M2oct4
9M'tb
6­~
t1~
jj
Jb~
J5T
~
3Jwtt
Pa
cT~
Q~

C\
JL~
fv
C~
eo~
cO3
i
`
ErR
2ck­
3~
S~

MQi~
LV3
24or5~
q.
ctzc7
~
S­~
j~

~

2o2~
s­~­
qoa~
2oa­
sbg­&
ccj
zn­
siu9'
~
Jp~
c~
t1
w4oVL.&
S
®
M~
114~
tWL6Th
~
s+
€
~
\
Lmt~*~
cE~~

CJo~
k.
L.\~
¼
toc4~~

+
p~
n~
Rc~
tY~
e
°
1AO~
IC&~
(
cw~­
7
cr~
4+
k~
r.~
ov
jfNoH.
d~~
I?
t~&,
dcu5'
ot/

L~`
Ae/
a
j
/
kc1r~
j~
TLn1~~
&
V&~­~
fg­
t4~
4~

Ac~
fr~
Je2~
IAu/
xJ
f~
f
/
0
lLe~
rIco
c
Li
&
P4
CPSc
1­
PA
~
/~
7fl
CIcAV
~
C4L~
t
ZOL
­
scr­~
s­
s3~

3ô(­
5o4­
77fl
~
1o­
z~~

l~
t
~
c~
yr;~
z
~
~
tpu
+~~­
6i561~
flYJ
L,'
Le'o
tQonncaccS
6P4
­
COV
*(
4matr
(
8
q&
sr.
qcv
wd~
tpct
5~"
V
/
PC~~
~
t
~
­
y
~

yoljc~~
kockQ
ci~
v'
C4t4t
Co&
ci.

L
f&
Mt
~
Cft
~
Qni~~
j
.

~

tn~
~
3Cr­
~
wo
~
J5~`/
2~
°
0~/
O
U~
V~
~
r

L@
1OYe~
sth~~
C
ah­~

ck~
f~,
A~
4~/
oo~
~&
t~
~
j
,1nr­
iet~
c~
t/~
i'
9
2o~
si~
~~(­~­~
1ic
c(
a~&~@~

&
1i~
ts1~
fV7(//
i71~
~
iv~'
ctk&
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
Introduction
The
PFOA
ECA
Plenary
session
held
on
July
10,
2003,
approved
an
action
plan
for
the
Fluoropolymer
Workgroup
to
form
a
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods.
This
subgroup
will
assess
the
adequacy
of
available
incineration
test
methods
so
as
to
inform
a
technical
assessor
on
the
details
of
fluoropolymer
degradation
and
the
concurrent
formation
of
by­
products
of
that
process.
Where
needed,
specific
approaches
to
address
the
unique
characteristics
of
fluoropolymers
and
fluoropolymer­
based
polymers
will
be
agreed
upon.

Goals
/
Objectives
The
goals
of
this
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
are:

1)
Identify
the
scope
and
goals
of
proposed
incineration
testing
2)
Develop
a
testing
protocol,
supporting:
a.
Thermogravimetric
analysis
to
define
gasification
temperature
per
ASTM
E1641.
b.
Laboratory
Scale
Thermal
Degradation
Test:
per
the
3M
protocol
[
OPPT­
2003­
0012­
0151]
as
developed
by
the
University
of
Dayton
3)
Identify
intermediate
temperatures
at
which
to
run
the
test,
so
as
to
satisfy
other
incineration
regimes
(
e.
g.,
across
a
variety
of
incinerator
types;
sub­
optimal
operating
scenarios).

4)
Develop
methods
that
will
yield
the
temperature
needed
to
provide
99.99%
destruction
of
each
fluoropolymer
test
substance
at
a
residence
time
of
2
seconds
in
the
high
temperature
zone.

5)
Identify
a
list
of
representative
fluoropolymers
and/
or
other
materials
for
incineration
testing.

6)
Report
back
to
the
Fluoropolymers
Workgroup
regarding
the
details
of
testing
details
that
could
be
incorporated
into
an
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
(
ECA)
for
testing
fluoropolymers
and/
or
fluoropolymer­
treated
materials.

Meetings
Meetings
will
be
held
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
Washington,
DC.
The
initial
meeting
will
be
from
9:
00
to
4:
00
on
Tuesday,
August
19,
2003.
Attendance
may
be
via
conference
call
or
in
person.
Meeting
materials
will
be
distributed
one
week
in
advance
of
the
meeting.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
Tentative
Agenda
 
First
Meeting
Tuesday,
August
19,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
4:
00
PM
EPA
East,
Room
4225
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
 
Discussion
of
Goals
/
Objectives
 
Comments
on
Adequacy
of
Existing
Incineration
Test
Protocol
 
Key
Protocol
Elements
°
Test
Temperatures
°
Residence
time
°
Other
S
Proposed
Methods
Modifications
S
Polymers/
chemicals
to
be
tested
&
criteria
for
choosing
selected
materials
S
Data
Quality
Considerations
 
Next
Steps
Fluoropolymer
Manufacturing
Group
Proposal
Draft,
August
7,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
Introduction
The
PFOA
ECA
Plenary
session
held
on
July
10,
2003,
approved
an
action
plan
for
the
Fluoropolymer
Workgroup
to
form
a
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods.
This
subgroup
will
assess
the
adequacy
of
available
incineration
test
methods
so
as
to
inform
a
technical
assessor
on
the
details
of
fluoropolymer
thermal
degradation
and
the
potential
concurrent
formation
of
PFOA.
Where
needed,
specific
approaches
to
address
the
unique
characteristics
of
fluoropolymers
will
be
agreed
upon.

Goals
/
Objectives
The
goals
of
this
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
are:

1)
Identify
the
scope
and
goals
of
proposed
incineration
testing­
Determine
if
incineration
of
fluoropolymers
is
a
potential
source
of
PFOA
at
operating
conditions
that
are
representative
of
relevant
types
of
waste
incinerators.

2)
Identify
a
list
of
representative
fluoropolymers
and/
or
other
materials
for
incineration
testing.

3)
Identify
temperatures
at
which
to
run
the
test(
s)
to
represent
operating
conditions
for
relevant
types
of
waste
incinerators.

4)
Develop
a
testing
protocol
using
well­
accepted
laboratory­
scale
incineration
testing
practices
and
suitable
sampling
and
analytical
techniques.

5)
Report
back
to
the
Fluoropolymers
Workgroup
regarding
the
details
of
testing
details
that
could
be
incorporated
into
an
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
(
ECA)
for
testing
fluoropolymers
and/
or
fluoropolymer­
treated
materials.

Meetings
Meetings
will
be
held
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
Washington,
DC.
The
initial
meeting
will
be
from
9:
00
to
4:
00
on
Tuesday,
August
19,
2003.
Attendance
may
be
via
conference
call
or
in
person.
Meeting
materials
will
be
distributed
one
week
in
advance
of
the
meeting.
Fluoropolymer
Manufacturing
Group
Proposal
Draft,
August
7,
2003
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
Tentative
Agenda
­
First
Meeting
Tuesday,
August
19,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
4:
00
PM
EPA
East,
Room
4225
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
­
Discussion
of
Goals
/
Objectives
­
Review
of
Recent
Fluoropolymer­
Related
Incineration
Studies
­
Key
Elements
of
Proposed
Test
Protocol
 
Test
Temperatures
 
Residence
time
 
Sampling
&
Analysis
 
Other
­
Polymers/
chemicals
to
be
tested
&
criteria
for
choosing
selected
materials
­
Data
Quality
Considerations
­
Next
Steps
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incineration
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
Incineration
Testing
Proposal
August
19,
2003
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
2
Overall
Objective
Determine
if
incineration
of
fluoropolymers
is
a
potential
source
of
PFOA
to
the
environment
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
3
Discussion
Objective
°
Work
toward
agreement
on
key
elements
of
test
program
to
enable
development
of
test
protocol
and
ECA
for
incineration
testing
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
4
Discussion
Outline
1.
Identify
representative
materials
for
incineration
testing
2.
Review
relevant
incineration
conditions
3.
Present
key
elements
of
proposed
test
program
a.
Test
objective
b.
Test
program
phases
c.
Test
materials
d.
Experimental
apparatus
e.
Experimental
conditions
f.
Sampling
and
analysis
4.
Discuss
next
steps
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
5
1.
Identify
representative
materials
for
incineration
testing
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
6
Fluoropolymer
Industry
Overview
Isolation/
Drying
Extrusion
/
pelletization
Molding
process
Tubing/
Hose
Films
Molded
Fittings/
valves
Wire
&
Cable
Insulation
Metal
liners
­

pumps,
pipes,
valves
Fibers
Stabilization
Concentration
Formulation/

Coating/
casting
/
process
Sintering/
baking
Un­
sintered
products
Cookware
Industrial
Filter
bags
Coated
parts
Fibrous
gaskets
Clay
absorbents
Isolation/

Drying
Molding/
sintering/

curing/
post
curing
process
W&
C
insulation
Hose/
Tubing
Pipe
liners
Membranes
O­
rings/
seals
Additives
Dry
­
non
melt
resins/
gums
Molding
unsintered
products
Thread
sealant
tapes
Resin
Manufacturer
Resin
Processor
Polymerization
APFO
Dry
melt
resins
Monomers
Aqueous
Dispersions
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
7
Representative
Classes
°
Dry
melt
resins
1.
FEP,
PFA,
THV,
ETFE,
HTE
°
Dry
non­
melt
resins/
gums
2.
PTFE
(
perfluorinated)

3.
Fluoroelastomers
(
nonperfluorinated)

°
Aqueous
dispersions
4.
PTFE,
FEP,
PFA,
THV
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
8
Proposed
Test
Materials
°
Four
composite
mixtures
(
one
per
class):

1.
Dry
melt
resins
(
FEP,
PFA,
THV,
ETFE,
HTE)

2.
PTFE
3.
Fluoroelastomers
4.
Aqueous
dispersions
(
PTFE,
FEP,
PFA,
THV)

°
Each
composite
will
be
mixture
of
representative
fluoropolymers,
as
solids,
in
equal
proportions
across
producers
for
each
class
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
9
2.
Review
relevant
incineration
conditions
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
10
Municipal
Waste
Combustors
(
MWCs)

in
U.
S.
­
20001,2,3,4
0.4
13
Modular
30
102
Total
6.7
19
Refused
Derived
Fuel
(
RDF)
23
70
Mass
Burn
Annual
Capacity
(
million
T/
year)

No.
of
Facilities
Type
Note:
90%
of
U.
S.

MWC
capacity
is
at
Large
MWCs
(~
60%
of
facilities)

1
­
EPA,
"
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
The
United
States
:
2000
Facts
&
Figures",
EPA530­
R­
02­
001,
June
2002
2
­
Integrated
Waste
Services
Association
(
IWSA),
"
Fast
Facts
about
Waste­
to­
Energy"
and
other
information
3
­
Eastern
Research
Group,
"
2000
National
Inventory
of
Large
Municipal
Waste
Combustion
Units",
June
12,
2002
4
­
EPA,
"
Emission
Guidelines
for
Existing
Small
Municipal
Waste
Combustion
Units",
65
FR76380,
Dec.
6,
2000
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
11
MWC
Operating
Conditions
°
Many
incinerators
for
municipal
solid
waste
are
designed
to
operate
in
the
combustion
zone
at
1800
°
F
[
982
°
C]
to
2000
°
F
[
1093
°
C]
1
°
Combustion
gases
in
traveling
grate
mass
burn
units
are
maintained
"
at
about
1800
°
F
[
982
°
C]
to
ensure
complete
combustion
of
organic
compounds"
prior
to
passing
to
the
boiler2
°
U.
S.
standards
for
MWCs
include
Good
Combustion
Practices
(
GCP)

 
"
The
ability
of
an
MWC
to
achieve
combustion
temperatures
that
are
adequate
to
destroy
organics
is
a
fundamental
requirement
of
GCP".
3
°
Refuse
derived
fuel
in
a
unit
in
the
GCP
study
(
Mid­
Connecticut)
3
is
combusted
at
furnace
temperature
>
1800
°
F
[
982
°
C]
4
1
­
U.
S.
EPA,
Decision
Maker's
Guide
to
Solid
Waste
Management,
Volume
II,
1995
2
­
Donnelly,
J.
R.
Waste
incineration
sources:
refuse.
In:
Buonicore,
A.
J.;
Davis,
W.
T.,
eds.,
Air
Pollution
Engineering
Manual.
Air
and
Waste
Management
Association.
New
York,
NY:
Van
Nostrand
Reinhold,
1992,.
pp.
263­
275
3
­
U.
S.
EPA,
Municipal
Waste
Combustion
Assessment:
Technical
Basis
for
Good
Combustion
Practice,
EPA
600/
8­
89­
063,
August
1989
4­
http://
www.
nu.
com/
energy/
stations/
south.
asp
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
12
Modular
MWC
Temperatures1,2
Secondary
Chamber
Temperature
Oswego
Co.,
NY
Red
Wing,

MN
Start
of
campaign
1012
Mid­
range
secondary
temperature
951
End
of
campaign
995
Low
secondary
temperature
885
Mean
secondary
temperature
954
­
1071
1
­
U.
S.
EPA,
Municipal
Waste
Combustion
Assessment:
Technical
Basis
for
Good
Combustion
Practice,
EPA
600/
8­
89­
063,
August
1989,
pp.
4­
30
­
4­
32;
temperatures
during
which
CO
emissions
met
GCP
standard
2
­
Note
modular
units
are
more
commonly
used
at
small
MWC
facilities
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
13
Medical
Waste
Incinerators
°
Three
types
of
incinerators
are
primarily
used
for
medical
waste:
controlled
air
incinerators,

multiple
chamber
incinerators,
&
rotary
kiln
incinerators1
 
All
three
types
of
medical
waste
incinerators
(
MWIs)
use
two
chambers
Controlled
Air
Multiple
Chamber
Rotary
Kiln
Primary
Chamber
400
to
980
°
C
540
to
980
°
C
760
°
C
Secondary
Chamber
980
to
1200
°
C
980
to
1200
°
C
980
°
C
EPA
notes
that
97%
of
MWIs
are
controlled
air
modular
furnaces
and
1%

are
rotary
kilns2
°
"
any
unit
which
presently
has
a
residence
time
less
than
two
seconds
at
1000
C
(
1832
F)

does
not
meet
the
requirement
for
good
combustion
under
the
new
regulations"
3
1
­
Theodore,
L.
Air
Pollution
Control
and
Waste
Incineration
for
Hospitals
and
Other
Medical
Facilities,
Van
Nostrand
Reinhold,

New
York,
1990,
pp
313­
320..

2
­
U.
S.
EPA,
Exposure
and
Human
Health
Reassessment
of
2,3,7,8­
Tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
Dioxin
(
TCDD)
and
Related
Compounds,

Part
I:
Estimating
Exposure
to
Dioxin­
Like
Compounds
Volume
2:
Sources
of
Dioxin­
Like
Compounds
in
the
United
States,
Chapter
3,

EPA/
600/
P­
00/
001Bb,
Draft
Final
Report,
September
2000
3
­
Van
Remmen,
T.
Evaluation
of
the
available
air
pollution
control
technologies
for
achievement
of
the
MACT
requirements
in
the
newly
implemented
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
and
emission
guidelines
(
EG)
for
hospital
and
medical/
infectious
waste
incinerators,
Waste
Management,
1998,
Vol.
18,
p.
394
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
14
Proposed
Test
Conditions
°
MWIs
typically
operate
with
secondary
chamber
residence
times
of
2
seconds
at
>
1000
oC
°
>
90%
of
municipal
solid
waste
is
combusted
in
MWCs
typically
operating
with
secondary
stage
temperatures
~
982
oC1
(
res
time
~
2
seconds)

°
Plan
testing
at
MWC
conditions
 
Conservatively
propose
900
oC
at
2
sec
residence
time
1­
Typical
secondary
stage
temperatures
for
mass
burn
&
RDF
units
~
982
oC
based
on
available
information
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
15
3.
Summarize
key
elements
of
test
program
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
16
Test
Program
Objective
°
Investigate
incineration
of
fluoropolymers
under
laboratory­
scale
conditions
representative
of
typical
municipal
waste
combustor
operations
in
the
U.
S.
to
quantitatively
determine
emission
levels
of
PFOA
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
17
Phases
of
Test
Program
1.
Development
and
approval
of
Test
Protocol/
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
QAPP)

2.
Thermogravimetric
analysis
of
test
materials
3.
Preliminary
gasification
&
combustion
tests
for
test
materials
4.
Verification
of
quantitative
transport
of
PFOA
5.
Other
method
development
as
needed
6.
Combustion
tests
at
specified
operating
condition(
s)

7.
Data
reduction
and
report
development
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
18
Proposed
Test
Materials
°
Four
composite
mixtures
(
one
per
class):

1.
Dry
melt
resins
(
FEP,
PFA,
THV,
ETFE,
HTE)

2.
PTFE
3.
Fluoroelastomers
4.
Aqueous
dispersions
(
PTFE,
FEP,
PFA,
THV)

°
Each
composite
will
be
mixture
of
representative
fluoropolymers,
as
solids,
in
equal
proportions
across
producers
for
each
class
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
19
Experimental
Apparatus
°
General
Description
 
a
batch­
charged
continuous
flow
reactor
system
°
The
test
sample
is
gasified
and
transported
to
a
high
temperature
reactor
°
In
the
high
temperature
reactor,
the
sample
vapors
are
subjected
to
controlled
conditions
of
residence
time,

temperature,
and
excess
air
°
Combustion
products
are
collected
for
quantitative
analysis
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
20
Experimental
Conditions
°
Each
test
feed
will
be
subjected
to
laboratory­
scale
incineration
using
the
experimental
apparatus
°
Temperature:
900
°
C
for
2
seconds
residence
time
°
Three
replicates
for
each
test
level
(
combination
of
test
feed
and
temperature)

°
Also,
a
blank
run
for
each
operating
condition
°
Amount
of
test
material
fed
will
be
large
enough
to
assure
ability
to
detect
PFOA
in
the
emissions,
but
small
enough
to
assure
sufficient
excess
oxygen
to
be
representative
of
typical
MWC
conditions
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
21
Planned
Sampling
&
Analysis
°
Exhaust
gas
parameters
to
be
monitored:

 
flow
rate,
oxygen
(
O2)
1,
carbon
dioxide
(
CO2),
and
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)

°
Exhaust
gas
 
will
be
collected
on
suitable
sorbent
cartridge(
s)
and
/
or
in
aqueous
solution
trap(
s)
for
off­
line
analysis
to
quantify
PFOA
°
Sampling
and
analysis
methods
 
adapt
&
validate
available
PFOA
methods
for
this
study
 
investigate
total
organic
fluorine
analysis
of
exhaust
gas2
1
­
O2
in
exhaust
gas
is
planned
to
be
monitored
via
calculation
based
on
air
input
flow
2
­
Exhaust
gas
analysis
for
fluoride
ion
is
planned
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
22
Sampling
&
Analysis
Methods
°
Sample
exhaust
gas
 
Sorbent
Cartridge
°
OSHA
Versatile
Sampler
(
OVS)

°
analyze
for
PFOA
 
Aqueous
Solution
°
use
one
or
more
impingers
containing
aqueous
solution
°
analyze
for
PFOA
°
Analyze
exhaust
gas
for
PFOA
 
via
off­
line
LC/
MS/
MS
at
a
qualified
commercial
laboratory
operating
under
suitable
data
quality
guidelines
°
Analyze
exhaust
for
fluoride
ion
to
assist
in
performing
fluoride
balance
across
experimental
system
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
23
Test
Materials
Characterization
°
elemental
analysis
to
determine
carbon,

hydrogen,
nitrogen,
chlorine,
fluorine
and
oxygen
by
difference
°
total
organic
fluorine
August
19,
2003
presentation
to
Technical
Subgroup
on
Incinerator
Test
Methods
for
Fluoropolymers
24
4.
Discuss
Next
Steps
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Anticipated
Attendees
for
Fluoropolymer
Incineration
Subgroup
Meeting
John
Heinze,
Environmental
Health
Research
Foundation
(
by
phone)
Takayuki
Nakamura,
Daikin
TWG
(
fluoro­
technical)
Edward
Lampert,
Daikin
Yukiko
Nishiyama,
Daikin
Satoshi
Komatsu,
Daikin
Maggie
Martin,
Daikin
Robert
Giraud,
DuPont
Noel
Misa,
Asahi
Glass
FMG
(
strategic/
business)
Lynne
Harris,
SPI
Phil
Taylor,
University
of
Dayton
(
Expert)
Lisa
Walton,
W.
L.
Gore
Lisa
Campbell,
Bergeson
&
Campbell
(
Gore)
John
Blouin,
EPA/
EETD
Eric
Stewart,
EPA/
ORD
Ward
Penberthy,
EPA/
CCD
Ed
Heithmar,
EPA/
ORD
Rich
Leukroth,
EPA/
CCD
Wendy
Hoffman,
EPA/
EETD
Nhan
Nguyen,
EPA/
EETD
PFOA
ECA
Fluoropolymer
Incineration
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
19,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
ae~~~
iJ(&

fbe
D4wect~
t
~
cfl
(~
5i~
733~~'
37
~
oi~
g~­
~
qo~
Ud­
gv'M'u'u.
cociv~_

­

ytj,
/
¼
~
Aai,
ta
vet
baiM~­,
t
a~~
c­
3oc­
9r7~
j774~
4rn~
k(
i~
a'~
t,'
k11
:
am
ø­
ca
°(
9~~
~

°
7o2­
q7tf­
5~~
t
(~

­~
cc~@
cocp(
o~

L'~
flfl%~~/~
AU(>

~

WarLPerthserthy
~
yyj'

~
4
£
P.
4
.
z12­
#
pu~
san
2Dt
~~/&
y
(
aol)
s~
9­
fJ7i
tL~~
l~/~
4~
pentUnty.
wArI~
t,
m
~~
DV
.

r~~
1O~
Th~
v,
~~/`~
t
&
alo3ics
~
AC~
y
7,
cq)
cooq~

­
~
Ot~

399­
2W~
rJOuvc)
LjQ
eross~
l~
Lpen~'~
on
d~
v'd~
twr~
k~~
s
Co~

A
~

~
Po~
r
2oZ­
c6~~
2V7
3o2
­

MLy
~
ct~
f~
v
~
k~­
Lw~
s~
3r
L~/
A)
42~~

Usa
~
`
J)
awtd
mCMuft(
Fil~
F
­
t4(
ôffI
CMj~
na,

L
&\(
ctC~
wtt~
~
J~
t&
i
`
c~­~
­~
c~

fl
~
C
&
3f
I
~
tçfl'qP~

~

q/
o
­
S~
6­
S6~/
~
a~
d&
ovt~
?
oa­
cv7­­~
0
­~
oen'~
r
­

rc~

n~&
kou1&
j'~
QtJe~
1dV
aJ~
c~
r.
Lis/
4~~
i
 
'
~
C~
CtflAObtU
€
c­
owL
4~°
n~
v~
j
y~
1fl
PFOA
ECA
Fluoropolymer
Incineration
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
19,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
(
7~~
/
V/~/
z/
ya~

$
l'n12,~
l6ma
isa
~~/
c;~

ba
1k/
n
7~
W­
6­­~

3~?­*
6
~
ikc.
n/
s
~

se~
tnh;
atsw~
c/
a;
jcj'n.
ci>

 
i~
L.­
Th.
we
~
rn
€
fA
~~
sci~~
ntzz
20Z
5eLE~
L7~
`
7*

3AEJQ)
D*
W.
2n6fJS('
PSM~
&
O
~
C+~
Ro
L~~
to~
J~
iL3
~
ft~~
6
/
ec~
2?
4/
SETh
~
z~
t/~
v­
S/
oy
J~,
cf~~'
s/~

­
/
ea~~~
~
c~.
6~/
~/
a~
a~
~
JuJ~
r2
EPA
~
j­
wr
~
~
Jt~
6~)
EPA
~,

Lftu
1~
ENC~
LtG(
t
FIC~
XL
~
E
g~
4
~(*
f~
hAiC
(
gL/
PH~
c
~
o&
7?~
g
°
~
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Analysis
of
Aged
Fluoropolymer
Articles
Technical
Subgroup
Tentative
Agenda
 
First
Meeting
Wednesday,
August
20,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
4:
00
PM
EPA
East,
Room
4225
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
FMG
proposes
that
the
initial
meeting
of
this
subgroup
will
focus
on
reviewing
the
selection
criteria
for
aged
articles.

Subsequent
meetings
propose
to
focus
on
test
methods
for
aged
articles.

EPA
suggests
that
it
may
be
preferable
to
address
test
methods
rather
than
selection
criteria
at
the
initial
meeting.
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
1
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
2
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
3
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
4
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
5
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
6
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
7
Polymerization
Isolation/
Drying
Extrusion
/

pelletization
Molding
process
Resin
Manufacturer
Resin
Processor
Tubing/
Hose
Films
Molded
Fittings/
valves
Wire
&
Cable
Insulation
Metal
liners
­
pumps,
pipes,
valves
Fibers
APFO
Monomers
Fluoropolymer
Industry
Overview
Stabilization
Concentration
Formulation/

Coating/
casting
/
process
Sintering/
baking
Un­
sintered
products
Aqueous
Dispersions
Cookware
Industrial
Filter
bags
Coated
parts
Fibrous
gaskets
Clay
absorbents
Dry
melt
resins
Isolation/

Drying
Molding/
sintering/
curing/
post
curing
process
W&
C
insulation
Hose/
Tubing
Pipe
liners
Membranes
O­
rings/
seals
Additives
Dry
­
non
melt
resins/
gums
Molding
unsintered
products
Thread
sealant
tapes
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
8
 
Melt/
Extrusion
­
polymer
is
melted
to
create
finished
polymer
 
Polymer
drying
­
polymer
is
dried
to
create
finished
polymer
 
Liquid
Dispersion
­
finished
polymer
is
an
aqueous
dispersion
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
9
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
10
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
11
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
12
Commercial
Food
Preparation
Cookware
Architectural
Fabrics
Clay
Absorbents
Fibrous
Gaskets
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
13
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
14
1
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
15
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
16
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
17
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Anticipated
Attendees
for
Aged
Fluoropolymer
Articles
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
Rich
Purdy
Treye
Thomas,
CPSC
John
Heinze,
Environmental
Health
Research
Foundation
Bill
Buxton,
DuPont
TWG
George
Millet,
Dyneon
TWG
Joan
Sylvain
Baughan,
Keller
&
Heckman
(
Expert)
David
Rurak,
DuPont
FMG
David
Sarvadi,
Keller
&
Heckman
Allen
Weidman,
SPI/
FMG
Takayuki
Nakamura,
Daikin
TWG
(
fluoro­
technical)
Edward
Lampert,
Daikin
Yukiko
Nishiyama,
Daikin
Satoshi
Komatsu,
Daikin
Maggie
Martin,
Daikin
Lisa
Walton,
W.
L.
Gore
Susan
Youngren,
Bergeson
&
Campbell
(
Gore)
Conrad
(
Skip)
Flessner,
EPA/
EETD
Greg
Fritz,
EPA/
EETD
Zhishi
Guo,
EPA/
ORD
Barbara
Leczynski,
EPA/
CCD
Ward
Penberthy,
EPA/
CCD
Ross
Highsmith,
EPA/
ORD
Ed
Heithmar,
EPA/
ORD
Rich
Leukroth,
EPA/
CCD
Jasbir
Sarna,
EPA/
EETD
Wendy
Hoffman,
EPA/
EETD
(
Observer:
David
Menotti,
Shaw
Pittman
[
Asahi])
PFOA
ECA
Fluoropolymer
Aged
Articles
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
29,2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
IØd,
t~
D~
J~.
ce~~%
c,
r
zo~
co~~(~
i'i
~
c~
vr,
e~(
4va4o
~

fr/
Il/
elall
13V)
CflS/

2
~
4fc
274w0k
y~?~
cF
D~
1_
sf.
fl3S43/
Joz~??
V~`
L­
5V
302999~
2~'~
gho;
i/
c/
cm'mrs.
con't~

fz~
9i/
fihJ'~
rx/'
u
5
&.
4yD4c
t
n~

~
Sk­
O~
tM~

TALLQ4
\
JelDrsJ
SQ
i/
¶
rf%
tc2~,
202.
?
74.
flfl
~~
wciDAlAN
€
SccR­
t9.
odcc3
b6~
5?
I
~
2b2~
9j~
yzza
u~
eo~~
5~
Cp!
aS0~
Ward
Pen~
erthy
EPA
(
aol)
s4q­
gi7'
p
€
nberMy.
&
ya~
rA6tpA.
~,&
v
cw­~

4~
henJex~
727n1t~
~
I
reE?
~
Pu~
y
~
cYT
F~'
4
f~
4
tPsc
N~
Z92­
t7'
lflfl
~

30/
~
/
293
~
7~
r
7/
c~/
2coo~
o
?
I4n,~'
5CcgvJas.
cQ~
c~
L
~

~
9g
7e~~
CFS~
4'~
F/
J4.
Ko
V
&~
LM4~~
C~
iS'CejoV
rpurd'j
~
pri~~
co~

~
R­~
c~
n
(
i~
kk~
F~
e4da~
rL&
v
CA~~
54
~
e
1/
(~
pj
~
Ffl
17J>
A
,~
~
2F
~
2­~­­
g~
w,
2O~
S6~­
8ccI
~­
s2t1~
tt2Z
~
O/
­~
3f­
O3f(
­~­
çgcicc~
c\
r~
w)~~
e~
p~
rs
1rav"
l
€
~
~
r~
a°'~
r~
o~

1iL~
6kfl~'
ttcJe,
e
3(
tltet
~
k.
Mw
ii!
joa­
Y,
q­
YtS'S
kw

w.
c~

zccttr~
Enaa\'
xw.

P~
V
~
4~
4''
M~,'~
w~
AAtckrnLulLL
~
fM
zaa
~

~/
L/~
Woc
W?­
k4/­
0/~

~
tarn
~

~
c
~
h.
s/
v~
~
PFOA
ECA
Fluoropolyiner
Aged
Articles
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
20,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
24
~

~
~
wL~
~
4~/

c~
c~
cc
~

~
"
U'>
o~
Cwvt?
iDdL
EPAJo~.
b
~/
DffT/~
w
flft/
oi7r
aftc/~,
o,
c~­
i­

E?
A/
CFPT
L
cs.*
t­
Cc
€
~
I
€
U?
Be~~
~
°
1o~.­
1gR­
t~
2~~

2~.~
zot­
a'r­
cnt
Zoz­
sc'/~&
ss3
~
0~
st~­
ssr~
~
t
`°

~
 
ss­~­~
a
A
~

~
ci:
tw
.
C­
C/
J
~
~
tQ
I
~
xaca
n~
i\
oc.
co~

3ss~
diJer
Vi
Vtavid
flle
n
a
~

//\
/:~
yriK/
/~
ki
i'iyQ
4
"`
hV?
fl~
k
~
3t~
1
2D
z.~
j­&~~
~
N~
i1
t­
n~­
fcwhc.
c~
i
L`
iwa
c~
sw~~
~

Ar~
4i~
7~
cx
1)
4;
/
c;;
v'
aoi­
Pr~~
gç
4
~
C
 
9~
7~
noelL
­

~
(
E!
ifl
Ga1a4,~/
4rn,
ats'e,
~
~
sh
;~
,~
Z7p;
kn
~
Th~­
6~
6319­
4

32
*
1­
~
2~
9
en.
Jp
6t~
~
J~
r­~

rJ~
fl~
CRvt~
7D41~_
11J
eec/
cc~
~/~
r­~
7n
zot/
ç~~~
g/~
7
­
~
\(/~
A~.
&~

&
c~
cD~
o
~
C/(@
~
TjihtjlckkJ
~
~
Jdkt4cr~
3~
M
~&/
o~
7r
~
o­~
37­)?
31
po~
~
u
~
~

Ccg~
~&
C/
9,~

~
2c2
~
6'
f­?
2C7
~
C~~~\~
cjs,

~
j
~
c
~
9y
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Environmental
Monitoring
Technical
Telomer
and
Fluoropolymer
Subgroups
Introduction
At
the
Technical
Workgroup
meeting
on
July
9,
2003
and
the
Plenary
session
held
on
July
10,
2003,
the
group
agreed
in
principle
that
additional
work
is
needed
to
define
the
goals
and
scope
of
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursor
monitoring
efforts.
EPA
committed
to
developing
a
straw
schedule
for
telomer
and
fluoropolymer
monitoring
subgroup(
s)
to
meet
to
discuss
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
for
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors.

Goals
The
goals
of
the
Telomer
and
Fluoropolymer
Monitoring
Subgroup(
s)
are:

1)
Develop
an
understanding
of
how
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
fit
into
the
overall
objective
of
understanding
how
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors
are
released
into
the
environment,
their
fate
and
transport
once
released,
and
routes
of
human
and
environmental
exposure.

2)
Identify
specific
questions
that
can
be
addressed
by
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring.

3)
Assess
how
current
LOI
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
complements
(
2)
above,
and
whether
additional
sampling/
monitoring
may
be
necessary.

4)
Report
back
to
the
PFOA
ECA
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
in
September
2003.

Meetings
Meetings
will
be
held
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
Washington,
DC.
The
first
meeting
of
the
subgroup
is
scheduled
from
9:
00
to
4:
00
on
August
15,
2003,
to
discuss
telomer
monitoring.
The
second
subgroup
is
scheduled
from
9:
00
to
4:
00
on
August
21,
2003,
to
discuss
fluoropolymer
monitoring.
All
parties
are
encouraged
to
attend
in
person,
if
possible,
but
teleconference
facilities
will
be
arranged
for
those
unable
to
travel.
EPA
requests
that
all
interested
parties
submit
any
presentation
or
discussion
material
for
general
distribution
one
week
prior
to
the
meetings.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Environmental
Monitoring
Technical
Subgroups
Tentative
Agenda
 
First
Meetings
Telomer
Monitoring
Subgroup
Friday,
August
15,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
4:
00
PM
Fluoropolymer
Monitoring
Subgroup
Thursday,
August
21,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
4:
00
PM
EPA
East,
Room
4225
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
1.
Discussion
of
how
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
fit
into
the
overall
objective
of
understanding
how
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors
are
released
into
the
environment,
their
fate
and
transport
once
released,
and
routes
of
human
and
environmental
exposure.

2.
Identification
of
specific
questions
that
can
be
addressed
by
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring.

3.
Assessment
of
how
current
LOI
activities
complement
the
goals
and
questions
identified
by
the
parties
in
(
1)
and
(
2).

4.
Identification
of
potential
additional
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
activities
that
could
achieve
the
goals
and
answer
the
questions
identified
by
the
parties
in
(
1)
and
(
2).

5.
Identification
of
next
steps.
TRP
Telomer
Research
Program
Monitoring
Subgroup
15
August
2003
15
August
2003,
page
2
Telomer
Research
Program
TRP
Approach

TRP
is
Committed
to
Processes
which

Focus
on
relevant
releases
and
exposures
during
the
life­
cycle
of
telomer­
based
products
and
articles

Products
and
treated
articles
were
chosen
using
criteria
such
as
market
end
use,
chemistry
type/
class,
chemical
volume,
article
type,
and
potential
for
human
exposure.


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

Consider
testing
and
measurements
in
an
iterative,
step­
wise
approach
triggered
by
improved
knowledge
gained
15
August
2003,
page
3
Telomer
Research
Program
Understanding
Potential
Environmental
and
Human
Exposure
PFOA
Sources
Potential
Sources
Study
/
Work
Plan
Approach
1)
Telomer
Industrial
Production
 
U.
S.
Telomer
production
facilities
 
DuPont,
Daikin
2)
Industrial
Use
(
Mill)
 
Mill
Release
Simulation
Model
 
Mill
Pilot
Study
 
Telomer
Product
Analysis
3)
Use
of
Treated
Articles
 
Telomer
Treated
Articles
&
In
Use
Studies
:
carpet,
textiles,
paper
4)
Disposal
of
Treated
Articles
 
Biodegradation
 
Incineration
15
August
2003,
page
4
Telomer
Research
Program
TRP
Monitoring
Work
Objective

To
understand
and
characterize
current
PFOA
releases
from
carpet,
textile
and
paper
industrial
manufacture
uniquely
attributable
to
telomer­
based
polymeric
products
in
order
to
provide
information
on
potential
PFOA
environmental
and
occupational
exposures
15
August
2003,
page
5
Telomer
Research
Program
Exposure
Assessment
Characterize
Fate
&
Transport
Properties
Release
Estimate
Mill
Monitoring
Pilot
Study
Mill
Release
Model
Characterize
Potential
Environmental
&

Occupational
Exposure
15
August
2003,
page
6
Telomer
Research
Program
Telomer
Production
Carpet
Mill
Consumer
:

Commercial
&

Residential
Disposal
°
landfill
°
recycle
USE
TREATED
ARTICLES
DISPOSAL
PRODUCTION
Where
the
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
is
Applied
to
the
Article
Product
Trail
Example:
Carpet
15
August
2003,
page
7
Telomer
Research
Program
Wet
Application
°
immersion
°
spray
°
foam
Drying
"
Input"
Substrate
°
carpet
°
textile
fabric
°
paper
°
Bath
concentration
°
Application
Rate
°
Water
°
Air
Potential
Environmental
Releases
°
Solid
Waste
°
Trimming
Waste
Treated
Article
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Application
Process
Telomer
Product
Application
Process
°
Processing
equipment
is
uniform
across
industries,
has
been
used
for
many
years,
and
is
well
understood
15
August
2003,
page
8
Telomer
Research
Program
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Application
Process
for
Carpet,
Textiles,
&
Paper
Treated
Article
Solid
mg/
g
Water
mg/
L
Air
pg/
m3
Potential
Environmental
Releases
Amount
Used
X
ES
EW
EA
Mass
Balance
:
Amount
Used
=
X
+
ES
+
EW
+
EA
Characterize
Environmental
Releases
from
Article
Manufacture
:
Mass
Balance
15
August
2003,
page
9
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Release
Model
:
Product
Input
Variables

Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Variables

wt.%
active
ingredient
in
product
(~
20%)


wt.%
fluorine

wt.%
telomer
raw
materials

wt.%
eight­
carbon
fluorinated
chain
C8F17­


PFOA
(
from
product
analysis)

80%
Water
20%
Telomer
Polymer
°
Aqueous
Dispersion
of .

°
Polymeric
Particles
100­
200
nm
with...

°
Hydrocarbon
Surfactant(
s)
15
August
2003,
page
10
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Release
Model
:
Process
Input
Variables

Mill
Process
Variables

average
daily
product
usage
(
kg/
day)


number
of
user
locations

application
bath
concentration
g/
L

wt.%
application
bath
to
wastewater
(
EW)


wt.%
PFOA
to
air
(
EA)


wt.%
PFOA
to
solid
waste
(
ES)
Integrate
to
Predict
Total
U.
S.
Environmental
Releases
&
Concentrations
15
August
2003,
page
11
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Release
Model

From
these
Product
&
Process
input
variables

PFOA
releases
to
water,
air
and
solid
waste
can
be
estimated
for
each
"
user"
site,
including
predicted
environmental
concentrations
(
PEC's)
for
air
and
water.


Overall
U.
S.
releases
predicted

This
is
critical
information
required
in
order
to
define
"
fitness
for
purpose"
for
PFOA
sampling
and
analysis
methods.
15
August
2003,
page
12
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Monitoring
Pilot
Study
:

Represents
Real
Commercial
Processing

To
Follow
the
Release
Modeling
 ...


A
controlled,
realistic
Study
to
Verify
the
Release
Model
with
measured
data

pilot
production
line

capability
for
water
and
exhaust
air
sampling

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

free
from
other
contribution
sources,
past
or
present

to
assess
only
the
telomer
contribution
and
eliminate
non­
telomer
contributions

begin
with
total
organic
fluorine
analysis
to
verify
overall
mass
balance

then...
chemical­
specific
determination
:
PFOA,
8­
2
Telomer
B
Alcohol

need
to
develop
and
validate
sampling
and
analysis
methods
15
August
2003,
page
13
Telomer
Research
Program
Experimental
Design
How
the
Design
Meets
the
Challenges
Representative
:
The
process
being
monitored
is
representative
of
the
majority
of
currently
operating
carpet,

textile
and
paper
mills.
The
technology
used
in
is
well
established
and
stable.

Telomer­
Specific
:
Controlled
introduction
of
telomer
product
will
help
to
specifically
pin
point
contributions
from
telomer­
based
polymeric
products
used
in
the
industrial
processes.
Acceptability
:
The
facility
and
process
to
be
used
is
certified
as
suitable
for
use
in
regulation
of
VOC
emissions
under
EU
production
rules.

 
Monitor
a
pilot­
scale
mill
process
that
has
been
certified
for
VOC
testing
under
EU
regulations.

 
Controlled
introduction
of
a
telomerbased
polymeric
product(
s)

 
Begin
with
a
product
that
will
be
broadly
representative
of
telomer­
based
polymeric
products
used
throughout
the
textile
industry.
Use
total
organic
fluorine
to
verify
mass
balance.

 
The
monitoring
will
be
conducted
in
air,

water,
and
waste,
using
methods
that
will
be
specific
for
PFOA
and
F­
in
these
media
on
the
LOI
products.
Relevant
:
We
will
monitor
in
air,
water
and
waste
using
methods
for
PFOA,
total
organic
fluorine
and
fluoride
F­,

such
that
the
data
will
inform
questions
about
potential
environmental
and
occupational
exposures.

Mill
Monitoring
Pilot
Study
15
August
2003,
page
14
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Monitoring
Pilot
Study
:

Represents
Real
Commercial
Processing

Pilot
Facility

Equipment

industry­
standard,
scaled­
down
version
of
what
is
actually
used
in
the
mill

pad
or
spray
application
and
dryer

used
industry­
wide
for
research
and
development

well
accepted
as
indicative
and
representative
of
real
mill
processing

Sampling

application
bath
:
before
and
after
application

exhaust
air
:
OSHA
versatile
air
sampler

treated
article

work
area
air

Analysis

total
organic
fluorine,
8­
2
Telomer
B
Alcohol,
PFOA
15
August
2003,
page
15
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Monitoring
Pilot
Study
:
Mass
Balance
Application
°
Pad
°
Spray
°
Foam
%
wet
pick
up
"
untreated"
"
treated"
Dryer
"
Roll­
Up"

Aqueous
Application
Bath
(
g/
L)

Amount
Used
X
Mass
Balance
:
Amount
Used
=
X
+
EW
+
EA
+
ES
Potential
Environmental
Releases
°
Water
EW
°
Air
EA
°
Solid
Waste
ES
15
August
2003,
page
16
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Monitoring
Pilot
Study
:
Demonstration
Phase

To
demonstrate
the
test
methodology
&
test
system

Use
open
literature
reference
to
prepare
a
representative
acrylic
polymer
used
for
treating
polyester
textile
fabric
of
known
composition
and
residual
raw
material
profile

also
use
this
composition
spiked
with
8­
2
Telomer
B
Alcohol

use
total
organic
fluorine
to
see
if
meaningful
measurements
in
air,

water
and
treated
substrate
can
be
demonstrated
to
achieve
mass
balance
15
August
2003,
page
17
Telomer
Research
Program
TRP
Monitoring
Work

These
Studies
will
address
PFOA:


environmental
&
occupational
exposures

from
Telomer­
based
Polymeric
Products

used
in
Carpet,
Textile
&
Paper
Industrial
Processes
in

air

water

solid
/
land
Characterize
Fate
&
Transport
Properties
Release
Estimate
Mill
Monitoring
Pilot
Study
Mill
Release
Model
Characterize
Potential
Environmental
&

Occupational
Exposure
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Anticipated
Attendees
for
Telomer
Monitoring
Subgroup
Meeting
Friday,
August
15,
2003
Bob
Griffin,
Little
Hocking
Water
Association
Rich
Purdy
Treye
Thomas,
CPSC
John
Heinze,
Environmental
Health
Research
Foundation
Rob
Bilott,
WV
Plaintiffs
(
by
phone)
David
Menotti,
Asahi
Glass
Takayuki
Nakamura,
Daikin
Randy
Roussel,
Daikin
Satoshi
Komatsu,
Daikin
Ed
Lampert,
Daikin
Yukiko
Nishiyama,
Daikin
Maggie
Martin,
Daikin
Bob
Buck,
DuPont
John
Gannon,
DuPont
Steve
Korzeniowski,
DuPont
Tim
Bingman,
DuPont
Alan
Vicory,
Ohio
River
Valley
Water
Sanitation
Commission
Linda
Aller,
Bennett
&
Williams
Steve
Williams,
Ohio
EPA
Libretta
Stennes,
Steptoe
&
Johnson
(
DuPont)
W.
Michael
McCabe
(
DuPont)
Bill
Hardie,
W.
L.
Gore
Richard
Baillie,
W.
L.
Gore
Erin
Russell,
Clariant
(
by
phone)
Phil
Oshida,
EPA/
CCD
Laurence
Libelo,
EPA/
EETD
Conrad
(
Skip)
Flessner,
EPA/
EETD
Ross
Highsmith,
EPA/
ORD
John
Blouin,
EPA/
EETD
Barbara
Leczynski,
EPA/
CCD
Ward
Penberthy,
EPA/
CCD
Linda
Sheldon,
EPA/
ORD
Tim
Collette,
EPA/
ORD
Ed
Heithmar,
EPA/
ORD
Rich
Leukroth,
EPA/
CCD
Wendy
Hoffman,
EPA/
EETD
(
Observer:
Katie
Smythe,
RAND
[
TRP])
(
Observer:
Bill
Beers,
OMNOVA
Solutions)
PFOA
ECA
Telomer
Monitoring
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
15,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
¶
~
c~

)
Irnv'g.
54nn"
n'
1
ePfr/
cci)
EP4
z~/~
q­
S/
e7
.~
ozst~'
i­
9J76
/
€
~
~
~
~
fA
5AEenAA/.),$
Le
(~
E'
4.
&
ov'

Ed
i44~~­

1/
in­
it
i,
4cr,
w
SoI~
s4]
K'~
nf~~
~

~
owsà.
s~
i
gDMSS~'~.

~
6e&~
u~~

~
zZ44~
dJ
VoIlcer
tIoC
I­
i
f~\&'~
Lt
~
EPh/~
At~

Zo,
ndf,
ely/
Mrns,
i
)%
1k~
2n
~

~
c~
c;
n
P~
e~
c­
cc~
a
~
~
A~
k~
­

C(
pri'tLi
9
~
JrL~
c~
4ci~
A&
zi­
1o2
 
19g­
U24
ZOZ
­~
Z~­­
37z?

~
634?
4632
~
t
,~
zsc­
so~­
SGc5~
t~
­~
z~­~
qbr
7~
3(~
7­~
°
?
7
~
tSt&
j%+
Y14Syj
z~
t
t~
5t~
~.

,
sm~
zrtin
satcdu'.
IwmaJsut~
c/
a?
7thi.
co~.
Jp
~

~
sseL~
LKkj
­
A~
A~~%
kOS.
COAA
P1tt~~
d&
r~
t~~
y
~
;~
t~

vo!
kcr,
~
CC
£
44
h
~.
4itVitrs
t
Ajln.
UY_
ln
1'
w.
MLcc'o
Mk~
q,~
k­~

~

?
e~

R,
I/
fip~!
e
uf',
4/&,­
C
t~
4~
vkSm,~
ts~:
er4(
o
pp
­
r
~

~

A
eae­
Cn­
icii
3~
oi~
3t~&
35c)

~
M
~
S4oo
~/~
5­~
WoC
~,
o
~
~
âzve~.
Co.
JA~
n

n9k7'
I.&
oV
h1/
L
b~
rsci~
o,
n,­~
ava.

,~
ar&
a~
tJtt~~
C
qj~
yP
e1&
,~
oV
~
h
~
~
m
Q~
scPb~
c4~
cQ~

Lhari'e
~
~
L
sore
Co
\`
VL6,,
a
11/
O5O~
ZI'
1
¼
ØWL­
e(
occ.
Cb~.

.
~

e~
 
~
a­
PP~/
pPPr
~
e&/~
~
J~­
i~
B
rAP
4~
b@~
s~
L)
c_
i
 
­
U
PFOA
ECA
Telomer
Monitoring
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
15,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
/

t4~
~

~

~
v1fl
Q~
~
c'~
a'~
kc
Z?
I~?~
skp~~
4
~

\~
J~

~
p;~
~
R0~\
4'
2~
219~
S.
X~

~
~

1~
~
61~

~

2OL~~
S(
o~
2Q7
3~
b~
6­
3~
6nj~
6~
7.
sJ4en,,
­
zc9
gat
­

t
S~~
iw,
°~
4~(
t(~

~
~

~

~
Csasc­~
r?~

~
i
~~­%~
i~
S
~
CJc~
S~
Mt~
CC
~
rr~
Cfl
~`
0s~
0.­
c
L
&(
4FFIP.
J
~
TRP
~
ok~
s
L.
rtce
th~
cwcW*~
t49?
`
1034
I3~
t\
OO
2~
2~
5~­
9d2~
e
­
7qo­­­
c~
 
v,
9r
9TP{
ThLJ~)
ranL~
ro,
4
~
da'n
/
J*
toa4cre
id.
net
L,,
uoA
ALC&~

GUnre+
ihoxkw
~
9e.
O~
th
iv,~(
Pe3jbern1r
­

~

­
PM­
r
~
Th~
oth
~

Lt~
csrefl~
C
Z/~­
t/
c~
~~
jQ~
T~'
L)
ILLI,
4MS
~
PA
CF~
C
kPA
ei~
4
H
U
Dmtc~
J
~
~
&
i4
(
Co/
If)
fl~'
7I2a
n­
5k14­
Ysc(
36(­
5~­
773v
ioi
ceL1
gj7)

2Q~~
yc4
5c~
33
S&'
4­
25~
9
ch7~)
CC~
2eZ­~~
fl7f
71S~
2coO~
z­
s
€
r­~
g~
c3
/
etiIe,
ec3ber,
ne#
andtJi7/
mn~
c.
C0,7
­

~
Air
hod~
v.
eL&
t
€
eeAs5oL/

(~
o~
as
e
C~(.
r'
f
€
nbeSJt1lI'v'AvA@
ape~.
90v
L
€
c2~
hj~,
Q~
1~
16J
~

~
pr~
tc6(
nrtic~
rxkprni~
Gg
avid
en.

rp~
rd~
1
0
ZII~
A
PFOA
ECA
Telomer
Monitoring
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
15,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
o~
i~

Au­
44~­

~
CVA/
crp
M~
a'~
Inn~
c/?
4
(~­
c~
ck~
c7699
­
~
e~
Jwq~
z
~`~`~
 
­
othh.
p';/~
epa.~
v
.
c
"~`
U4fl&%
tiXe9tt*,
44ALai
 
~
oh
~
?~`~­<­

oct~
~
cj
~
cuo~
5
Vi~
Lol~~~
1
.4­
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Environmental
Monitoring
Technical
Telomer
and
Fluoropolymer
Subgroups
Introduction
At
the
Technical
Workgroup
meeting
on
July
9,
2003
and
the
Plenary
session
held
on
July
10,
2003,
the
group
agreed
in
principle
that
additional
work
is
needed
to
define
the
goals
and
scope
of
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursor
monitoring
efforts.
EPA
committed
to
developing
a
straw
schedule
for
telomer
and
fluoropolymer
monitoring
subgroup(
s)
to
meet
to
discuss
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
for
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors.

Goals
The
goals
of
the
Telomer
and
Fluoropolymer
Monitoring
Subgroup(
s)
are:

1)
Develop
an
understanding
of
how
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
fit
into
the
overall
objective
of
understanding
how
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors
are
released
into
the
environment,
their
fate
and
transport
once
released,
and
routes
of
human
and
environmental
exposure.

2)
Identify
specific
questions
that
can
be
addressed
by
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring.

3)
Assess
how
current
LOI
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
complements
(
2)
above,
and
whether
additional
sampling/
monitoring
may
be
necessary.

4)
Report
back
to
the
PFOA
ECA
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
in
September
2003.

Meetings
Meetings
will
be
held
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
Washington,
DC.
The
first
meeting
of
the
subgroup
is
scheduled
from
9:
00
to
4:
00
on
August
15,
2003,
to
discuss
telomer
monitoring.
The
second
subgroup
is
scheduled
from
9:
00
to
4:
00
on
August
21,
2003,
to
discuss
fluoropolymer
monitoring.
All
parties
are
encouraged
to
attend
in
person,
if
possible,
but
teleconference
facilities
will
be
arranged
for
those
unable
to
travel.
EPA
requests
that
all
interested
parties
submit
any
presentation
or
discussion
material
for
general
distribution
one
week
prior
to
the
meetings.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Environmental
Monitoring
Technical
Subgroups
Tentative
Agenda
 
First
Meetings
Telomer
Monitoring
Subgroup
Friday,
August
15,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
4:
00
PM
Fluoropolymer
Monitoring
Subgroup
Thursday,
August
21,
2003
9:
00
AM
to
4:
00
PM
EPA
East,
Room
4225
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
1.
Discussion
of
how
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
fit
into
the
overall
objective
of
understanding
how
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors
are
released
into
the
environment,
their
fate
and
transport
once
released,
and
routes
of
human
and
environmental
exposure.

2.
Identification
of
specific
questions
that
can
be
addressed
by
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring.

3.
Assessment
of
how
current
LOI
activities
complement
the
goals
and
questions
identified
by
the
parties
in
(
1)
and
(
2).

4.
Identification
of
potential
additional
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
activities
that
could
achieve
the
goals
and
answer
the
questions
identified
by
the
parties
in
(
1)
and
(
2).

5.
Identification
of
next
steps.
ECA
Technical
Subgroup
Monitoring
What
is
the
overall
objective
of
the
ECA
process?

°
Enhance
our
understanding
of
sources
of
PFOA
in
the
environment
and
the
pathways
by
which
human
exposure
to
PFOA
is
occurring.
Goal
for
Today
°
Understand
the
role
of
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
in
characterizing
the
manufacturing
contribution
to
PFOA
levels
in
the
environment
How
do
you
typically
answer
the
question?

°
Primarily
use
modeling
with
limited
sampling
to
provide
model
inputs
and
limited
sampling
to
verify
model
results
Examples
where
EPA
supports
Modeling
°
Federal
New
Source
Review
Program
°
State
permitting
programs
°
Residual
Risk
program
°
Hazardous
Waste
Combustor
assessments
°
RCRA
Corrective
Action
Sampling
Limitations
°
Limited
geographic
coverage
°
Limited
time
perspective
°
Doesn't
provide
timely
results
°
Environmental
sampling
is
very
challenging
from
a
data
quality
perspective
 
weather
impact
 
variable
emissions
 
sample
repeatability
 
other
variables
and
adjustments
°
Inefficient
Underlying
Question
°
Are
today's
widely
accepted
models
"
useful"
and
effective
in
predicting
PFOA
environmental
distribution?

°
Useful?

 
Conservative
estimates
 
Predict
general
distribution
patterns
over
time
 
Good
for
longer
term
averages
(
rather
than
short
term
exposure
assessments)
Discussion
of
various
EPA
and
USGS
models
for
PFOA
Environmental
Assessment
From
Manufacturing
Facilities
1.
Characterize
emissions
and
source
parameters
from
facility
2.
Simulate/
measure
fate
and
transport
of
emissions
to
air,
water
and
land
3.
Assess
Environmental
Exposure
Potential
Conceptual
Model
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
Unsaturated
soil
Groundwater
Ambient
air
Modeling
Tools
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
ISCST3
Model:

Ambient
air
and
deposition
modeling
PRZM
Model
for
unsaturated
soil
MODFLOW
Model
for
groundwater
transport
PDM
Model
Air
Dispersion
Model
°
Industrial
Source
Complex
Short
Term
Model
version
3
(
ISCST3)

°
Used
to
estimate
concentrations
of
chemicals
in
ambient
air
and
surface
deposition
rate
°
Developed,
updated
and
evaluated
by
Air
Branch
(
OAQPS)
of
EPA
°
Description
and
methodology
included
in
"
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Models",
Federal
Register
Appendix
W
of
40
CFR
Part
51
ISCST3
Model
Appropriate
For:

°
Continuous,
industrial
releases
from
point
sources
°
Emissions
from
dilute
air
streams
°
Materials
with
long
half­
lives
Therefore,
ISCST3
should
be
appropriate
for
PFOA
Model
Inputs
°
Meteorological
Data
°
Terrain
elevation
maps
°
Stack
Parameters
 
Location
(
coordinates)

 
Height
 
Temperature
 
Stack
gas
vertical
velocity
 
Diameter
 
Emission
rates
for
each
compound
°
Property
information
for
deposition
modeling
 
particle
size
and
density
 
scavenging
coefficients
°
Plot
Plan
 
Exact
locations
of
all
sources
 
Property
line
 
Building
locations
and
heights
Mass
emission
rate
as
vapor
and
small
particles
Prevailing
wind
Vertical
Term
Air
Transport
Process
Dispersion
°
Plume
rises
(
UP)

°
Plume
moves
downwind
(
OVER)

°
Plume
disperses
(
OUT)

°
Part
of
plume
intersects
with
ground
level
Wet
and
Dry
Deposition
Air
Dispersion
Model
Output
Emissions
exit
point
sources
at
site
as
vapor
and
particulate
Some
material
reaches
ground
level,
but
stays
in
air
=
ambient
air
concentrations
Some
material
lands
on
the
ground
=

deposition
rate
Calculations
of
Deposition
Rate
°
Dry
Weather
Deposition
 
Includes
particles
that
are
heavy
enough
to
fall
out
due
to
gravity
 
Based
on
specific
size
and
density
of
particles
in
emissions
°
Wet
Weather
Deposition
 
Includes
particles
and
vapor
that
are
removed
from
the
air
by
falling
precipitation
 
Based
on
site­
specific
precipitation
information
 
Based
on
compound­
specific
"
scavenging
coefficients"

°
Total
Deposition
 
Sum
of
dry
and
wet
 
Results
given
as
grams/
m2­
yr
Modeling
Tools
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
ISCST3
Model:

Ambient
air
and
deposition
modeling
PRZM
Model
for
unsaturated
soil
MODFLOW
Model
for
groundwater
transport
PDM
Model
Groundwater
Concentrations
From
Deposition
Modeling
°
USEPA
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model
(
PRZM
3.12b)

 
Used
in
EPA
pesticide
programs
 
Cited
on
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
website:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm
°
Simulates
chemical
movement
in
unsaturated
soil
and
estimates
concentrations
at
top
of
groundwater
table
°
Documentation
for
version
3
available
from
USEPA
National
Exposure
Research
Laboratory
in
Athens,
GA
PRZM
Model
Appropriate
For:

°
Continuous
load
application
of
air
deposited
chemicals
°
Unsaturated
soil
systems
°
Materials
with
a
range
of
half
lives
and
adsorption
properties
Therefore,
PRZM
should
be
appropriate
for
PFOA
PRZM
°
Input
to
PRZM
 
Chemical
data
°
"
Application
rate"
=
deposition
rate
from
ISCST3
modeling
°
Sorption
rate
°
Half­
life
in
soil
 
Soil
profile
data
 
Climatic
data
°
Output
from
PRZM
 
Estimated
concentration
at
top
of
groundwater
table
Modeling
Tools
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
ISCST3
Model:

Ambient
air
and
deposition
modeling
PRZM
Model
for
unsaturated
soil
MODFLOW
Model
for
groundwater
transport
PDM
Model
Conceptual
Model
for
deposition
to
groundwater
Groundwater
adsorption
and
desorption
Unsaturated
soil
zone
3­
dimensional
advective
transport
Groundwater
Transport
Model
°
USGS
Modular
Three­
Dimensional
Groundwater
Flow
Model
(
MODFLOW)

°
Used
since
1986 

°
Used
to
simulate
groundwater
transport
°
Assumes
no
material
loss
during
transport
MODFLOW
Model
Appropriate
For:

°
Simulating
groundwater
flow
in
a
wide
variety
of
hydro­
geologic
conditions
°
Hydro­
geologic
systems
influenced
by
multiply
stresses
and
boundary
conditions
°
Conservative
estimate
chemical
transport
in
groundwater
Therefore,
MODFLOW
should
be
appropriate
for
PFOA
MODFLOW
Input
 
Stratigraphy
 
Hydraulic
conductivity
 
Meteorological
data
 
Groundwater
recharge
 
System
stresses
(
e.
g.,
production
well
pumping)

Site­
specific
and
regional
geologic
and
hydrogeologic
data
MODFLOW
Output
°
Groundwater
surface
map
calibrated
to
actual
field
measurements
°
Groundwater
flow
direction
and
rate
°
Groundwater
discharge
locations
Modeling
Tools
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
ISCST3
Model:

Ambient
air
and
deposition
modeling
PRZM
Model
for
unsaturated
soil
MODFLOW
Model
for
groundwater
transport
PDM
Model
EPA
Probabilistic
Dilution
Model
(
PDM)

°
Part
of
EPA
Exposure
Fate
Assessment
Screening
Tool
(

EFAST
to
support
EPA
assessments
of
the
potential
exposures
to
new
chemicals
under
Section
5
of
TSCA.

°
PDM
predicts
how
many
days
per
year
a
chemical
exceeds
a
target
concentration
level
in
an
ambient
water
body
will
be
exceeded
after
being
discharged
from
an
industrial
facility.
PDM
Model
Appropriate
For:

°
Continuous
chemical
loading
from
discharge
point/
outfall
into
a
water
body
°
Water
bodies
with
known
reach
characteristics
°
Most
Chemicals
Therefore,
PDM
should
be
appropriate
for
PFOA
PDM
Required
Inputs
°
Input
 
Name,
NPDES
number,
and
location
of
industrial
plant
 
Receiving
stream
11­
digit
Reach
Number
 
Reach
Number
of
the
river
segment
to
be
analyzed
 
Number
of
release
days
per
year
 
Loading
(
kg/
day)

 
Effluent
flow
rate
from
the
plant
 
Target
Concentration
°
Output
 
Mean
monthly
surface
water
concentration
for
River
Reach
proximal
to
facility
What
we
have
learned
from
field
studies ..
Modeling
Tools
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
ISCST3
Model:

Ambient
air
and
deposition
modeling
PRZM
Model
for
unsaturated
soil
MODFLOW
Model
for
groundwater
transport
PDM
Model
Comparison
of
Modeled
Air
Deposition
Modeled
to
Top
of
Groundwater
(
TOG)

versus
Field
Measurements
Air
Deposition
kg/
hectare/
yr
PRZM
Model
Result
(
TOG)

ug/
L
Field
Measurement
(
TOG)
ug/
L
0.1
20
*
23
*
4
sample
mean
Soil
Model
Summary
°
Correlation
of
Air
deposition
with
ground
water
interface
concentration
Good
°
Is
the
model
useful?

 
Conservative
estimate
Consistent
 
Predicts
general
distribution
Yes
 
Good
for
longer
term
average
Yes
Modeling
Tools
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
ISCST3
Model:

Ambient
air
and
deposition
modeling
PRZM
Model
for
unsaturated
soil
MODFLOW
Model
for
groundwater
transport
PDM
Model
Comparison
of
Groundwater
Flow
Model
Results
versus
Field
Measurements
°
Results
were
compared
to
measured
groundwater
elevations
in
84
monitor
wells
within
the
model
domain
°
The
model
results
display
an
excellent
correlation
with
field
measurements
from
monitor
wells
 
Mean
error
is
less
than
2
feet,
or
less
than
1%
Groundwater
Model
Summary
°
Correlation
of
Model
predicted
groundwater
elevations
with
monitor
well
groundwater
elevations
Good
°
Is
the
model
useful?

 
Conservative
estimate
Consistent
 
Predicts
groundwater
flow
Yes
 
Good
for
long
term
average
Yes
Modeling
Tools
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
ISCST3
Model:

Ambient
air
and
deposition
modeling
PRZM
Model
for
unsaturated
soil
MODFLOW
Model
for
groundwater
transport
PDM
Model
Comparison
of
Down­
river
Modeled
Concentration
versus
Actual
Measurement
Modeled
River
Concentration
Range
(
ug/
L)
Measured
River
Concentration
Range
(
ug/
L)

0.2
 
1.0
0.1
 
1.1
River
Model
Summary
°
Correlation
between
river
water
model
and
measured
concentrations
Good
°
Is
the
model
useful?

 
Conservative
estimate
Consistent
 
Predicts
general
distribution
Yes
 
Good
for
longer
term
average
Yes
Modeling
Tools
Air
Emissions
Aqueous
discharge
River
ISCST3
Model:

Ambient
air
and
deposition
modeling
PRZM
Model
for
unsaturated
soil
MODFLOW
Model
for
groundwater
transport
PDM
Model
Comparison
of
ISCST3
Air
Modeling
versus
Actual
Groundwater
Measurements
Modeled
Air
Concentration
ug/
m3
Mean
Water
Concentration
ug/
L
0.6
 
0.8
8.8
0.4
 
0.6
8.3
0.2
 
0.4
1.9
<
0.2
1.4
Demonstrates
trend;
not
intended
to
reflect
precise
prediction
Impressions
From
the
Air/
Water
Comparison
°
There
is
a
trend
in
the
data
(
higher
deposition
correlates
with
higher
groundwater
measurement)

°
For
many
reasons,
a
direct
correlation
is
not
possible,
but
air
modeling
results
can
define
where
sampling
should
occur
and
where
it
is
not
needed
ISCST3
Air
Model
Summary
°
Correlation
with
ground
water
Good
°
Correlation
with
air
concentrations
Unknown
°
Is
the
model
useful?

 
Conservative
estimate
Unknown
 
Predicts
general
distribution
Yes
 
Good
for
longer
term
average
°
Concentration
Unknown
°
Distribution
Yes
Open
Issue
°
Does
Air
Dispersion
Model
(
ISCST3)

provide
conservative
estimates
of
ambient
air
concentrations????

°
Plan
to
resolve
 
Develop
and
validate
sampling
and
analysis
method
 
Design
a
verification
plan
 
Execute
plan
Overall
Conclusions
°
These
environmental
models
are
useful
and
effective
for
characterizing
the
contribution
of
manufacturing
to
PFOA
levels
in
the
environment
°
The
role
of
monitoring
is
to
provide
model
input
data
and,
where
appropriate,
verify
model
outputs
Recommendations
°
Verify
modeled
ambient
air
concentrations
°
PFOA
Contribution
Determination
 
APFO
Manufacturing
°
Models
and
current
monitoring
plans
are
sufficient
 
Fluoropolymer
manufacturing
°
Models
and
current
monitoring
plans
are
sufficient
 
Fluoropolymer
processing
°
Need
to
complete
the
dispersion
processor
material
balance
(
covered
in
LOI)

°
The
material
balance
output
can
be
used
for
modeling
input
Goal
for
Today
°
Understand
the
role
of
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
in
characterizing
the
manufacturing
contribution
to
PFOA
levels
in
the
environment
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Draft,
August
13,
2003
Anticipated
Attendees
for
Fluoropolymer
Monitoring
Subgroup
Meeting
Thursday,
August
21,
2003
Bob
Griffin,
Little
Hocking
Water
Association
Rich
Purdy
Treye
Thomas,
CPSC
John
Heinze,
Environmental
Health
Research
Foundation
Rob
Bilott,
WV
Plaintiffs
(
by
phone)
Alan
Vicory,
Ohio
River
Valley
Water
Sanitation
Commission
Linda
Aller,
Bennett
&
Williams
Steve
Williams,
Ohio
EPA
George
Millet,
Dyneon
TWG
Mike
Santoro,
3M
(
Expert)
Bob
Sussman,
Latham
&
Watkins
(
3M)
David
Rurak,
DuPont
FMG
John
Gannon,
DuPont,
Environmental
Fate
&
Effect
(
Expert)
Cathie
Barton,
DuPont,
Air
Modeling
Charlie
Zarzecki,
DuPont,
Air
Modeling
Andrew
Hartten,
DuPont,
Water/
Soil
Monitoring
David
Sarvadi,
Keller
&
Heckman
Libretta
Stennes,
Steptoe
&
Johnson
(
DuPont)
Takayuki
Nakamura,
Daikin
Randy
Roussel,
Daikin
Satoshi
Komatsu,
Daikin
Ed
Lampert,
Daikin
Yukiko
Nishiyama,
Daikin
Maggie
Martin,
Daikin
Allen
Weidman,
SPI/
FMG
Lisa
Walton,
W.
L.
Gore
Lisa
Campbell,
Bergeson
&
Campbell
(
Gore)
Phil
Oshida,
EPA/
CCD
Laurence
Libelo,
EPA/
EETD
Conrad
(
Skip)
Flessner,
EPA/
EETD
Ross
Highsmith,
EPA/
ORD
John
Blouin,
EPA/
EETD
Barbara
Leczynski,
EPA/
CCD
Ward
Penberthy,
EPA/
CCD
Linda
Sheldon,
EPA/
ORD
Tim
Collette,
EPA/
ORD
Ed
Heithmar,
EPA/
ORD
Rich
Leukroth,
EPA/
CCD
Wendy
Hoffman,
EPA/
EETD
(
Observer:
David
Menotti,
Shaw
Pittman
[
Asahi])
PFOA
ECA
Fluoropolymer
Monitorin
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
21,2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
~

ask
,~
matscc
/
4~
z(~~
iwt&
b
~
DiA
.2é~
S/
wrr­,
o­
er
`
I
ZJz;
k~
k~
yxs~
Cv*
y(~
ker~)

ui~~
5~/­
nt­
2~
9
~/­
6­
63~
q
­*
cL

zoz­
tz4­~
oc
3o~?~
a&'~
&/~
4~­
fl
~
~

~
dSz;.
.
k'ma4i
á7dcnkn
,
co
Mcti~
t~
et~

Dek~.
r.
~

L:
be~~
b4.
Skrnc.
s
s4~,
3~
hm­
(
D~,
P044­')
aoa­'
ta~
j­
9
°
fl
(
s4cnnes
®
g4~
p&,
t.
Corn
GA
~
i~
J
40
Pc~
I
/
~
u~.
4~
C~
7
~
Q~
1~(
Z~
Lc~
c~
ret
~
9'
i~
~
Jsfl>
vw'/
$
~
flt
G,
974.9233
fr~
vl~
D~~
cpeJ
çp
So
Wns1
Penher+
k1
~
lwz'A
£
iznci
EPA
hli~~
2n.
rtv
S
~

t76Y2~
O
°
9,
O
2
°
2.
gsy­'
fMg
pe4erfAy.
ss*
dfWepA.~
ov
r
(
2D
~
~

hO~
bL/~
C'~

~\
m~
mc~
~
o~
CL~
tS
J~
hL4kFJL(

vbo~,­
i­­~
LeL
jjA4rPJVdactJu.
Ar
°
~

L­
111~
1
,
L7iiee_
fjir
3m
1~
74LMJ
b17~

n~
sc
?
e,,~,&
tf­~
LjcIIarvts
202­
9~
cz2~

yO2­~
4?
2o~

2d)
t­
223~
w~?
7~
K
0202­
S&
4­
2cc/

~
O(
 
SO'\­
773f
(~
1'
flfl2­'
hzL
J~
c~?
socpks~~

C103~~
L6aciii4~~)
g,
0)

JsL
Cni
L~%
AJL~
Aa~
6cn~
£
fpk~
st.
bactevccYsz&~
2
.
epczjoV
ft'~
øvtarecpsc~~
y
/
cti)
ect
i~

~
einn~~

it
bert
6ti
1,1)
1
I
JiaôiS
Z'nce
uJec&~
6vbJer
.1
 
i
~
a~)
fl2~
iZ
1st
­`
ic­
i
­
zai
~
e~
ne~&
i~
n~
dithiJ)~
Scp~

jAtis,
Ec
~
,
crt.
net
7
PFOA
ECA
Fluoropolymer
Monitorin
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
21,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
aA­
wi,

d//
M,
t4,
gc
2rn~
5ck/
4AjtR&
O
WA.
krrej
~

~
2~
V
.~
nvrt
\
M\
u~
s~.
MS
th)~~
1~
fS~
€
~
~
Yi~
iL~

7~,
ANE
54~
4z~
4
óP~./
crrr
4~
0~­
r
~
uPc'uy
~

~
Y!
2~/
e678
OVUO
Ytt~'

cP*/~
err­
?~
A
£
°
A
t0z~­
5tq­`~

Jo/.
­~)
7
709'
5
­
qq~­
fl~~

Qoa
~
Y/
O~

9SSJ
71zS
7<
10
fl
°
 
gaa)

U'
2­~
4(/­
Tfl~
­
S6~
SJ
fl!
flsY­
917b
4%%
AttLa*
JcLleil.
f&.
~
bV
~
Qfl4t6f,
7.
2*
t2.&
o/
c/­/~
uci.
a~­
r
~

~
e~.
dupo*
4.
caM
pp~
bL3
k,
Q~~&
iWg
~~
iet2Lf
S7It'IlL.\
AJjLL,
1~
sQ,
SrR.~'
74t&
o)~

Z
~
f4cM~
LVf
4~~)
f(
4~~
5t/

~
h
jAEgip.
qøj,
2~~
aw&('
2Epn.
oofr'

)
 
`
1ncfl
i4%
tJ~
R\
S
6e0'
w
iWi/
Jele9A
j~
~
4~
f
~$
E?
3I
7oa.­
7~
R­
lsLb
J~
3J~­
O3fl
7~
Y~
bY/
7;
3'
Yó;
7
kcrKsnr.
Ji~
epa~.~
josi
yt
)
~

q%
m1//
d,~
i,~
I/
a
(~
4L~
3
c~~
cRc\\
c~
fks~~
¼
&
.
s~
L_

OtvJ~
Wao*

­
dL
~
~
jC~
cc~

c~
R~
4gi~
2
~
j~:
~
1~
55
­
S2~'.
~&/

 
,
t
ZSL
3C(~
SCOO
2­
c2~­
663­­?
67T
~(­
prp~
tor
/~
c/>~
n~&/
qn~

~

­
~
et~
LC&.
Ct
d&
v4'@
chwvp~
hta,~

~
oJ
C
ofli
Ta­~
u~
4;
A/
a,
4~*
uc
~
°
t
~
L~
P~
t~
AO­
a­
1'
k~~~
4ne~
c
D~
k:~
)
bL9$~
76
~
"/
73
tOcIei~
r~'
n'­
Q~
1ev~
a.
`­
nfl
(~
f~
v~~
J
~
PFOA
ECA
Fluoropolymer
Monitoring
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
August
21,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
Y&
c~
ece
~
nn?
n~
13Y)

~
(~
ILC
~
£
.
LUt~
t(/~
Co(
V
~

j~
3~

~
(~
t'o/
1jc~
s
~

~

~
A/
ecp
1~
f'F\(
cct
2O2I~'?
O2~

fli~
i#
T~

Qd~
5~~
~
uir
;
o99~­
2~
ic
zoLcs~
i6wL/

s~
szsj
j~
y~'
s~
ea~~

~
£
~
,
C~

~

c~
iud.~
4~/~
ep1you
­~
Lrje~@~~
