Mary Dominiak 09/ 15/ 2003 08: 39 AM To: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: ( bcc: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US) Subject: TRP and FMG Materials for PFOA ECA Technical Workgroups, 9/ 16 17/ 2003 You are receiving this message because you have expressed an interest in receiving information concerning the Agency's enforceable consent agreement ( ECA) process on perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA) and the fluorinated telomers, OPPT 2003 0012. If you no longer wish to receive this information, please reply to dominiak. mary@ epa. gov requesting that you be removed from this notification list.

**************************************************************************************** TO: PFOA ECA Technical Workgroup and Plenary Meeting Attendees Attached are materials provided by the Telomer Research Program ( TRP) and the Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group ( FMG) for use and discussion at the PFOA ECA Technical Workgroup meetings on September 16 and 17, 2003. The attached files consist of the draft presentation for TRP's degradation study proposal; the TRP draft telomer incineration test protocol; and the FMG draft fluoropolymer incineration test protocol. These are the materials which TRP and FMG committed to provide during the Expert Subgroup meetings conducted on August 14 and 19, 2003. The summaries of those Subgroup meetings appear in the docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0195.

If you have any questions, or if you experience any difficulty in opening the attached files, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Mary F. Dominiak U. S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA East, Mail Code 7405M 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 564 8104 Fax: 202 564 4775 Courier deliveries: 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, Room 4410; 564 4760 Test Protocol Outline 9 12 03 FluoropolymeDRAFT 16 Sept 03 TRP Detailed Test Protocol Outli DRAFT 16 Sept 03 TRP Degradation Presentatio TRP Telomer Research Program Telomer Technical Work Group Meeting Telomer based Polymeric Products ( TBPP) Biodegradation Study Strategy 16 September 2003 2003 16 09 , page 2 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Overview

Objective of Biodegradation Studies for Telomer based Polymeric Products

Analytical Considerations & Limitations

Biodegradation in Sludge

Biodegradation in Soil

Summary & Conclusions 2003 16 09 , page 3 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Study Objective

Do Telomer based Polymeric Products ( TBPP) biodegrade to PFOA?

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 and the desire for timely results.

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 2003 16 09 , page 4 Telomer Research Program DRAFT 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.% solids in product (~ 20%)

19.8 + % polymer

0.2 + % residual raw materials

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 16 09 , page 5 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Release of Telomer based polymeric products

Telomer based polymeric products ( TBPP) primarily enter the environment

in sewage treatment plants ( stp)

in soil via sludge amendment to agricultural soils

in surface water and sediment via stp e. g. sorbed to effluent particles

in landfills from sludge or disposal of treated articles ( carpets, textiles,

paper)

TRP Program :

Sludge and Soil are environmental compartments for TBPP where study work should be focused

Other compartments ( air, sediment, water) are ...

considered in the work plans for soil and sludge or are not primary compartments of entry for TBPP

considered in the TRP work on 8 2 Telomer B Alcohol 2003 16 09 , page 6 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Analytical Method Requirements

First, establishment of robust analytical methods for study matrices is mandatory to achieve meaningful results

Matrices

sludge, aerobic and anaerobic soil; appropriate dispersion of test polymer solid

Analytes

e. g. Fluoride, PFOA and Total Organic Fluorine ( TOF)

Extraction & Recovery Demonstration

analyte recovery within test time period must be acceptable

sludge 28 to 84 days

soil 4  6 months

It is required by test guidelines to only begin testing after appropriate analytical methods have been established and demonstrated. 2003 16 09 , page 7 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Establish Dispersion Method Establish Extraction Method Establish Quantification Method Quality Check Spiking experiment Full Exposure Period Quality Check START REAL TEST Test method not applicable yes yes no no It has to be proven, for the study to be conducted  ..

° that dispersion, extraction and quantification is possible ° that the development methodology is applicable to conditions over the full study exposure time period ( e. g.

28d, 84d or 6 months)

° that analyte recovery and measurement is stable over the study time period Improvement ? Analytical Requirements for Environmental Studies  General Overview 2003 16 09 , page 8 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Water ° Fluoride ° PFOA Solids ° Total Fluorine Air Trap ° Fluoride ° PFOA ° 8 2 TBA + +

Analysis Matrices Polymeric Product ( TBPP)

° Inorganic Fluoride ( F)

° PFOA ?

° 8 2 TBA ?

° Total Organic Fluorine How to achieve Mass Balance The measurements fit together Solvent Extraction ° PFOA ° 8 2 TBA ° Other organic fluorine compounds as TOF Step 1 Characterization of TBPP Test Substance Step 2 Analyte Recovery & Quantitation 2003 16 09 , page 9 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Sewage Treatment Plants ( STP)

Biodegradability Testing Experimental Design Discussion 2003 16 09 , page 10 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Test Materials for STP Biodegradation Study Proposal 9 Sept. 2003

OECD 302 B ( Zahn Wellens / EMPA Test) on

Two ( 2) Telomer based Polymeric Products ( TBPP) & 2 Telomer based polymers isolated from TBPP 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 for longer term studies

provides results in short timeframe

Then  .. Conduct 302B on additional 10 polymeric products in LOI

This is a modification of the TRP LOI commitment 2003 16 09 , page 11 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Test Materials for STP Biodegradation Study Proposal 16 Sept. 2003

Alternatively   ... To ensure representativeness

We propose to study

the twelve ( 12) TBPP outlined in the TRP LOI

in equal weight proportions, as a composite

in an OECD 302B Modified Zahn Wellens Study

and

the isolated polymers from the twelve ( 12) TBPP

in equal weight proportions, as a composite

in an OECD 302B Modified Zahn Wellens Study 2003 16 09 , page 12 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Test Materials for STP Biodegradation Study Proposals

In parallel, we propose to develop a study protocol to conduct

OPPTS 835.5045 " Modified SCAS Test For Insoluble and Volatile Chemicals"

need to develop and demonstrate feasible analytical methods

on the composite of Isolated Polymers ( from Telomer Based Polymer Products)

we want to discuss the decision triggers for this study

and to develop the appropriate work to demonstrate analytical feasibility 2003 16 09 , page 13 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Biodegradation Testing Strategy Telomer Based Polymer Product ( TBPP) or Composite Isolated Polymer from TBPP or Composite Conduct Modified SCAS Test on Isolated Polymer only*

Does TBPP Biodegrade? Yes No Conduct Modified SCAS Test on TBPP* SCAS:

Analytical Methods work ?

STOP Decision :

1) PFOA or F > LOQ 2) related to residuals STOP No Yes Modified Zahn

Wellens/ EMPA Test LOI Modified Zahn

Wellens/ EMPA Test LOI SCAS:

Analytical Methods work ? Yes No * Kinetic Investigations will be considered after reviewing study results 2003 16 09 , page 14 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Proposal for Modification of Performance of Test:

Modified SCAS Test ( OPPTS 835.5045)

Run study for 12 weeks

Collect and freeze samples daily over 12 weeks

Analyze samples at Day 0, Weeks 4, 8, and 12.

Will look for:

1) Effluent & Sludge : Total Organic Fluorine, Fluoride ion

2) Effluent & Sludge solids : PFOA

3) Volatility Traps : Total Organic Fluorine, Fluoride ion, PFOA, 8_ 2 Telomer B Alcohol

If 2 & 3 PFOA concentration is less than LOQ, stop.

If 2 or 3 PFOA concentration is greater than LOQ, then consider further studies and analyses. 2003 16 09 , page 15 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Modification of OECD 307 Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformations in Soil Experimental Design Discussion 2003 16 09 , page 16 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Test Materials for Soil Biodegradation Study Proposals

OECD 307 Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformations in Soil

Two ( 2) Telomer based polymers isolated from TBPP 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

option : conduct study on isolated polymer composite 2003 16 09 , page 17 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Biodegradation Testing in Soil Testing Strategy Pilot Study

Pilot study : Modified OECD 307 Test setting

Establishment and Verification of the Analytical method for four to six months exposure

Testing of two isolated polymers

Use of the OECD 307 ( Aerobic and anaerobic transformation in soil)

setting

apply aerobic and anaerobic conditions

Alternatively, conduct study on isolated polymer composite

Kinetic investigations

will be considered after reviewing study results 2003 16 09 , page 18 Telomer Research Program DRAFT Work Plan Path Forward 1. Test substance characterization 2. Develop Analytics for Zahn Wellens, Soil and SCAS studies

methods and analytes of interest 3. Commence Zahn Wellens as soon as possible 4. Develop SCAS Study Proposal 5. Develop Soil Study Proposal 1 9/ 12/ 03 Detailed Test Protocol Outline Proposal, September 12, 2003 1. Introduction The overall goal of this program is to determine if incineration of telomer based substances ( in applications where incineration is a commonly used disposal practice) is a potential source of PFOA to the environment.

This document presents a detailed outline of a protocol for a research program to conduct incineration testing. Substantial work is necessary to integrate available sampling and analytical methods for PFOA into an experimental program for incineration testing.

Following agreement on this document, a test protocol and Quality Assurance Project Plan ( QAPP) can be prepared. The QAPP will include data quality objectives ( DQOs). Although alternative methods are included herein to the extent practicable, it is anticipated that the administration of this program will allow for obtaining approval to modify the test program ( e. g., to substitute alternate test methods) in case( s) where proposed method( s) do not appear able to provide information meeting these DQOs.

The QAPP will also address other quality assurance/ quality control elements for this test program, including project organization, chain of custody, and sample container selection.

Details of this test protocol are outlined in subsequent sections. The test objective is presented in Section 2. Section 3 discusses the overall experimental approach and preliminary testing prior to the combustion tests. Section 4 presents the materials and methods involved in this test program with focus on combustion testing. Plans for sampling and analysis are described in Section 5. Section 6 reviews how results of this program will be reported.

2. Test Objective The specific objective of this test program is to investigate incineration of telomer based substances under laboratory scale conditions representative of typical 2 9/ 12/ 03 municipal waste combustor operations in the U. S. to quantitatively determine potential emission levels of PFOA.

3. Experimental Approach Each test material ( as described in Section 4.2) will undergo elemental analysis ( see Section 5.2) to define the basic parameters for stoichiometric calculations.

Thermogravimetric analysis ( TGA) per ASTM E1641 will be conducted to determine the gasification temperature of each test material. TGA will be performed on each sample to determine the temperature range required for gasification of the sample and ash content. This analysis will be conducted in flowing air from room temperature to 1000 ° C at 25 ° C/ minute using 3 to 5 mg samples. The temperature for 100% gasification for each test material will be considered in establishing conditions for the gasification section ( pyroprobe section) of the experimental apparatus for the combustion tests; see section 4.3.

Overall, stoichiometry and TGA results will form the basis for setting experimental conditions ( e. g., time and temperature) in the gasification section of the experimental system during the combustion tests.

Combustion tests will be carried out at specified operating conditions as presented in Section 4.3.

Prior to combustion testing, quantitative transport of PFOA will be verified. For these transport tests, plans call for gasifying nominally 1 mg of PFOA at 150 to 200 o C with transfer line and reactor temperatures nominally 30 to 50 o C higher than the gasification temperature. The exhaust gas will be sampled and analyzed as described in Section 5.1.4 to determine quantitation of PFOA. If the PFOA transport efficiency is found to be less than a specified level ( e. g., 70%), then the reactor would be disassembled and extracted with an appropriate solvent ( e. g., methanol). This solvent sample would be analyzed via the analytical method described in Section 5.1.4 to determine if adsorption on the reactor walls is responsible for the low recovery. The experimental apparatus described in Section 4.1 is configured such that additional extractions of the transfer lines between the pyroprobe and the reactor and 3 9/ 12/ 03 between the reactor and the downstream sampling point are not feasible.

4. Materials and Methods 4.1 Combustion Test Experimental Apparatus Incineration testing is to be accomplished using a batchcharged 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.

Use of the Advanced Thermal Reactor System ( ATRS) at the University of Dayton Research Institute ( UDRI) is planned. A schematic of the ATRS as planned for use in this test program is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic of ATRS for Planned Testing Gas Chromatograph Mass Selective Detector Workstation Reactor Coolant Cold Trap Pyroprobe Inlets & Main Gas Flow Supplemental Gas Flow To Ventilation System Bubblers 4 9/ 12/ 03 Supplemental gas flow and main gas flow refer to the planned gas feeds ( synthetic air and methane).

The ATRS consists of a reactor assembly and in line gas chromatograph/ detector system connected via a cryogenic interface. The reactor assembly consists of a thermally insulated enclosure housing the sample introduction, reactor, and transfer line systems. Sample introduction for solid materials employs a pyroprobe, a device designed to gasify samples by heating them at a fixed rate. During combustion tests, the transfer line between the pyroprobe and the reactor is heated and maintained above 250 oC. The reactor is housed within its own small tube furnace and may be independently heated to as high as 1200 oC. ( Actual conditions planned for this test program are presented in Section 4.3.) The exhaust line from the reactor is heat traced to prevent cool regions where reactor products could otherwise be lost through condensation. The cryogenic interface ( cold trap) is of a shell and tube design and provides significant cooling of the combustion exhaust gas prior to on line monitoring or sample collection.

For this test program, plans call for setting the cold trap temperature at nominally   15 oC to be below the freezing point of water ( H2O) but above the sublimation temperature of carbon dioxide ( CO2) to assist in separating H2O from carbon monoxide ( CO) and CO2.

The in line gas chromatograph ( with molecular sieve column) and mass selective detector ( MSD) are planned to be used to monitor CO and CO2. Exhaust gas samples for off line analysis will be collected from the vent line off the cold trap; see Section 5.1.

4.2 Test Materials Two test materials are planned for this study:

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

  A single representative composite mixture of the LOI telomer based polymeric products which are applied to textiles, as solids, in equal proportions. 5 9/ 12/ 03 4.3 Combustion Test Experimental Conditions The test materials described in Section 4.2 will be subjected to laboratory scale incineration using the experimental apparatus described in Section 4.1.

Synthetic air ( mixture of 21% oxygen and 79 % nitrogen) will be used in place of compressed air to prevent potential interference in the experimental system due to background levels of CO2 in compressed air.

Methane will be used as needed as a supplemental fuel to ensure the presence of sufficient hydrogen to convert fluorine to hydrogen fluoride ( HF).

Two levels of temperature for the high temperature reactor are planned:

  900 ° C   1000 o C As the Appendix indicates, the lower temperature represents the low end of normal operating temperatures for the high temperature zone of municipal waste combustors ( MWCs) in the U. S., and the higher temperature represents the typical operating temperature for the high temperature zone of MWCs and medical waste incinerators in the U. S.

At each temperature level, the planned operating conditions for the high temperature reactor during the combustion tests are 2 seconds gas residence time and 10% oxygen in the exhaust gas. As the Appendix indicates, these conditions are representative of typical operating conditions for MWCs in the U. S As noted in Table 1, three replicates are planned for each test level ( combination of test material and temperature).

Table 1 Test Material Paper composite Paper composite Textile composite Textile composite Temperature 900 o C 1000 o C 900 o C 1000 o C No. of runs 3 3 3 3 Additionally, at least one thermal blank ( with combustion test feeds except for the test material) is planned for each group of 3 runs. 6 9/ 12/ 03 The 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. While elemental analysis and TGA is required to establish the planned mass of sample, the expected sample size is on the order of 1 to 2 mg.

The temperature in the pyroprobe section will be maintained at approximately 50 to 100 o C above the highest temperature for 100% gasification across the test materials as determined from the thermogravimetric experiments earlier in the test program. This is necessary to assure complete gasification of the sample of test material and a common set of experimental conditions across the test materials during combustion testing.

5. Combustion Test Sampling and Analysis 5.1 Exhaust Gas Sampling & Analysis Gas samples for off line analysis will be collected from a vent line off the cold trap and may be subjected to additional external cooling ( e. g., ice bath) as needed.

Analysis of the exhaust gas samples of the thermal blanks will focus on PFOA since the primary purpose of conducting these blank runs is to check for possible crosscontamination between sample runs.

5.1.1 Monitored Parameters As noted in Section 4.1, on line monitoring for CO and CO2 via the in line GC using a molecular sieve column and MSD is planned. Alternately, Tedlar ® bag samples of exhaust gas may be collected for off line CO and CO2 analysis.

Exhaust gas flow rate will be monitored based on measured input flow rates of the synthetic air and methane gas feeds. Exhaust gas oxygen concentration will be calculated, based on measured input flow rate of synthetic air and methane assuming complete combustion. 7 9/ 12/ 03 5.1.2. Fluoride The exhaust gas will be sampled and analyzed for fluoride ion to assist in performing a fluoride balance across the experimental system.

Fluoride ion will be sampled via absorption into aqueous solution, using bubblers ( low pressure drop midget impingers) in series. As Figure 1 indicates, initial plans call for using three bubblers in series with the first one empty to serve as a knock out pot and the second and third containing a predetermined amount of aqueous solution. ( The number of aqueous solution bubblers will be adjusted as necessary.) Upon completion of sample collection, the amounts in each bubbler will be measured and the contents of the bubblers will be quantitatively transferred into a container for subsequent analysis for total inorganic fluorine ( i. e., fluoride ion) via ion chromatography or ion selective electrode.

5.1.3 Total Fluorine The aqueous solution sample collected as described in Section 5.1.2 is also planned to be subjected to analysis for total fluorine via Wickbold torch so that total organic fluorine can be determined by difference between total fluorine and total inorganic fluorine. Work is in progress to confirm that detection limits for total fluorine analysis via Wickbold torch are low enough to be informative for this test system.

5.1.4 PFOA Exhaust gas samples will be analyzed for PFOA via LC/ MS/ MS at a qualified commercial laboratory operating under suitable data quality guidelines.

Development is in progress to define the most suitable sampling technique for PFOA in the incineration exhaust gas.

Initial plans call for using the aqueous solution bubblers described in Section 5.1.2 to collect PFOA from the exhaust gas and for sending a portion of the aqueous solution for PFOA analysis as described above. Additionally, an attempt will be made to use an OSHA Versatile Sampler ( OVS) as a back up sampling device. If OVS is also used to sample 8 9/ 12/ 03 PFOA in the exhaust gas, then the OVS would also be sent for off line LC/ MS/ MS analysis to quantify PFOA as a crosscheck on the aqueous solution bubbler results.

5.2 Test Material Sampling & Analysis Each test material composite will be dissolved in an appropriate solvent and analyzed for PFOA via LC/ MS/ MS at a qualified commercial laboratory operating under suitable data quality guidelines.

As noted in Section 3, each test material composite will undergo elemental analysis for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, fluorine, sulfur, and oxygen by difference. Ultimate analysis ( ASTM D3176 and other ASTM methods referenced therein) are planned for this analysis. Moisture is also determined by this method. Depending on sample size, it may be necessary to implement the microanalytic analog of ultimate analysis.

In order to enable determination total organic fluoride ( in each test material composite) by difference between fluorine ( total fluorine) and fluoride ( total inorganic fluoride), each test material will undergo aqueous extraction and analysis of the aqueous extract for fluoride ion ( via ion chromatography or ion selective electrode) to yield a total inorganic fluorine.

6. Reporting of Results 6.1 Exhaust Gas Results 6.1.1 Monitored Parameters CO will be reported in terms of parts per million by volume ( ppmv). CO 2 will be reported in terms of percent by volume (%). Oxygen will be reported in terms of percent by volume (%). Exhaust gas flowrate will be reported in units of cubic centimeters per minute ( cm 3/ min).

6.1.2 Fluoride and Fluorine Total fluorine and fluoride ( total inorganic fluorine) in the exhaust gas will each be reported in terms of concentration ( mass of fluorine per volume of exhaust gas) 9 9/ 12/ 03 in the gas as well as on the basis of mass of fluorine per mass of starting test material.

Total organic fluorine will be determined by difference between total fluorine and total inorganic fluorine.

6.1.3 PFOA PFOA in the exhaust gas will be reported in terms of concentration in the gas as well as on the basis of mass per mass of starting test material.

6.2 Test Material Results PFOA for each composite will be reported in terms of mass per mass of composite feed material.

Elemental compositions and total organic fluoride will be reported in terms of mass per mass of composite feed material.

6.3 Exposure Assessment In the event that PFOA is found in the exhaust gas at a concentration above the limit of quantitation ( for the matrix) from one or more experiments described in this protocol, then the potential for exposure related to incineration of the subject material will be assessed to inform the basis for possible next steps.

This assessment will consider a number of factors such as   Test program determined PFOA emission factor,

  Estimated amounts of subject material in feed to fullscale waste incinerators, and   Degree of post combustion air pollution control ( e. g., use and effectiveness of carbon adsorption). 10 9/ 12/ 03 Appendix Polymers of the sort being investigated in this test program may be present at trace to low concentrations in municipal solid waste or in medical waste and therefore may be incinerated.

A. 1 Types of Incinerators A. 1.1 Municipal Waste Combustors According to the Integrated Waste Services Association ( IWSA), there are a total of 98 waste to energy facilities operating municipal waste combustors ( MWCs) in the U. S. as of 2002.( IWSA 2002) Table A 1 summarizes the number and annual capacity of these units by type of technology employed.

Table A 1. MWCs in 2002 Type Number of Facilities Annual Capacity ( million Ton/ year Mass Burn 68 22.5 Refused Derived Fuel ( RDF) 18 6.4 Modular 12 0.5 Total 98 29.4 As the capacity values indicate, modular units are generally small MWCs accounting for less than a total of 2% of the municipal solid waste incinerated in the U. S. in 2002.

A. 1.2 Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators Although earlier reports indicated over 2200 medical waste incinerators in the U. S. in the 1990s ( EPA 2000a), the current EPA Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards ( OAQPS) inventory indicates that there are 116 hospital/ medical/ infectious waste incinerators ( HMIWIs) in the U. S. as of July 28, 2003. ( EPA 2003)

This represents a greater than 90% reduction in the number of operating HMIWIs in the U. S. Many medical waste incinerators were closed rather than upgraded to meet new emission standards, as hospitals improved their programs to segregate infectious (" red bag") waste burned in HMIWIs 11 9/ 12/ 03 from non infectious (" black bag") waste handled as municipal solid waste after it leaves the hospital.

A. 2 Operating Conditions As noted by EPA, many incinerators for municipal solid waste are designed to operate in the combustion zone at 1800 ° F [ 982 ° C] to 2000 ° F [ 1093 ° C] to ensure good combustion. ( EPA 1995) EPA new source performance standards ( NSPS) and emission guidelines for both municipal waste combustors ( MWCs) and hospital/ medical/ infectious waste incinerators ( HMIWIs) are based on the use of " good combustion practices" ( GCP). ( EPA 1997, EPA 2000b, EPA 2000c, Van Remmen 1998)

Speaking of MWCs, Donnelly notes, " Design of modern efficient combustors is such that there is adequate turbulence in the flue gas to ensure good mixing, a hightemperature zone ( greater than 1000 o C) to complete burnout, and long enough residence time at high temperature ( 1 2 sec) for complete burnout." ( Donnelly 2000) The term " flue gas" here refers to the gas above the grate.

With respect to HMIWIs, Van Remmen states " any unit which presently [ prior to compliance date] has a [ secondary chamber] residence time less than two seconds at 1000 o C does not meet the requirement for good combustion under the new regulations." ( Van Remmen 1998)

Similarly, most MWCs are expected to typically operate with a 2 second gas residence time in the high temperature zone in order to assure compliance with emission standards on carbon monoxide and dioxins.

A. 2.1 MWC Operating Conditions EPA presents operating data for some MWCs in " Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment: Technical Basis for Good Combustion Practice" and points the reader elsewhere for additional data on specific representative MWCs.

Modular MWC Specifically, this background document ( EPA 1989) includes secondary chamber temperatures for modular MWCs that had CO emission levels less than current emission standards, and these are summarized in Table A 2. 12 9/ 12/ 03 Table A 2. Modular MWC Temperatures Secondary Chamber Temperature ( o C) 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 As highlighted in Table A 2, typical secondary chamber temperatures for these dual chamber modular units are in the range of 951 to 1071 o C.

As indicated in section A. 1, such modular units are generally small MWCs and account for less than a total of 2% of the municipal solid waste incinerated in the U. S.

Although this 1989 EPA background document does not present temperature data for mass burn nor RDF units, reports from the National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program ( NITEP) present operating data for an RDF combustor ( Mid Connecticut) and for a mass burn waterwall combustor ( Quebec City) otherwise discussed in the 1989 background document.

RDF MWC Furnace temperatures and flue gas oxygen levels for Mid Connecticut RDF combustor performance tests operating under good combustion conditions across a range of steam loads ( Finklestein and Klicius 1994) are summarized in Table A 3.

Table A 3. RDF MWC   Mid Connecticut Steam load Low low Intermediate Intermediate normal normal normal high test number PT 13 PT 14 PT 10 PT 02 PT 09 PT 08 PT 11 PT 12 Furnace temperature ( o C) 965 1004 1012 1022 1033 1015 1026 1049 flue gas O 2 (%) 10.1 9.6 9.2 9.1 7.6 7.5 7.9 6.4 The average operating conditions for this RDF unit across the range of steam loads are 1016 o C and 8.4% O 2.

Mass Burn MWC Furnace temperatures ( average of front and rear radiation chamber temperatures) and flue gas oxygen levels ( dry basis) for Quebec City mass burn combustor performance tests operating under good combustion conditions across a 13 9/ 12/ 03 range of steam loads ( Environment Canada 1988) are summarized in Table A 4.

Table A 4. Mass Burn MWC   Quebec City Steam load Low low Low design design Design High high test number PT02 PT10 PT11 PT05 PT06 PT12 PT07 PT09 Furnace temperature ( o C) 849 875 869 1014 1030 992 1085 1006 flue gas O 2 ( dry) 13 13 12 9 9 10 10 10 The average operating conditions for this mass burn unit across the range of steam loads are 965 o C and 10.8% O 2. When operated at design steam load, the average operating conditions for this mass burn MWC are 1012 o C and 9.3% O 2.

MWC Summary Considering the relative quantities of municipal waste burned annually in each type of MWC and the data in this section, average typical operating conditions for the high temperature zone of MWCs are nominally 1000 o C and 10% O 2.

A. 2.2 HMIWI Operating Conditions EPA notes that over 97% of medical waste incinerators are controlled air modular units ( EPA 2000a). Recent communication with EPA OAQPS indicates that virtually all existing HMIWIs are controlled air modular ( two chamber) units.

Theodore reports the range of temperatures for the secondary chamber of controlled air medical waste incinerators as 980 to 1200 o C. ( Theodore 1990) EPA notes that auxiliary fuel ( e. g., natural gas) is burned in the secondary chamber of medical waste incinerators to sustain temperatures in the range of 985 to 1095 o C and that combustion air at 100 to 300 % in excess of the stoichiometric requirement is usually added to the secondary chamber. ( EPA 2000a)

As noted above, a more recent report indicates that existing HMIWIs operate with secondary chamber temperatures greater than or equal to 1000 oC with a gas residence of 2 seconds. ( Van Remmen 1998) 14 9/ 12/ 03 References Donnelly, J. R. Waste Incineration Sources: Municipal Waste Combustion. In: W. T., ed., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd edition. Air and Waste Management Association. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 2000, pp 257 268.

Environment Canada. National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: Environmental Characterization of Mass Burning Incinerator Technology at Quebec City   Summary Report, EPS 3/ UP/ 5, June 1988.

Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment: Technical Basis for Good Combustion Practice, EPA 600/ 8 89 063, August 1989.

EPA. Emission Factor Documentation for AP 42 Section 2.1, Refuse Combustion, May 1993.

EPA. Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume II, Chapter 8, 1995.

EPA. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators, 62 Federal Register 48346, September 15, 1997.

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. New Source Performance Standards for New Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units, 65 Federal Register 76350, December 6, 2000.

EPA. Emission Guidelines for Existing Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units, 65 Federal Register 76378, December 6, 2000.

EPA. HMIWI Facility and Emissions Inventory, draft, July 28, 2003, www. epa. gov/ ttnatw01/ 129/ hmiwi/ 2003hmiwi_ inventory. xls 15 9/ 12/ 03 Finklestein, A. and R. D. Klicius. National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: The Environmental Characterization of Refuse derived Fuel ( RDF) Combustion Technology, Mid Connecticut Facility, Hartford, Connecticut, EPA 600/ R 94 140 ( NTIS PB96 153432), December 1994.

Integrated Waste Services Association ( IWSA). The 2002 IWSA Directory of Waste to Energy Plants, 2002, www. wte. org/ 2002_ directory/ IWSA_ 2002_ Directory. html Theodore, L. Air Pollution Control and Waste Incineration for Hospitals and Other Medical Facilities, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990, pp 313 320.

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, pp 393 402 Detailed Test Protocol Outline Proposal, September 12, 2003 1. Introduction The overall goal of this program is to determine if incineration of fluoropolymers ( in applications where incineration is a commonly used disposal practice) is a potential source of PFOA to the environment.

This document presents a detailed outline of a protocol for a research program to conduct incineration testing. Substantial preparatory work is necessary to integrate available sampling and analytical methods for PFOA into an experimental program for incineration testing.

Following agreement on this document, a test protocol and Quality Assurance Project Plan ( QAPP) can be prepared. The QAPP will include data quality objectives ( DQOs). Although alternative methods are included herein to the extent practicable, it is anticipated that the administration of this program will allow for obtaining approval to modify the test program ( e. g., to substitute alternate test methods) in case( s) where proposed method( s) do not appear able to provide information meeting these DQOs.

The QAPP will also address other quality assurance/ quality control elements for this test program, including project organization, chain of custody, and sample container selection.

Details of this test protocol are outlined in subsequent sections. The test objective is presented in Section 2. Section 3 discusses the overall experimental approach and preliminary testing prior to the combustion tests. Section 4 presents the materials and methods involved in this test program with focus on combustion testing. Plans for sampling and analysis are described in Section 5. Section 6 reviews how results of this program will be reported.

2. Test Objective The specific objective of this test program is to investigate incineration of designated fluoropolymers under laboratory scale conditions representative of typical 1 9/ 12/ 03 municipal waste combustor operations in the U. S. to quantitatively determine emission levels of PFOA.

3. Experimental Approach Each test material ( as described in Section 4.2) will undergo elemental analysis ( see Section 5.2) to define the basic parameters for stoichiometric calculations.

Thermogravimetric analysis ( TGA) per ASTM E1641 will be conducted to determine the gasification temperature of each test material. TGA will be performed on each sample to determine the temperature range required for gasification of the sample and ash content. This analysis will be conducted in flowing air from room temperature to 1000 ° C at 25 ° C/ minute using 3 to 5 mg samples. The temperature for 100% gasification for each test material will be considered in establishing conditions for the gasification section ( pyroprobe section) of the experimental apparatus for the combustion tests; see section 4.3.

Overall, stoichiometry and TGA results will form the basis for setting experimental conditions ( e. g., time and temperature) in the gasification section of the experimental system during the combustion tests.

Combustion tests will be carried out at specified operating conditions as presented in Section 4.3.

Prior to combustion testing, quantitative transport of PFOA will be verified. For these transport tests, plans call for gasifying nominally 1 mg of PFOA at 150 to 200 o C with transfer line and reactor temperatures nominally 30 to 50 o C higher than the gasification temperature. The exhaust gas will be sampled and analyzed as described in Section 5.1.4 to determine quantitation of PFOA. If the PFOA transport efficiency is found to be less than a specified level ( e. g., 70%), then the reactor would be disassembled and extracted with an appropriate solvent ( e. g., methanol). This solvent sample would be analyzed via the analytical method described in Section 5.1.4 to determine if adsorption on the reactor walls is responsible for the low recovery. The experimental apparatus described in Section 4.1 is configured such that additional extractions of the transfer lines between the pyroprobe and the reactor and 2 9/ 12/ 03 between the reactor and the downstream sampling point are not feasible.

4. Materials and Methods 4.1 Combustion Test Experimental Apparatus Incineration testing is to be accomplished using a batchcharged 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.

Use of the Advanced Thermal Reactor System ( ATRS) at the University of Dayton Research Institute ( UDRI) is planned. A schematic of the ATRS as planned for use in this test program is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic of ATRS for Planned Testing Gas Chromatograph Mass Selective Detector Workstation Reactor Coolant Cold Trap Pyroprobe Inlets & Main Gas Flow Supplemental Gas Flow To Ventilation System Bubblers 3 9/ 12/ 03 Supplemental gas flow and main gas flow refer to the planned gas feeds ( synthetic air and methane).

The ATRS consists of a reactor assembly and in line gas chromatograph/ detector system connected via a cryogenic interface. The reactor assembly consists of a thermally insulated enclosure housing the sample introduction, reactor, and transfer line systems. Sample introduction for solid materials employs a pyroprobe, a device designed to gasify samples by heating them at a fixed rate. During combustion tests, the transfer line between the pyroprobe and the reactor is heated and maintained above 250 oC. The reactor is housed within its own small tube furnace and may be independently heated to as high as 1200 oC. ( Actual conditions planned for this test program are presented in Section 4.3.) The exhaust line from the reactor is heat traced to prevent cool regions where reactor products could otherwise be lost through condensation. The cryogenic interface ( cold trap) is of a shell and tube design and provides significant cooling of the combustion exhaust gas prior to on line monitoring or sample collection.

For this test program, plans call for setting the cold trap temperature at nominally   15 oC to be below the freezing point of water ( H2O) but above the sublimation temperature of carbon dioxide ( CO2) to assist in separating H2O from carbon monoxide ( CO) and CO2.

The in line gas chromatograph ( with molecular sieve column) and mass selective detector ( MSD) are planned to be used to monitor CO and CO2. Exhaust gas samples for off line analysis will be collected from the vent line off the cold trap; see Section 5.1.

4.2 Test Materials Four test materials are planned for this study. Each will be a composite mixture of representative fluoropolymers, as solids, in equal proportions across producers for each of the following four classes:

  Dry melt resins ( FEP, PFA, THV, ETFE, HTE)   PTFE   Fluoroelastomers   Aqueous dispersions ( PTFE, FEP, PFA, THV)

4 9/ 12/ 03 4.3 Combustion Test Experimental Conditions The test materials described in Section 4.2 will be subjected to laboratory scale incineration using the experimental apparatus described in Section 4.1.

Synthetic air ( mixture of 21% oxygen and 79 % nitrogen) will be used in place of compressed air to prevent potential interference in the experimental system due to background levels of CO2 in compressed air.

Methane will be used as needed as a supplemental fuel to ensure the presence of sufficient hydrogen to convert fluorine to hydrogen fluoride ( HF).

The planned operating conditions for the high temperature reactor during the combustion tests are 900 ° C with 2 seconds gas residence time and 10% oxygen in the exhaust gas. As the Appendix indicates, these conditions are representative of typical operating conditions for the high temperature zone of municipal waste combustors ( MWCs) in the U. S., except that the planned temperature reflects the low end of normal MWC operating temperatures. Also, as the information in the Appendix indicates, the planned temperature is less than typical secondary chamber operating temperatures for medical waste incinerators in the U. S.

As noted in Table 1, three replicates are planned for each test level ( combination of test material and temperature).

Table 1 Test Material Dry melt resin composite PTFE composite Fluoroelastomer composite Aqueous dispersion composite Temperature 900 o C 900 o C 900 o C 900 o C No. of runs 3 3 3 3 Additionally, at least one thermal blank ( with combustion test feeds except for the test material) is planned for each group of 3 runs.

The 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. While elemental analysis and TGA is required to establish the planned mass 5 9/ 12/ 03 of sample, the expected sample size is on the order of 1 to 2 mg.

The temperature in the pyroprobe section will be maintained at approximately 50 to 100 o C above the highest temperature for 100% gasification across the test materials as determined from the thermogravimetric experiments earlier in the test program. This is necessary to assure complete gasification of the sample of test material and a common set of experimental conditions across the test materials during combustion testing.

5. Combustion Test Sampling and Analysis 5.1 Exhaust Gas Sampling & Analysis Gas samples for off line analysis will be collected from a vent line off the cold trap and may be subjected to additional external cooling ( e. g., ice bath) as needed.

Analysis of the exhaust gas samples of the thermal blanks will focus on PFOA since the primary purpose of conducting these blank runs is to check for possible crosscontamination between sample runs.

5.1.1 Monitored Parameters As noted in Section 4.1, on line monitoring for CO and CO 2 via the in line GC using a molecular sieve column and MSD is planned. Alternately, Tedlar ® bag samples of exhaust gas may be collected for off line CO and CO 2 analysis.

Exhaust gas flow rate will be monitored based on measured input flow rates of the synthetic air and methane gas feeds. Exhaust gas oxygen concentration will be calculated, based on measured input flow rate of synthetic air and methane assuming complete combustion.

5.1.2. Fluoride The exhaust gas will be sampled and analyzed for fluoride ion to assist in performing a fluoride balance across the experimental system.

Fluoride ion will be sampled via absorption into aqueous solution, using bubblers ( low pressure drop midget 6 9/ 12/ 03 impingers) in series. As Figure 1 indicates, initial plans call for using three bubblers in series with the first one empty to serve as a knock out pot and the second and third containing a predetermined amount of aqueous solution. ( The number of aqueous solution bubblers will be adjusted as necessary.) Upon completion of sample collection, the amounts in each bubbler will be measured and the contents of the bubblers will be quantitatively transferred into a container for subsequent analysis for total inorganic fluorine ( i. e., fluoride ion) via ion chromatography or ion selective electrode.

5.1.3 Total Fluorine The aqueous solution sample collected as described in Section 5.1.2 is also planned to be subjected to analysis for total fluorine via Wickbold torch so that total organic fluorine can be determined by difference between total fluorine and total inorganic fluorine. Work is in progress to confirm that detection limits for total fluorine analysis via Wickbold torch are low enough to be informative for this test system.

5.1.4 PFOA Exhaust gas samples will be analyzed for PFOA via LC/ MS/ MS at a qualified commercial laboratory operating under suitable data quality guidelines.

Development is in progress to define the most suitable sampling technique for PFOA in the incineration exhaust gas.

Initial plans call for using the aqueous solution bubblers described in Section 5.1.2 to collect PFOA from the exhaust gas and for sending a portion of the aqueous solution for PFOA analysis as described above. Additionally, an attempt will be made to use an OSHA Versatile Sampler ( OVS) as a back up sampling device. If OVS is also used to sample PFOA in the exhaust gas, then the OVS would also be sent for off line LC/ MS/ MS analysis to quantify PFOA as a crosscheck on the aqueous solution bubbler results.

5.2 Test Material Sampling & Analysis Each test material composite will undergo elemental analysis for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, fluorine, sulfur,

7 9/ 12/ 03 and oxygen by difference. Ultimate analysis ( ASTM D3176 and other ASTM methods referenced therein) are planned for this analysis. Moisture is also determined by this method. Depending on sample size, it may be necessary to implement the microanalytic analog of ultimate analysis.

Based on process knowledge, the level of total fluorine in the test materials is orders of magnitude higher then the potential level of inorganic fluoride in these materials. Therefore, for this test program, plans call for assuming that the total organic fluorine value for each test material composite is the same as the fluorine value determined via elemental analysis as described above.

6. Reporting of Results 6.1 Exhaust Gas Results 6.1.1 Monitored Parameters CO will be reported in terms of parts per million by volume ( ppmv). CO 2 will be reported in terms of percent by volume (%). Oxygen will be reported in terms of percent by volume (%). Exhaust gas flowrate will be reported in units of cubic centimeters per minute ( cm 3/ min).

6.1.2 Fluoride and Fluorine Total fluorine and fluoride ( total inorganic fluorine) in the exhaust gas will each be reported in terms of concentration ( mass of fluorine per volume of exhaust gas) in the gas as well as on the basis of mass of fluorine per mass of starting test material.

Total organic fluorine will be determined by difference between total fluorine and total inorganic fluorine.

6.1.3 PFOA PFOA in the exhaust gas will be reported in terms of concentration in the gas as well as on the basis of mass per mass of starting test material.

8 9/ 12/ 03 6.2 Test Material Results Elemental compositions will be reported in terms of mass per mass of composite feed material.

6.3 Exposure Assessment In the event that PFOA is found in the exhaust gas at a concentration above the limit of quantitation ( for the matrix) from one or more experiments described in this protocol, then the potential for exposure related to incineration of the subject material will be assessed to inform the basis for possible next steps.

This assessment will consider a number of factors such as   Test program determined PFOA emission factor,   estimated amounts of subject material in feed to fullscale waste incinerators, and   degree of post combustion air pollution control ( e. g., use and effectiveness of carbon adsorption).

9 9/ 12/ 03 Appendix Polymers of the sort being investigated in this test program may be present at trace to low concentrations in municipal solid waste or in medical waste and therefore may be incinerated.

A. 1 Types of Incinerators A. 1.1 Municipal Waste Combustors According to the Integrated Waste Services Association ( IWSA), there are a total of 98 waste to energy facilities operating municipal waste combustors ( MWCs) in the U. S. as of 2002.( IWSA 2002) Table A 1 summarizes the number and annual capacity of these units by type of technology employed.

Table A 1. MWCs in 2002 Type Number of Facilities Annual Capacity ( million Ton/ year Mass Burn 68 22.5 Refused Derived Fuel ( RDF) 18 6.4 Modular 12 0.5 Total 98 29.4 As the capacity values indicate, modular units are generally small MWCs accounting for less than a total of 2% of the municipal solid waste incinerated in the U. S. in 2002.

A. 1.2 Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators Although earlier reports indicated over 2200 medical waste incinerators in the U. S. in the 1990s ( EPA 2000a), the current EPA Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards ( OAQPS) inventory indicates that there are 116 hospital/ medical/ infectious waste incinerators ( HMIWIs) in the U. S. as of July 28, 2003. ( EPA 2003)

This represents a greater than 90% reduction in the number of operating HMIWIs in the U. S. Many medical waste incinerators were closed rather than upgraded to meet new emission standards, as hospitals improved their programs to segregate infectious (" red bag") waste burned in HMIWIs 10 9/ 12/ 03 from non infectious (" black bag") waste handled as municipal solid waste after it leaves the hospital.

A. 2 Operating Conditions As noted by EPA, many incinerators for municipal solid waste are designed to operate in the combustion zone at 1800 ° F [ 982 ° C] to 2000 ° F [ 1093 ° C] to ensure good combustion. ( EPA 1995) EPA new source performance standards ( NSPS) and emission guidelines for both municipal waste combustors ( MWCs) and hospital/ medical/ infectious waste incinerators ( HMIWIs) are based on the use of " good combustion practices" ( GCP). ( EPA 1997, EPA 2000b, EPA 2000c, Van Remmen 1998)

Speaking of MWCs, Donnelly notes, " Design of modern efficient combustors is such that there is adequate turbulence in the flue gas to ensure good mixing, a hightemperature zone ( greater than 1000 o C) to complete burnout, and long enough residence time at high temperature ( 1 2 sec) for complete burnout." ( Donnelly 2000) The term " flue gas" here refers to the gas above the grate.

With respect to HMIWIs, Van Remmen states " any unit which presently [ prior to compliance date] has a [ secondary chamber] residence time less than two seconds at 1000 o C does not meet the requirement for good combustion under the new regulations." ( Van Remmen 1998)

Similarly, most MWCs are expected to typically operate with a 2 second gas residence time in the high temperature zone in order to assure compliance with emission standards on carbon monoxide and dioxins.

A. 2.1 MWC Operating Conditions EPA presents operating data for some MWCs in " Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment: Technical Basis for Good Combustion Practice" and points the reader elsewhere for additional data on specific representative MWCs.

Modular MWC Specifically, this background document ( EPA 1989) includes secondary chamber temperatures for modular MWCs that had CO emission levels less than current emission standards, and these are summarized in Table A 2.

11 9/ 12/ 03 Table A 2. Modular MWC Temperatures Secondary Chamber Temperature ( o C) 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 As highlighted in Table A 2, typical secondary chamber temperatures for these dual chamber modular units are in the range of 951 to 1071 o C.

As indicated in section A. 1, such modular units are generally small MWCs and account for less than a total of 2% of the municipal solid waste incinerated in the U. S.

Although this 1989 EPA background document does not present temperature data for mass burn nor RDF units, reports from the National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program ( NITEP) present operating data for an RDF combustor ( Mid Connecticut) and for a mass burn waterwall combustor ( Quebec City) otherwise discussed in the 1989 background document.

RDF MWC Furnace temperatures and flue gas oxygen levels for Mid Connecticut RDF combustor performance tests operating under good combustion conditions across a range of steam loads ( Finklestein and Klicius 1994) are summarized in Table A 3.

Table A 3. RDF MWC   Mid Connecticut Steam load Low low Intermediate Intermediate normal normal normal high test number PT 13 PT 14 PT 10 PT 02 PT 09 PT 08 PT 11 PT 12 Furnace temperature ( o C) 965 1004 1012 1022 1033 1015 1026 1049 flue gas O 2 (%) 10.1 9.6 9.2 9.1 7.6 7.5 7.9 6.4 The average operating conditions for this RDF unit across the range of steam loads are 1016 o C and 8.4% O 2.

Mass Burn MWC Furnace temperatures ( average of front and rear radiation chamber temperatures) and flue gas oxygen levels ( dry basis) for Quebec City mass burn combustor performance tests operating under good combustion conditions across a 12 9/ 12/ 03 range of steam loads ( Environment Canada 1988) are summarized in Table A 4.

Table A 4. Mass Burn MWC   Quebec City Steam load Low low Low design design Design High high test number PT02 PT10 PT11 PT05 PT06 PT12 PT07 PT09 Furnace temperature ( o C) 849 875 869 1014 1030 992 1085 1006 flue gas O 2 ( dry) 13 13 12 9 9 10 10 10 The average operating conditions for this mass burn unit across the range of steam loads are 965 o C and 10.8% O 2. When operated at design steam load, the average operating conditions for this mass burn MWC are 1012 o C and 9.3% O 2.

MWC Summary Considering the relative quantities of municipal waste burned annually in each type of MWC and the data in this section, average typical operating conditions for the high temperature zone of MWCs are nominally 1000 o C and 10% O 2.

A. 2.2 HMIWI Operating Conditions EPA notes that over 97% of medical waste incinerators are controlled air modular units ( EPA 2000a). Recent communication with EPA OAQPS indicates that virtually all existing HMIWIs are controlled air modular ( two chamber) units.

Theodore reports the range of temperatures for the secondary chamber of controlled air medical waste incinerators as 980 to 1200 o C. ( Theodore 1990) EPA notes that auxiliary fuel ( e. g., natural gas) is burned in the secondary chamber of medical waste incinerators to sustain temperatures in the range of 985 to 1095 o C and that combustion air at 100 to 300 % in excess of the stoichiometric requirement is usually added to the secondary chamber. ( EPA 2000a)

As noted above, a more recent report indicates that existing HMIWIs operate with secondary chamber temperatures greater than or equal to 1000 oC with a gas residence of 2 seconds. ( Van Remmen 1998)

13 9/ 12/ 03 References Donnelly, J. R. Waste Incineration Sources: Municipal Waste Combustion. In: W. T., ed., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd edition. Air and Waste Management Association. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 2000, pp 257 268.

Environment Canada. National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: Environmental Characterization of Mass Burning Incinerator Technology at Quebec City   Summary Report, EPS 3/ UP/ 5, June 1988.

Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment: Technical Basis for Good Combustion Practice, EPA 600/ 8 89 063, August 1989.

EPA. Emission Factor Documentation for AP 42 Section 2.1, Refuse Combustion, May 1993.

EPA. Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume II, Chapter 8, 1995.

EPA. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators, 62 Federal Register 48346, September 15, 1997.

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. New Source Performance Standards for New Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units, 65 Federal Register 76350, December 6, 2000.

EPA. Emission Guidelines for Existing Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units, 65 Federal Register 76378, December 6, 2000.

EPA. HMIWI Facility and Emissions Inventory, draft, July 28, 2003, www. epa. gov/ ttnatw01/ 129/ hmiwi/ 2003hmiwi_ inventory. xls 14 9/ 12/ 03 15 9/ 12/ 03 Finklestein, A. and R. D. Klicius. National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: The Environmental Characterization of Refuse derived Fuel ( RDF) Combustion Technology, Mid Connecticut Facility, Hartford, Connecticut, EPA 600/ R 94 140 ( NTIS PB96 153432), December 1994.

Integrated Waste Services Association ( IWSA). The 2002 IWSA Directory of Waste to Energy Plants, 2002, www. wte. org/ 2002_ directory/ IWSA_ 2002_ Directory. html Theodore, L. Air Pollution Control and Waste Incineration for Hospitals and Other Medical Facilities, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990, pp 313 320.

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, pp 393 402


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69090-69092]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23997]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78974; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of
Trading Interest

September 29, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 22, 2016, Miami International Securities Exchange
LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 519C, Mass
Cancellation of Trading Interest.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of
Trading Interest, to adopt new section (b) to provide that Exchange
staff, upon request from a Member,\4\ may remove all quotations \5\ and
cancel all orders \6\ in the System \7\ and block new incoming
quotations and orders from entering the System. The block will remain
in effect until the Member contacts Exchange staff \8\ to have the
block removed. The Exchange is also proposing to make technical
amendments to the Rule as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Act. See Exchange
Rule 100.
    \5\ The term ``quotation'' or ``quote'' means a bid or offer
entered by a Market Maker that is firm and may update the Market
Maker's previous quote, if any. The Rules of the Exchange provide
for the use of different types of quotes, including Standard quotes
and eQuotes, as more fully described in Exchange Rule 517. A Market
Maker may, at times, choose to have multiple types of quotes active
in an individual option. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ The term ``order'' means a firm commitment to buy or sell
option contracts. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \7\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \8\ The Exchange's Help Desk would receive such communication.
The Help Desk is the Exchange's control room consisting of Exchange
staff authorized to make certain trading determinations on behalf of
the Exchange. The Help Desk shall report to and be supervised by a
senior executive officer of the Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would allow a Member to submit a request to remove all
of its outstanding quotations and cancel all of its open orders and
block all new inbound quotations and orders by firm name or Market
Participant Identifier (``MPID''). The form of such requests includes,
but is not limited to, email or a phone call from authorized
individuals. The removal of quotes and the cancellation of orders as
described herein does not disconnect Members from the Exchange's
System.
    The Exchange is also proposing to make technical amendments to
Exchange Rule 519C. The Exchange proposes to add a new heading entitled
``Cancel'' to the first paragraph, and also proposes to identify the
first paragraph with the letter ``(a)'' for clarity and ease of
reference. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make a clarifying
change to the wording of the first paragraph. The paragraph currently
states that, ``[a] Member may cancel all of its quotations and/or all
or any subset of its orders [. . .].'' The Exchange proposes to replace
the word ``cancel'' with ``remove'' and to insert the word ``cancel''
after ``and/or,'' as this language more accurately describes the
actions being performed by the Exchange. Further, this language is
consistent with the rule text of another exchange that offers similar
functionality.\9\ Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to insert
language indicating that a Member may effect the removal of its
quotations and/or the cancellation of its orders, ``by firm name or by
Market Participant Identifier (``MPID'')''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX''), Rule 7280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add an additional
risk control mechanism for Members. The Exchange has a number of other
rules covering risk management processes available to Members and it
believes this capability will provide Members with an additional risk
management tool and enhance transparency in the Exchange's rules.
Additionally, the proposed technical change to the rule adds greater
clarity and precision to the rule text.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule adds another risk protection tool for Members and

provides that the Exchange may take action on their behalf. The
proposed rule protects investors and the public interest by increasing
the number of risk protection tools available to Members on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that a similar rule is currently operative
on another exchange.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technical amendments organize the rule text and clarify the
actions being performed by the Exchange and are intended to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market by
adding precision and ease of reference to the Exchange's rules, thus
promoting transparency and clarity for Exchange Members. Additionally,
harmonizing the language in the rule text to that of another exchange
that offers similar functionality will minimize any confusion regarding
the actions being performed by the Exchange under the proposed rule.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will not relieve
Exchange Market Makers of their continuous quoting obligations under
Exchange Rule 604 and under Reg NMS Rule 602.\13\ Specifically, any
interest that is executable against a Member's quotes and orders that
is received by the Exchange prior to the time the removal of quotes or
cancellation of orders request is received by the System will
automatically execute at the price up to the Member's size. Market
Makers that request their quotes be removed will not be relieved of the
obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis, nor
will it prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary action against a
Market Maker for failing to meet their continuous quoting obligation
each trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is intended to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market by introducing
additional risk protection tools for Exchange Members and by adding
precision and ease of reference to the Exchange's rules, thus promoting
transparency and clarity for Exchange Members.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not impose any
burden on intra-market competition because every Member of the Exchange
has the opportunity to benefit from the procedure described in the
proposed rule. The proposed rule is meant to provide all Members with
the same protection in the event the Member is experiencing an issue
that would require the Member to withdraw its quotations and cancel its
orders from the market and prevent new quotations and orders from being
received in order to ensure a fair and orderly market on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not impose any
burden on inter-market competition because the process of cancellation
of quotations and orders on the Exchange is substantially similar to
processes currently operative on other exchanges.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all the reasons stated, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2016-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-34. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-34 and should be
submitted on or before October 26, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23997 Filed 10-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13854-13855]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05754]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77333; File No. SR-BATS-2016-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change to Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares, To List and Trade Shares
of the iShares iBonds Dec 2023 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds
Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-Free Muni
Bond ETF, and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF of the
iShares U.S. ETF Trust

March 9, 2016.
    On January 12, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the iShares iBonds Dec 2023 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares
iBonds Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-
Free Muni Bond ETF, and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF
of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust under BATS Rule 14.11(i). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 27, 2016.\3\ The Commission has not received any comments on
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76954 (Jan. 21,
2016), 81 FR 4695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the

proposed rule change should be disapproved. The 45th day after
publication of the notice for this proposed rule change is March 12,
2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
April 26, 2016, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BATS-2016-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05754 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 56831-56833]
[DOCID:fr03no09-52]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0XXX; FRL-8976-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Analysis of Archived Environmental Samples From the
American Healthy Homes Survey (New); EPA ICR No. XXXX.XX, OMB Control
No. 20XX-XXXX

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request for a new Information Collection Request (ICR) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
ORD-2009-0XXX, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0XXX, Office of
Research and Development (ORD) Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0XXX. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov .gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Bradham, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code D205-
05, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0XXX, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of
Research and Development Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is
(202) 566-1752.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Title: Analysis of Archived Environmental Samples from the American
Healthy Homes Survey (New).

    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. [XXXX.XX], OMB Control No. 20XX-XXXX.
    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Information from respondents was collected during the field
collection portion of American Healthy Homes Survey. There is no
additional response needed from the respondents or cost burden to
respondents resulting from the collection of information because the
samples have already been collected.
    The proposed analyses described in the ICR will provide EPA with
nationally representative data characterizing perfluorinated chemicals
(PFCs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), phthalates, and pesticide concentrations currently
found in and around U.S. residences. Studies in the scientific
literature have reported the presence of these compounds or their
degradation products in environmental samples and in human biological
samples. However, measurement data for these classes of compounds in
U.S. residential media are insufficient in quantity and of variable
quality, limiting their usefulness for understanding the sources and
pathways of exposure in the general population and developing risk
reduction strategies. Analysis of archived environmental samples
collected previously in the American Healthy Homes Survey (AHHS)
provides an efficient, resource-maximizing approach for obtaining
information on these chemicals in and around residential environments.
    Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are man-made chemicals resistant to
chemical, biological, and thermal degradation. They are used as stain-
resistant coatings, surfactants, lubricants, fire-fighting foams, and
metal-plating mist suppressants. Animal toxicity studies have
demonstrated reproductive, developmental, and immune effects. Despite a
growing body of literature demonstrating the widespread presence of
these compounds in wildlife, environmental samples, and human
biological specimens, data on environmental concentrations in indoor
environments in the U.S. are sparse, and the pathways of human exposure
remain largely unknown.
    Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are brominated chemicals
used as fire retardants. Three commercially produced mixtures of PBDEs
(penta-, octa-, and deca-BDE) are used in the manufacture of consumer
products, primarily blended into plastics, electronics, polyurethane
upholstery foams, and textiles. Growing evidence of environmental
persistence and bioaccumulation has led to recent changes in production
of the penta- and octa- PBDEs. Nonetheless, human exposures to all
previously used mixtures are expected to continue during the coming
decades as PBDEs are slowly released into the surrounding environment.
Animal toxicity testing suggests that PBDEs of lower bromination
disrupt thyroid hormones and cause neurobehavioral deficits and that
deca-PBDE is a possible carcinogen. Due to the concerns related to
ubiquitous distribution of these chemicals, their persistence, rising
body burdens, potential for human health effects, elevated risks to
children, and increasing industrial demand, the EPA needs
representative data on concentrations of PBDEs in house dust in
residential settings across the U.S.
    Phthalates are used in the manufacture of a wide range of
industrial and household consumer products to prolong durability and
increase the flexibility of plastics and as chemical stabilizers for
other materials. Animal data suggest a broad spectrum of potential
health outcomes including developmental toxicity, endocrine disruption,
and carcinogenicity. However, the characterization of human exposure to
phthalates is limited and the National Toxicology Program's Center for
the Evaluation of the Risks to Human Reproduction has concluded that
more data regarding the potential for human exposure are needed.
    Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are man-made mixtures of
chemicals, which have chemical properties that make them resistant to
chemical, biological, and thermal degradation. Data on environmental
concentrations show that indoor air exposures to PCBs are more
significant than outdoor exposures. Sources of PCBs in an indoor
environment include PCB-containing caulk, floor finishes, old
electronic products, and fluorescent lighting. PCBs tend to
bioaccumulate, leading to dietary exposures through fish, meat, dairy
and processed foods. Dietary exposure is considered the major source of
exposure but with a steady decrease in bioaccumulation, inhalation and
indirect ingestion become an increasingly important route of exposure
to children. Results from the AHHS will provide high quality baseline
distributional data describing real-world concentrations of PCBs in
U.S. residences, allowing EPA to better understand their presence and
variability in the home environment.
    Pesticides are needed to control insects and other pests on crops
and in both indoor and outdoor environments. The potential health
effects of pesticides vary by type but may include developmental
neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption. Children are uniquely
vulnerable to pesticide exposures given their hand-to-mouth behaviors,
floor play, and developing nervous system. The Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996 requires EPA to consider aggregate risks (exposures through
all routes and pathways). Information on potential exposures to these
chemicals through dust- and soil-related pathways will supplement
existing AHHS surface wipe results, providing a more complete
assessment of children's exposures to pesticides in their homes.
    This proposed analysis will be used to develop a nationally
representative database to assess current status and future trends,
investigate regional variability, evaluate relationships between indoor
and outdoor concentrations, characterize exposure routes and pathways,
and evaluate suspected occupant- and housing-related determinants of
exposure. The real-world data will be particularly useful for
developing, evaluating, and improving ORD's modeling tools for
estimating, classifying, and predicting human exposure. These data will
be available throughout the Agency to refine risk assessments and
enhance the Agency's risk assessment/management strategies.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes

of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:

Members of Affected Public.......................................      0
Total Burden Estimate............................................      0
Frequency of respondents.........................................      0
Hours per responses..............................................      0
Burden response..................................................      0
Respondents......................................................      0
    Total Estimated Burden Hours.................................      0

    There is no additional time or costs to respondents needed for
additional analyses of the environmental samples because these samples
have already been collected.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: October 26, 2009.
Jewel F. Morris,
Deputy Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
[FR Doc. E9-26414 Filed 11-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P