1 THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC MEETING ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID ( PFOA) AND FLUORINATED TELOMERS Friday, June 6, 2003 [ 12: 00 p. m.]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY East Building, Room 1153 1201 Constitution Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20460 2 MEMBERS OF THE PANEL Oscar Hernandez Phil Oshida Charles Auer Ward Penberthy Mary Ellen Weber Cathy Fehrenbacher 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 MR. OSHIDA: Welcome to the EPA's public 4 meeting concerning data development through 5 enforceable consent agreements, or ECAs, as you will 6 know, to identify the sources of perfluorooctanoic 7 acid  PFOA, also known as C8  in the environment,

8 and the pathways leading to human and environmental 9 exposures. I would like to thank all of the groups 10 and individuals who have registered as interested 11 parties for the purpose of participating in these 12 negotiations.

13 I'm Phil Oshida, Acting Director of the 14 Chemical Control Division in the EPA's Office of 15 Pollution Prevention and Toxics, and I will be 16 chairing this meeting.

17 As you all probably realize, this meeting is 18 being recorded and transcribed by an EPA contractor.

19 The verbatim transcript of these proceedings will be 20 placed in the electronic public docket, which is 21 OPPT 2003 0012, about three weeks from today. We will 22 also prepare a short summary of today's discussions to 4 1 place in the public record. To assist in ensuring 2 that the transcript is complete, I'll ask that all 3 speakers use the microphone that our staff can bring 4 to you.

5 A list of preregistered attendees is available 6 now at the registration desk area. Please make 7 certain that you have signed in at the registration 8 desk, so that a copy of the complete meeting attendee 9 list can be included in the docket next week. Because 10 we have so many people in attendance, we will not do 11 introductions around the room at this time. A couple 12 of weeks ago we had intended to do that, but with the 13 large number here we decided that there wouldn't be 14 quite enough time. When we enter the discussion 15 portions of the meeting, please remember to introduce 16 yourself with your name and your affiliation.

17 Before we begin, I would like to take a moment 18 to offer some information on this Toxic Substances 19 Control Act Section 4 Enforceable Consent Agreement 20 process, the ECA process for the benefit of those who 21 may be less familiar with it, and to put things in 22 context for the record. EPA circulated introductory 5 1 materials in two email messages to registered parties 2 before the meeting, including a short background 3 document on the ECA process and one example of a 4 simple ECA concluded on a single chemical. Some 5 copies of these materials are available at the 6 registration desk and they may also be available at 7 the back table. If there aren't enough copies 8 available, you can request one from Annette Washington 9 at the registration desk, and we will send it to you.

10 They are also available at the online docket.

11 I would like to note that the details of ECAs 12 that will be developed through the process we are 13 embarking on today may differ. For example, as an 14 initial step in some data development, we may need to 15 adapt existing methods to meet new test standards.

16 Such an ECA would likely be written both to encompass 17 that step and to reflect contingencies based on the 18 results of those tests. EPA anticipates that separate 19 ECAs may be developed to cover different aspects of 20 the data development needs that the Agency has 21 identified here, and multiple ECAs for the same 22 subject may be needed to assure no breach of 6 1 confidential business information, or CBI, among test 2 sponsors. In this meeting today, we hope to identify 3 opportunities for ECA development, to identify the 4 specific parties who wish to actively pursue those 5 ECAs and set the schedule and format for future 6 meetings as may be needed to complete this work.

7 As EPA indicated in the Federal Register notice 8 that solicited interested parties for the negotiation 9 of ECAs, the goal of this process is to obtain 10 agreements to develop data to clarify the sources of 11 PFOA in the environment and the pathways leading to 12 exposure. These are the only topics which will be 13 addressed in this meeting.

14 As you all probably know there are activities 15 concerning PFOA currently underway in other forums.

16 Those activities including private lawsuits, state 17 regulatory actions, independent data development by 18 companies and industry groups, and investigations by 19 other state and Federal agencies. Those activities 20 are not the subject or focus of this meeting, and 21 issues that properly belong in those other forums will 22 not be addressed here. For example, EPA indicated in 7 1 the Federal Register notice and in the preparatory 2 materials for this meeting that the Agency will not be 3 pursuing additional PFOA toxicity testing or blood 4 monitoring through the ECA process. These issues are 5 beyond the scope of this ECA discussion.

6 Pharmacokinetics studies are already underway 7 in the private sector, and EPA has nominated PFOA and 8 related chemicals to the Centers for Disease Control 9 and Prevention as candidates to include in the next 10 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the 11 NHANES study. One criterion that CDC uses in making 12 decisions on whether to include a chemical in NHANES 13 is the availability of validated analytical 14 techniques. CDC has adapted published 3M methods for 15 high throughput analyses, as required by NHANES, and 16 CDC is currently completing their validation for use 17 in monitoring human serum and human breast milk.

18 Preliminary results of this work will be submitted for 19 presentation to the Dioxin 2003 conference, and when 20 completed, the method will be published in the peer 21 reviewed literature. Independently of the CDC 22 activity, 3M and DuPont are also jointly pursuing 8 1 validation of these methods, and will publish their 2 work in peer reviewed journals. EPA sees no need to 3 duplicate any of these activities in this ECA process.

4 CDC will be making a decision in the next few 5 months about whether to add perfluorinated compounds 6 to NHANES, and whether it may be able to screen serum 7 bank samples from the 1999 2000 sampling for the 8 presence of selected perfluorinated chemicals. When 9 CDC announces that decision, EPA will place that 10 announcement in the public record for this proceeding 11 to ensure that interested parties are informed.

12 Separate from this ECA process, EPA is 13 continuing efforts to refine a preliminary risk 14 assessment on PFOA, as indicated in the Federal 15 Register notice. A further developed, revised version 16 of the preliminary risk assessment will be submitted 17 to the EPA's Science Advisory Board for review later 18 this year, in a public process that will allow for the 19 consideration of issues specific to that assessment.

20 Accordingly, EPA will not discuss its preliminary 21 assessment in the context of these ECA proceedings.

22 The Agency believes that as a general matter, 9 1 when we engage in dialogue, despite differences, the 2 ECA process benefits government, industry, and other 3 interested parties by expediting the development of 4 the needed information and by guaranteeing public 5 access to the data. However, this does not mean that 6 this negotiation process is a totally open forum.

7 There are a few important considerations to keep in 8 mind.

9 First, information which is claimed as 10 confidential business information, under Toxic 11 Substances Control Act, will not be discussed in any 12 public meeting. Parties are reminded to observe 13 proper procedures in submitting any CBI information to 14 the Agency. All CBI claims concerning information 15 submitted as part of this ECA process may require 16 formal substantiation.

17 The only aspects of an ECA that are negotiable 18 relate to the specifications and details of the 19 subject testing program. Examples of this would be 20 the Subject Test Substance, the Scope of the Testing 21 Program, and the Description of the Testing Program.

22 Mandatory standard language which establishes 10 1 enforceability in the ECA are not open to negotiation.

2 Examples of such standard language include the 3 sections on compliance monitoring, enforcement,

4 protocol modifications, compliance with Good 5 Laboratory Practices, export notification, and 6 disclosure of test results. Although some differences 7 may exist in views on the testing needs expressed by 8 EPA, I am confident that we can work cooperatively 9 together and reach a successful agreement in principle 10 on the framework of one or more ECAs within a period 11 of four months from today's meeting.

12 We requested that interested parties wishing to 13 make opening statements either make them in writing,

14 or specifically request time in advance for a brief 15 statement. The Telomer Research Program and the 16 Society of Plastics Industry have provided a written 17 version. Six parties requested time to make brief 3 18 to 5 minute verbal statements, and they have been 19 listed on the agenda in the order in which their 20 requests were received. The Center for Regulatory 21 Effectiveness will begin. Mr. Slaughter?

22 MR. SLAUGHTER: Thank you for the opportunity 11 1 to comment. My name is Scott Slaughter and I 2 represent The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.

3 CRE has particular interest in this proceeding in that 4 we think the greater the number of significant issues 5 under the new Data Quality Act and under EPA data 6 quality guidelines. We agree with EPA that additions 7 in the current data base inadequately assess the risk 8 of PFOA. We agree that additional testing is 9 necessary in order to produce a risk assessment and 10 disseminate the risk assessment that complies with 11 Data Quality Act and the general physical ( inaudible).

12 And we won't get the ( inaudible) Data Quality Act 13 requires that any data assumed about EPA in context be 14 based on tips that they be accurate, reliable, and 15 reproduceable, and we also want data. EPA cannot 16 exhibit any original assessment that meets Data 17 Quality Act standards unless the data validly 18 demonstrates to be accurate, reliable, reproduceable,

19 and we believe based upon our review of the record 20 that that demonstrates to nothing made in numerous 21 respects. Thank you.

22 MR. OSHIDA: Thank you, Mr. Slaughter. Little 12 1 Hocking Water Association, Robert L. Griffon.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Good afternoon, everyone. My 3 name is Bob Griffon. I am the General Manager of the 4 Little Hocking Water Association. I would like to 5 thank the EPA for the opportunity to comment this 6 afternoon. What I would like to do is share our 7 perspective on C8 contamination as proved in our water 8 supply. To the best of my knowledge, our water system 9 has the highest C8 levels of any other water system in 10 this country, if not in the world. Currently on a 11 daily basis we're supplying water to our customers 12 that has a C8 level of two parts per billion

13 MR. AUER: Could you pull the microphone closer 14 to you?

15 MR. GRIFFON: Basically we have a C8 level of 16 two parts per billion, this is twice the historic 17 DuPont community special guideline of one part per 18 billion. We're located in Washington County, Ohio,

19 our well field is along the Ohio River, it is directly 20 across from the DuPont Plant, Washington Works, in 21 Washington County, West Virginia. For those who

22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We still can't hear you. 13 1 MR. GRIFFON: Basically we're located in 2 Washington County, Ohio. We are ( inaudible) to about 3 12,000 people. Our water wells are located along the 4 Ohio River in Washington County, Ohio. On the other 5 side of the river directly across from us is the 6 DuPont Washington Works Plant in Wood County, West 7 Virginia. The way the wind blows from the plant 8 basically is toward our well field. Last year DuPont 9 discharged a total of about 20,000 pounds of C8 into 10 the air and water. We're not the only Ohio water 11 system that's affected, we have water systems upstream 12 and downstream from our location that have C8 13 contaminating their water supplies. For example, the 14 Tuppers Plains Chester Water District, they're located 15 about 15 miles downstream from us and they're also 16 contaminated with C8 as well. One of the goals of 17 this C8 investigation is to understand how the general 18 public is being exposed to C8. Unfortunately in our 19 case we already know some of the pathways of how 20 people in our community are being exposed. Twenty 21 years ago DuPont knew C8 contaminated our water, we 22 didn't find out until about a year and a half ago. 14 1 Since then we've learned that C8 not only contaminates 2 our water, it contaminates our air and our soil as 3 well. I was taking water samples from our well field,

4 we found C8 levels as high as 8.6 parts per billion in 5 one of our production wells. This number goes up in 6 the test scoring. We found 78 parts per billion in 7 the test scoring that was done in our well field.

8 Also the soil sample we found levels as high as 170 9 micrograms per kilogram. It is now apparent to us 10 that our community has probably been at a normal 11 exposure to this chemical for more than 50 years.

12 It is my understanding that the EPA will not 13 pursue human biomonitoring through the ECAs that we're 14 discussing today. Even so, the EPA recognizes that 15 the population living near industrial sites may have 16  there's a possibility that the C8 in their blood 17 level is higher than the general population. Based on 18 a chart developed by DuPont there have been newspaper 19 articles suggesting that people in our community have 20 higher C8 levels in their blood than even DuPont's own 21 workers.

22 Therefore I recommend that in the future our 15 1 community should be a part of the sampling group, not 2 only are we exposed to the products that the general 3 population uses nationwide, but we're also exposed 4 through the very water we drink, our air, our soil.

5 Unfortunately we're a ready made study group. We 6 probably have the most exposure of anybody in the 7 country.

8 Under the West Virginia Consent Order the C8 9 screening level are 150 parts per billion in water was 10 established, however the very industry that 11 contaminated our water, our air, our soil was heavily 12 involved in this consent order process. As a result,

13 based on newspaper polls the majority in our community 14 do not have faith in a 150 parts per billion number.

15 Because of the controversy surrounding this issue we 16 feel there's a need for a study of the problem that is 17 truly independent of industries that have interest in 18 the outcome, so the residents of our community have 19 assurance of the quality of their air and water.

20 Therefore we are requesting that we not be 21 forgotten in this investigative process with the EPA's 22 undertakers. People in our community and other 16 1 communities along the Ohio River are drinking water 2 every day that has C8 in it. They're drinking it 3 without truly knowing what the health effects are to 4 them, their children, their grandchildren are, so 5 please do not forget us, please give us data and 6 information that we can have confidence in. Thank 7 you.

8 MR. OSHIDA: The Environmental Working Group 9 represented by Kristina Thayer.

10 MS. THAYER: Hi, good afternoon, my name is 11 Kristina Thayer from Environmental Working Group. The 12 Environmental Working Group appreciates the 13 opportunity to participate as an interested party in 14 these deliberations. We commend the EPA for 15 initiating this process and for pursuing an 16 enforceable consent agreement or ECA to obtain basic 17 environmental data about perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA,

18 and fluorinated telomers. It is a testament the to 19 feebleness of America's regulatory safety net for 20 toxic chemicals that the Federal government has had to 21 resort to a negotiated consent agreement in order to 22 obtain rudimentary scientific information that should 17 1 have been available decades ago with DuPont, 3M, and 2 other companies that have managed to permanently 3 pollute the entire biosphere with PFOA and other 4 fluorinated chemicals. These are chemicals that last 5 forever in the environment having disturbing raised 6 toxic effects in numerous species of laboratory 7 animals, and contaminate virtually all human blood 8 tested in recent years including the blood of infants 9 and children.

10 Most Americans would and certainly should 11 wonder why is on earth it took almost 50 years to 12 learn that popular, heavily advertised brand names 13 like Teflon, Scotchgard, and Stain Master are 14 synonymous not only to stain free carpets, non stick 15 pans, and water repellant furniture, but with severe 16 essentially permanent pollution on a planetary scale.

17 We hope that these proceedings will lead to a 18 ban on PFOA and other problematic chemicals in the 19 family. The available science more than justifies 20 that step. But we also hope this process will help 21 the public understand why the government doesn't have 22 a clue about these problems until just a few years 18 1 ago. We hope these proceedings help explain why 2 DuPont, 3M, and other science companies that make 3 billions of dollars selling Teflon, Scotchgard, or 4 other fluoro chemicals have been so irresponsible or 5 incompetent in assessing and acknowledging their 6 impact on the environment and human health.

7 We have been shocked in particular by recent 8 public statements from DuPont claiming that the 9 company welcomes regulatory scrutiny of PFOA, has 10 cooperated eagerly, and fully and looks with favor on 11 the prospect that PFOA might at last be regulated.

12 But DuPont was neither transparent nor cooperative 13 when it performed secret tests 20 years ago that found 14 PFOA contaminated the tap water of communities near 15 its Parkersburg Teflon plant, and didn't say a word to 16 its neighbors or regulators. Internal company 17 documents show that DuPont executives were so 18 concerned about corporate liability and credibility 19 arising from PFOA pollution that they consider an 20 in house plan to eliminate it in 1984, but instead of 21 eliminating PFOA pollution, DuPont more than doubled 22 it by 1989. Only now with regulations opting is 19 1 DuPont volunteering to curb a contaminate that will 2 constrict the environment and the people forever.

3 This is the same company that fearing publicity filed 4 a secret motion in a West Virginia court to secretly 5 impose a temporary restraining order that would 6 prevent a lawyer from speaking about PFOA at a 7 previous public meeting convened by EPA three years 8 ago. In fact, DuPont asked that the attorney not even 9 be allowed to respond to the gag order before it was 10 secretly imposed. The court wisely denied the 11 restraining order, but just last month DuPont was 12 sanctioned by the same court after acknowledging that 13 its lead toxicologist of PFOA, Gerry Kennedy, had 14 destroyed documents sought by 2,000 plaintiffs in a 15 class action suit alleged from tap water pollution.

16 DuPont's efforts at corporate damage control 17 and the pollution problems they were meant to hide or 18 minimize are a shameful chapter in the history of 19 America's oldest and foremost chemical company. 3M's 20 behavior was only marginally better. For decades the 21 company ignored clear scientific warning signs about 22 both PFOA and PFA, signs of persistence, toxicity, and 20 1 contamination of the environment and people. Just 2 recently 3M said it will replace PFOs with another 3 persistent chemical in the same family. The company 4 has said that it is almost nontoxic reportedly on the 5 basis of some 40 health studies that 3M is hiding 6 under the shield of confidential business information.

7 We agree with EPA's emphasis on identifying 8 sources of exposure and not further defining 9 toxicological properties as the next essential step in 10 characterizing the potentials of PFOA. This decision 11 reflects the Agency's conclusion that current levels 12 of PFOA in human blood present a potential major 13 public health risk. We agree that the next task is to 14 identify the sources of this contamination.

15 Although EPA is to be commended for quickly 16 initiating the ECA process and expanding the focus 17 from PFOA to include both PFOA and fluorotelomers,

18 several points present in the preliminary framework 19 document concern us. First, all claims that PFOA 20 toxicity or exposure data are confidential business 21 information must be denied. If sources of PFOA are 22 kept secret then the public will lose its inherent 21 1 right to reduce PFOA voluntarily. While we respect 2 legitimate CBI, we urge highly judicious use of CBI 3 privilege and a great respect for the public's right 4 to know the sources of the human blood pollutant.

5 Second, DuPont and other companies must submit to 6 EPA all existing health and exposure data relating to 7 PFOA and the telomers. It is outrageous that in 8 important worker studies such as finding the birth 9 defects in 2 of 7 female workers exposed to PFOA and 10 drinking water contamination in Little Hocking, Ohio,

11 were not submitted to EPA by DuPont, but only became 12 public through litigation.

13 Third, the ECA must include blood monitoring 14 studies. As it stands, the Agency proposes to test 15 PFOA levels in air, water, soil, and biota near 16 manufacture and use facilities as well as control 17 sites, but specifically state it will not sample blood 18 at other sites.

19 This omission will seriously undermine the 20 entire ECA process and is equivalent to entering all 21 the numbers in the calculator and then not adding them 22 up. 22 1 Finally, we urge EPA to include PFOA exposures 2 from heated non stick appliances such as pans, ovens,

3 microwave parts, and irons in the ECA process. There 4 are literally billions of non stick pans in use across 5 the globe. Temperatures where PTFE, which is the 6 chemistry underlining nonstick pans, degrade into PFOA 7 can easily be reached in the kitchen, for example, if 8 an empty pan is preheated on high or if someone pours 9 hot water in the pan. The widespread use of non stick 10 cookware and the degree to which people can misuse it 11 suggest consumer use of PTFE can be a source of PFOA 12 on the people in the environment.

13 MR. OSHIDA: DuPont, Dr. Uma Chowdhry.

14 DR. CHOWDHRY: Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Uma 15 Chowdhry for DuPont Corporate Research and Development 16 Laboratory and with me are Mr. Rich Anguillo, he is 17 the Vice President and General Manager of our fluoro 18 product business, and Dr. Robert Ritchie, he is our 19 Technical Director for DuPont Chemical Solutions. I 20 would like to begin by thanking the Agency for 21 providing the opportunity for DuPont to comment on the 22 enforceable consent agreement development process for 23 1 perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA.

2 I will note that in addition to my statement 3 DuPont also responded to your request for written 4 comments and submitted those to you for consideration 5 on the 16th of May. We do recognize that there have 6 been many questions raised by EPA and others about the 7 potential risks associated with exposure of PFOA. As 8 a science company, DuPont is fully committed to work 9 with industry to address those questions, to 10 investigate both past and current potential sources of 11 PFOA exposure, to further reduce exposure ( inaudible),

12 and to provide information needed to allow for the 13 development of an accurate science based assessment of 14 any of this exposed by PFOA. Our knowledge of the 15 compound is extensive and we are more than willing to 16 continue to share that knowledge with the Agency and 17 the public throughout the ECA development process.

18 And of course we will cooperate with the Agency's 19 final conclusion.

20 DuPont is a company with a 200 year heritage 21 based on values of safety, health, and environmental 22 stewardship, very high ethical standings, and a 24 1 commitment to treat all people with fairness and 2 respect. These core values are foremost in everything 3 we do as a company. Consistent with these values we 4 very much respect the rights and desires of consumers 5 around the world to know that the products they rely 6 on and use are safe. Throughout our history safety 7 has been our first priority of business. We are 8 passionate about the safety of our operations and our 9 products. In more than 50 years of use by DuPont and 10 others there have been no known adverse human health 11 effects associated with PFOA.

12 Extensive scientific studies indicate that 13 current PFOA exposure does not present a risk to 14 humans or to the environment. There are more than 100 15 laboratory and employee health studies on PFOA, many 16 of which have been peer reviewed and published in the 17 open literature. These studies support our conclusion 18 that PFOA does not pose a risk to humans. This is 19 especially important given the potential for higher 20 levels of exposure to PFOA that may result in an 21 occupational setting.

22 We believe and we are confident that PFOA poses 25 1 no danger to the public at current levels. PFOA is a 2 biopersistent compound, it does not bioaccumulate in 3 the environment or man. PFOA is not a genotoxin and 4 while it may cause cancer in laboratory animals, it is 5 not believed to be a human carcinogen. Based on the 6 scientific evidence that is available to us, DuPont 7 does not consider PFOA to be a developmental toxin.

8 The ECA regulatory process should be based on 9 high quality credible scientific data and should 10 include a complete characterization of all past and 11 current PFOA exposure levels. We are confident that 12 the outcome of this ( inaudible) process will support 13 our conclusion that the compounds and products 14 involved are safe for their intended use. In 2002,

15 DuPont began manufacturing PFOA in the U. S. after 3M,

16 our domestic supplier, discontinued production.

17 Today, our state of the art manufacturing 18 facility employee emissions PFOA technology that 19 reduces PFOA emissions by more than 99 percent 20 compared to emissions from previously used PFOA 21 manufacturing technology. This is the distinction we 22 are truly proud of and have openly shared the new 26 1 technology with all our industry colleagues.

2 Testing is conducted to insure that DuPont 3 products that use PFOA in their manufacture are safe 4 for their intended use. We ensure their safety to 5 consumers, as well as to industry customers who 6 fabricate or use our products and the ingredients in 7 their products.

8 On April 14th of this year your Agency 9 concluded that quote " EPA does not believe there is 10 any reason for consumers to stop using any consumer or 11 industrial products" unquote containing fluoropolymers 12 or telomers as ingredients because of questions about 13 PFOA. DuPont agrees and supports the EPA's position.

14 Lastly, I would like to reaffirm that DuPont is 15 fully supportive of the Agency's leadership to conduct 16 a scientifically sound risk assessment for PFOA. We 17 are fully supportive of the Agency's decision to 18 convene a scientific advisory board to review and 19 comment on the Agency's risk assessment. We believe 20 that EPA's process may lead to regulation that will 21 assure the protection of the public's health and 22 safety while allowing the continuing use of PFOA and 27 1 the benefits that it brings to society.

2 We remain confident that society is not being 3 exposed to health or environmental risks from 4 potential exposure to PFOA. We will work with the 5 Agency to provide any information we can to assist 6 with your investigation.

7 Thank you for your attention.

8 MR. OSHIDA: The Telomer Research Group, Katie 9 Smythe.

10 MS. SMYTHE: Good afternoon. My name is Katie 11 Smythe. I work for the RAND Corporation and serve as 12 the administrator of the Telomer Research Program,

13 also known as the TRP. As the TRP administrator, I 14 have been asked by the member companies to present the 15 TRP's opening statement summarizing their views. The 16 TRP members would like to thank the Agency for the 17 opportunity to comment on the Enforceable Consent 18 Agreement development process for PFOA. TRP is a 19 science focused research consortium funded by the 20 primary global fluorotelomer manufacturers: Asahi 21 Glass, Clariant, Daikin Industries, and DuPont. The 22 TRP companies produce or import telomer based products 28 1 into the United States, which are used as surface 2 protection chemicals and specialty fluoro additives in 3 many markets.

4 Individually, the member companies have studied 5 fluorotelomer products for more than 40 years and are 6 firmly committed to the safe manufacture and use of 7 telomer based products. In addition, TRP members 8 continue to affirm that these products are indeed safe 9 for the markets in which they are used. The TRP has 10 initiated an ambitious program to develop additional 11 data on the environmental fate of telomer based 12 products, better characterize the routes of 13 environmental release and human exposure, strengthen 14 product stewardship, and take additional measures to 15 reduce or prevent exposure wherever new data suggest 16 that such changes are needed.

17 Telomer products are not made from PFOA, nor is 18 PFOA added during the manufacture or use of telomer 19 products. However, questions have been raised about 20 the potential for telomer products to transform to 21 PFOA. The TRP is actively working to address these 22 questions and identify the relevant routes by which 29 1 telomer products may, in fact, transform to PFOA, and 2 if they do, to what extent these transformations take 3 place and if there may be human or environmental 4 exposure of consequence. The TRP is committed to 5 answer EPA's questions and participate in the ECA 6 process.

7 Telomer based products and articles treated 8 with these products provide many unique and 9 irreplaceable benefits to people and society. The 10 telomer products provide protection that significantly 11 extends the useful lifetime and lessens the need to 12 clean textile articles, including apparel, upholstery,

13 and carpeting. In specific applications, garments 14 treated with telomer products protect military and 15 healthcare workers from chemical agents and diseases 16 transmitted through blood, such as HIV and hepatitis.

17 Telomer based products are also key ingredients in 18 fire fighting foam formulations and are unparalleled 19 in their ability to knock down, resist burnback, and 20 secure an enflamed area quickly and safely.

21 In a Letter of Intent to EPA, the TRP members 22 outlined a voluntary commitment to investigate the 30 1 potential association between PFOA and telomers, and 2 continue to generate data in a timely manner. The 3 TRP has developed a staged scientific study approach 4 focused on articles treated with telomers and telomer 5 products in order to determine their potential to 6 transform or break down into PFOA. The TRP is 7 utilizing the best testing and methodology practices 8 available. The members believe it is important to 9 provide the EPA, their customers and the public with 10 scientific data on the products that they purchase.

11 The TRP work is focused on three major end use 12 applications, carpets, textiles and paper.

13 For the work underway, analytical method 14 development has been a substantial challenge due to 15 the unique properties of the telomer substances and 16 the lack of methods to determine low levels of PFOA.

17 Current experience with method development has shown 18 us that standard test guidelines are not always 19 suitable and need significant adaptations to develop 20 sound data and methods. TRP is now sponsoring work at 21 several contract labs to develop and validate 22 analytical methods to conduct these studies on 31 1 products and articles.

2 The TRP members fully understand that EPA has 3 questions regarding potential exposure pathways of 4 PFOA. The member companies support EPA's efforts to 5 assure the regulatory process is based on high 6 quality, credible scientific data and they are 7 committed to providing their part of this data 8 collection in a timely, efficient and responsible 9 manner.

10 Current contributions to environmental loadings 11 of PFOA provide on part of the answer to EPA's 12 questions. A full characterization of potential 13 routes of environmental and human exposure for PFOA 14 should include all past and current sources of PFOA.

15 The TRP members believe that the ECA process should 16 include products that have been discontinued, but are 17 still in commercial use and available in the 18 environment for human exposure. Discontinued 19 PFOA based products and past PFOA production and use 20 must be included to fully and accurately reflect 21 current environmental and human exposure potential.

22 TRP member companies urge EPA to take a comprehensive 32 1 and holistic approach to understanding environmental 2 and human exposure to develop a risk assessment on 3 PFOA and its salts that includes PFOA manufacture and 4 use, PFOS based products, and telomers.

5 The world is ever evolving and so are science 6 and our understanding of it. The research being 7 conducted by the TRP is no exception. The research 8 being undertaken requires the development of new 9 testing standards and new methodologies that will 10 result in further understanding, increased awareness 11 and the continued responsible stewardship of 12 telomer based products.

13 The member companies stand by their substantial 14 and aggressive commitments to EPA, described in our 15 Letter of Intent and in the comments made today. The 16 TRP members are committed to safe handling and use of 17 their products and to continue their comprehensive 18 research program. The TRP members strongly believe 19 the end result of this research program will be new 20 knowledge on telomer based products and chemistry that 21 will reaffirm to the EPA, customers and consumers the 22 value and safety of telomer products. 33 1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

2 MR. OSHIDA: The Society for the Plastics 3 Industry Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group, Don 4 Duncan.

5 MR. DUNCAN: Good afternoon. I'm Don Duncan,

6 President of The Society of the Plastics Industry or 7 SPI, the Washington, D. C. based trade association 8 representing the U. S. Plastics Industry. I'm here 9 today to speak on behalf of SPI's Fluoropolymers 10 Manufacturing Group or FMG, which includes those 11 global companies that use PFOA as a surfactant to 12 produce their polymer products. The FMG appreciates 13 the opportunity to participate in the EPA public 14 meeting which for us represents a continuation of a 15 process begun more than two years ago.

16 The issue that brings us together involves data 17 that has been submitted suggesting that PFOA has been 18 found in the U. S. blood samples and appears to be 19 persistent in the environment. While extensive 20 research done to date has indicated no adverse effects 21 on human health or the environment at the levels 22 indicated, these matters of course are of concern to 34 1 the industry.

2 Consequently, the FMG is committed to working 3 with the EPA to define the routes of exposure to the 4 public and the environment, characterize the health 5 implications of that exposure, and significantly 6 reduce the potential exposure sources from the 7 fluoropolymer industry.

8 Today's meeting is an important part of that 9 process whose outcome we believe will produce the 10 mutually beneficial result of ensuring continued 11 protection of human health and the environment,

12 without disrupting the supply of essential materials 13 or causing undue adverse impact on an important 14 segment of the U. S. industry.

15 This issue is extremely important and 16 significant to the FMG because PFOA is an 17 indispensable polymerization aid in the manufacture of 18 its products. In previous meetings with the EPA, FMG 19 has defined its considerable efforts to find a 20 substitute for PFOA. While there has been some 21 limited success in finding alternatives for niche 22 products, to date there has been no discovery of a 35 1 universal replacement for PFOA in the manufacture of 2 fluoropolymers.

3 Considering the complexity and importance of 4 this issue and its overwhelming impact on the 5 fluoropolymer industry, we think it is important to 6 understand the value of the fluoropolymer industry and 7 the contributions it makes to both the economy and 8 serve our quality of life. While fluoropolymers are a 9 small part of the total plastics industry, they are a 10 key material that make up the core  excuse me

11 they are a key material for industries that make up 12 the core of our country's economy and serve many 13 critical uses. Hence, the issues being discussed 14 today are highly relevant to all of us, and it is 15 appropriate that they are being considered with great 16 thought and care.

17 Recent media coverage related to PFOA has 18 associated fluoropolymers primarily with non stick 19 cookware  no question one of the best known 20 commercial applications of fluoropolymers. However,

21 it is important to note the overwhelming majority of 22 fluoropolymers are used in areas where, unseen to the 36 1 consumer, they support and enable vital industries 2 such as defense and aerospace, telecommunications,

3 chemical processing, semiconductor manufacturing,

4 automotive and power generation.

5 The properties of fluoropolymers are unique in 6 the level of performance they provide, including 7 temperature and flame resistance, inertness to 8 chemical attack and electrical insulating properties.

9 In many cases, the use of fluoropolymers helps 10 protect both people and the environment in ways not 11 possible with other materials.

12 Let me offer some examples: The defense 13 industry is highly dependent on fluoropolymer 14 components ranging from seals for hydraulic systems 15 for aircraft to sophisticated films that protect 16 liquid crystal displays. The chemical processing and 17 power generation industries employ fluoropolymer 18 devices that help to prevent pollution and the release 19 of hazardous chemicals. The telecommunications and 20 semiconductor industries use fluoropolymer products to 21 reduce risk of fire in commercial buildings and enable 22 the manufacture of semiconductor chips by processes 37 1 that require the ultra high purity that only 2 fluoropolymers provide. The automotive industry is a 3 significant consumer of fluoropolymers in fuel and 4 lubrication systems, enabling reductions in air 5 pollution from fuel evaporation and improvements in 6 fuel economy. And lastly, the U. S. space program,

7 while not a large consumer of fluoropolymers, is very 8 dependent on products for critical applications in 9 vehicle components and protective clothing for 10 astronauts.

11 It should be pointed out that these 12 applications involve state of the art or best 13 available technology. Manufacturers in these areas 14 use fluoropolymers, which are considerably more 15 expensive than other plastics because they are the 16 only materials that meet their demanding performance 17 requirements.

18 I stress this because without an underlying 19 understanding of how fluoropolymers have helped bring 20 technology to where it is today, it would be tempting 21 to view fluoropolymers as simply a typical plastic 22 that could be easily replaced if taken off the market. 38 1 Thus, one of SPI's goals today is for the EPA and the 2 American public to understand that fluoropolymers 3 provide far more than the convenience for which they 4 are so well known.

5 Since their invention over 60 years ago,

6 fluoropolymers have served to raise the bar on the 7 technological capabilities of the many key industries 8 we have discussed. These materials play a discreet,

9 but critical role, in protecting both the public and 10 the environment, that they are essential to the 11 production and competitive operations of the important 12 American and global industries they serve.

13 Another SPI goal today is to reemphasize the 14 FMG's commitment to reduce exposures to PFOA that may 15 be due to the activities of the fluoropolymers 16 industry. As you know, FMG members already have 17 implemented programs, as Dr. Chowdhry had said, that 18 will reduce PFOA manufacturing emissions by 99 19 percent, and in addition to that, we've also made a 20 commitment, which we're ahead of schedule on, which is 21 to reduce emissions for our polymerization plants by 22 over 50 percent by year 2006. 39 1 Because there is so much at stake with respect 2 to the PFOA issue and because of the complexity of the 3 science surrounding the understanding of material, SPI 4 and the FMG look forward to continuing our working 5 relationship with the EPA to expand the knowledge 6 based around PFOA and reduce potential exposures from 7 activities of the fluoropolymers industry.

8 This concludes my remarks. Thank you.

9 MR. OSHIDA: Thank you very much from all of 10 speakers. At this time, I want to make you aware of 11 something you've probably already seen on your agenda,

12 there will be a 30 minute public comment period 13 towards the close of this meeting and for those 14 members of the public who have not registered as 15 interested parties, but who wish to make a statement 16 at this meeting, please sign up at the registration 17 table and we will be glad to hear you at that time.

18 All the statements during that period of time 19 will be limited to three minutes. Also, anybody 20 wishing to follow up today's meeting with a written 21 statement may do so, providing that it is done within 22 ten days of this meeting and all the statements will 40 1 be placed in the EPA's docket for this action. And we 2 prefer that direct submission to EPA's electronic 3 docket website, well we would certainly prefer that 4 and it is the fastest method for submission.

5 At this point, I would like to introduce 6 somebody that most of you are probably very familiar 7 with, it's Charlie Auer. Charlie's the Director of 8 the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, and 9 he'll present an overview of the EPA's preliminary 10 framework for data development.

11 MR. AUER: Thank you, Phil. I note there are a 12 small number of seats that are available down here, so 13 if anyone would like a seat, if the people who have a 14 seat that's open next to them, put up your hand, and 15 if you want to just go to those seats as I start 16 talking that's fine by me.

17 I would like to open by noting the EPA's 18 appreciation for the support voiced by a number of the 19 opening talks for the ECA process and the interest and 20 support that diverse group of speakers brought to this 21 activity, the importance of this activity, and the 22 need for us to make progress in finding sources and 41 1 pathways for exposure to PFOA, so I am somewhat 2 heartened at least by the opening discussions.

3 The Preliminary Framework document, which was 4 circulated by email to the interested parties and 5 placed in the electronic docket May 21st, should be 6 viewed as a discussion guide , not as a predetermined 7 list defining the outcome of this ECA process. Some 8 elements referenced in the Framework may be provided 9 voluntarily by industry under the programs they 10 describe in their Letters of Intent. It is also 11 possible that interested parties may identify other 12 data needs, or suggest alternative means of obtaining 13 information to those mentioned by EPA in the 14 Framework. The Framework focuses on the needs that 15 EPA defined in the Federal Register notice of April 16 16th, these are identifying the sources of PFOA found 17 in the environment and the pathways leading to 18 exposures to PFOA.

19 As Phil mentioned earlier, we will not be 20 addressing additional toxicity studies or human blood 21 monitoring in this ECA process. We think these issues 22 are being adequately addressed elsewhere, at this 42 1 point in the process. In addition, we will not be 2 addressing as part of this ECA process chemicals that 3 are no longer being manufactured or imported, the 4 reason for that is the basic thrust of section 4 is 5 directed towards chemicals that are now or will be in 6 commerce.

7 The Preliminary Framework separates EPA's 8 perceived data needs into two principal areas. The 9 first is needs related to telomer chemicals and the 10 second is needs related to fluoropolymers. EPA's main 11 concern with the telomers is the potential for these 12 chemicals to degrade to form PFOA in the environment,

13 even though the telomers do not themselves contain 14 PFOA and are not made using PFOA. The focus of EPA's 15 data needs on telomers thus involves determining how 16 and to what extent telomer chemicals and articles 17 treated with telomer chemicals may be a source of PFOA 18 in the environment over time and may release PFOA into 19 media that could contribute to human and environmental 20 exposures.

21 EPA's principal concerns with respect to the 22 fluoropolymers, on the other hand, are the potential 43 1 for PFOA to be released during the manufacture or 2 processing of fluoropolymers, and the extent to which 3 PFOA may remain in and be released over time from 4 fluoropolymers made with PFOA. Both of these 5 industries have initiated voluntary research programs 6 which they described in their Letters of Intent, or 7 LOIs, which are available in the docket, and have been 8 noted in their opening statements to this meeting. It 9 is not our intent in this ECA process to delay any of 10 the voluntary actions to which industry groups have 11 already committed. At the same time, we note that the 12 Agency's data quality requirements will apply to any 13 information from these programs that the companies 14 would submit to the Agency for consideration during 15 its investigation of PFOA and the telomers.

16 Our goal in this ECA process is to go beyond 17 the elements covered in the LOIs to address additional 18 chemicals or tests not covered in the LOIs, and to 19 identify and pursue additional steps that may be 20 necessary pending the results of screening level LOI 21 data development.

22 The Telomer Data Needs table begins on page 6 44 1 of the Framework. The first six items address telomer 2 market information and fate, biodegradation, and 3 incineration testing. Companies have provided the EPA 4 much of the market information, which is largely 5 protected from public disclosure as confidential 6 business information, or CBI. The companies have also 7 committed through the Telomer Research Program LOI, to 8 providing the tests marked by asterisks on certain of 9 the telomer chemicals that they produce.

10 The TRP has committed to test 12 chemicals and 11 various products treated with these chemicals under 12 the LOI. On the basis of CBI regarding the overall 13 market of all telomer chemicals produced by TRP member 14 companies, the Agency believes that these 12 chemicals 15 represent a substantial portion of the markets for the 16 carpet, textile, and paper industries, which are the 17 major market sectors associated with telomer use. The 18 12 chemicals also structurally represent a diverse 19 mixture of the chemicals that are currently used in 20 commerce.

21 In this ECA process, EPA is suggesting that 22 additional chemicals may need to be considered to 45 1 fully characterize the scope of the telomer family and 2 to address all market sectors. For example, although 3 telomer alcohol, acrylates, urethanes, and sulfonates 4 are represented among the test substances covered by 5 the TRP LOI, none of the companies have committed to 6 testing any of the telomer phosphates or telomer 7 iodides. EPA is also suggesting the need for 8 additional fate tests not currently included in the 9 TRP LOI, including photolysis tests, aerobic and 10 anaerobic transformations in soil and aquatic 11 sediment, aerobic sewage treatment, and anaerobic 12 biodegradability in digested sludge. In addition,

13 because telomer chemicals and articles treated with 14 telomer chemicals are likely to be disposed of in 15 municipal incinerators, EPA has suggested tests to 16 identify incineration breakdown products. Through 17 these tests, EPA proposes to identify the potential 18 for telomer degradation and incineration to contribute 19 to the presence of PFOA in the environment.

20 EPA believes that longer term biodegradation 21 studies, conducted under environmentally realistic 22 conditions, may be necessary to provide confirmation 46 1 that data from the shorter term studies conducted 2 under the LOIs and through screening level phases in 3 this ECA process accurately characterize the true 4 long term degradation potential of these chemicals.

5 This ECA process through our discussions should 6 provide a forum for us to develop the decision 7 guidance that would indicate the circumstances under 8 which such longer term testing should be done, as well 9 as to adopt methods and develop standards for such 10 testing.

11 Item 7 through 9 of the table propose to test 12 for the presence PFOA, residual telomer alcohol, or 13 other PFOA precursors in telomer chemical products, in 14 new products and articles treated with telomers, and 15 in telomer treated products and articles as they age 16 and are used. The TRP LOI includes proposals to test 17 these items for the presence of PFOA. Because there 18 is some evidence to suggest that the degradation of 19 telomers to PFOA in the environment proceeds via a 20 stepwise process, EPA is suggesting that such testing 21 look not only for the presence of PFOA, but for the 22 presence of precursors to PFOA formation, including 47 1 residual telomer alcohols and other potential 2 precursors that may be identified through 3 biodegradation and fate testing performed under the 4 LOI and through this ECA process. The test standards 5 for these studies may be developed by technical 6 working groups of interested parties during this ECA 7 process.

8 Items 10 and 11 in the table propose 9 environmental sampling and monitoring for the presence 10 of PFOA and PFOA precursors in the vicinity of telomer 11 manufacturing and use facilities, including areas 12 where telomer based fire fighting foams are discharged 13 directly into the environment, in order to 14 characterize exposures to and releases of PFOA from 15 these locations and activities. The TRP LOI did not 16 include any environmental sampling or monitoring 17 activities. This ECA process may provide a forum for 18 the adaptation of methods and the development of test 19 standards for this sampling and monitoring by 20 technical work groups drawn from the interested 21 parties, using the protocols already developed by 3M 22 and DuPont as a starting point for those discussions. 48 1 Item 12 in the table, concerning product 2 stewardship information, does not involve testing, but 3 reflects our interest and need to understand on a 4 continuing basis the steps that the industry is taking 5 to oversee its products throughout their life cycle.

6 Many of the elements in the Fluoropolymer Data 7 Needs table, which begins on page 11 of the Framework,

8 are very similar to their counterparts in the Telomer 9 Data Needs table. The companies have already provided 10 to EPA much of the market information identified in 11 item 1 of the table.

12 The Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group LOI does 13 not include any fluoropolymer biodegradation testing.

14 High molecular weight fluoropolymers are not generally 15 expected to degrade significantly, but EPA considers 16 that it would be useful to confirm the degradation 17 potential particularly of some of the lower molecular 18 weight polymers. This testing appears in the table at 19 items 2 through 4.

20 Because the fluoropolymer manufacturing process 21 uses PFOA as a polymerization aid, it is possible that 22 fluoropolymers and fluoropolymer treated products and 49 1 articles might contain residual PFOA as a component of 2 the final product and release PFOA to the environment 3 over time and under typical conditions of use and 4 disposal. The FMG LOI includes commitments to test 5 for the presence of PFOA and fluoropolymer products.

6 In items 5 through 7 of the table, EPA has suggested 7 that such testing may need to be expanded to include 8 the presence of PFOA in fluoropolymer treated articles 9 and to address the potential release of PFOA over time 10 and under use conditions. In items 8 and 9 of the 11 table, EPA also suggests incineration testing and the 12 determination of incineration byproducts which were 13 not contemplated in the FMG LOI.

14 The fluoropolymer industry has taken steps 15 voluntarily to reduce emissions and releases of PFOA 16 from the manufacturing process, but characterizing 17 those releases and the presence of PFOA in the 18 environment in the vicinity of facilities that 19 manufacturer PFOA or fluoropolymers, or that process 20 or use fluoropolymers to treat other products and 21 articles, will help to complete the picture of the 22 sources and exposure pathways for PFOA. The FMG 50 1 LOI includes commitments to monitor for PFOA in water 2 at PFOA manufacturing facilities, and to some extent 3 at fluoropolymer manufacturing facilities, and to 4 perform some air modeling. In items 9 and 10 of the 5 table, EPA suggests that additional sampling and 6 monitoring may be necessary including stack or air 7 monitoring rather than the modeling, as well as 8 sampling from soil, sediments, and biota, and that 9 additional sites may need to be considered including 10 processing and use facilities as well as manufacturing 11 facilities.

12 Item 11 in the table concerning product 13 stewardship information does not involve testing, but 14 reflects, as with the telomers, our need to understand 15 on a continuing basis the steps the industry is taking 16 to oversee its products throughout their life cycle.

17 Through this point, I provided a very brief 18 overview of the elements contained in the Framework.

19 Again, to reemphasize the Framework presents EPA's 20 thoughts concerning data needs and approaches to be 21 addressed through this ECA process. We think these 22 are important to undertake to meet the goal of 51 1 identifying the sources of PFOA in the environment and 2 the pathways of human and environmental exposure to 3 PFOA.

4 Throughout the rest of this portion of the 5 meeting, I would like to discuss with the interested 6 parties additional data needs that EPA may have 7 missed, receive initial feedback describing why 8 particular aspects of EPA's data needs may not be 9 needed or are not relevant, and pursue approaches to 10 developing ECAs that will help us to reach our goal of 11 understanding PFOA source and exposure as 12 expeditiously as possible. In this regard, I ask 13 interested parties to consider any elements that may 14 be candidates for early technical discussion and 15 possible consensus, and other areas which will require 16 plenary discussion to reach agreement in principle 17 regarding the need such that technical discussions can 18 begin. Examples of what we might term " low hanging 19 fruit" areas where we'd like to be able to move more 20 quickly towards agreement in principle could include 21 certain fate testing whereas the monitoring efforts 22 may require additional plenary discussions, such that 52 1 we can adequately scope that and begin moving towards 2 an agreement in principle. And I think that concludes 3 my part.

4 MR. OSHIDA: We would like to open the floor at 5 this time for discussion among the interested parties 6 about the data needs identified by EPA, and the 7 approaches the Agency has suggested to for addressing 8 these needs through ECAs. Please raise your 9 identification card, so that our spotters can see you 10 and identify you, and wait until you have the 11 microphone before you speak. Please remember to start 12 by identifying yourself and your affiliation.

13 Who would like to start us off?

14 MR. PURDY: My name is Rich Purdy. I am a 15 freelance toxicologist. I noticed that the focus of 16 the information around the telomers has to do with 17 PFOA and not the other fluorinated acid degradation 18 products. Are you interested in the other polymers of 19 PFOA?

20 MR. AUER: I think I as described in the 21 Federal Register Notice we're interested in materials 22 that could contribute to the formation of PFOA and the 53 1 environment, which we note could include C8 materials,

2 but it could also include higher carbon number of 3 materials, which might have the potential to 4 biodegrade or otherwise degrade to form PFOA.

5 MR. PURDY: Well, the other ( inaudible) since 6 they have been shown they have similar modes with the 7 same modes of toxicity and the same tissues of action 8 fit into accumulative ( inaudible) of PFOA, so the 9 level of PFOA in the environment, the total load of 10 the class is greater than just PFOA, so as one, you 11 know, and in addition we seen data the indicates a 12 higher ( inaudible) like PFDA, PFUA, ( inaudible) acid 13 occur in water samples, and in precipitation samples,

14 in wild life samples a higher concentration than PFOA,

15 so since they can occur at higher concentrations they 16 may have a larger impact than PFOA for the cumulative 17 toxicity for the class.

18 MR. AUER: Well, we appreciate that. I think 19 that our approach at this point is to focus 20 principally on PFOA and things that can degrade PFOA.

21 I just don't know that it can be possible for us to 22 deal with all of the issues that are going to come 54 1 forward. That's not to say that we might decide that 2 these issues are important for us to deal with as 3 follow on activity in the future, but at least EPA's 4 going into this discussion is to focus in the areas 5 that I've indicated, at the same time if there are 6 views by the interested parties we can certainly take 7 that under advisement.

8 MR. PURDY: So as part of the ECA process we 9 could discuss the cumulative approaches that are 10 important to proceed with?

11 MR. AUER: Well, what I would do for that,

12 Rich, I think is I would cue these items up and focus 13 on the initial areas first and then to the extent that 14 there are areas which would be new areas or where 15 there's less agreement going into that discussion, I 16 would look to defer those to

17 MR. PURDY: And what you mean by defer, do you 18 mean further in this process or something following 19 this process?

20 MR. AUER: Well, I think I would probably need 21 to consult with others at EPA as to the best way of 22 considering those additional aspects that you have 55 1 brought out.

2 MR. PURDY: Thank you.

3 MR. AUER: Thank you. Environmental Working 4 Group.

5 MS. THAYER: Hi, Kris Thayer for Environmental 6 Working Group. I was wondering why there weren't any 7 additional proposed studies to look at PFOA in food,

8 both market basket type analysis and also food 9 migration study cells, for example food that's in a 10 paper product treated with telomers, for example, and 11 also if there are any  if it is also possible to 12 extend the drinking water studies beyond the original 13 six studies or six of the studies that was originally 14 done by 3M?

15 MR. AUER: On the question of the food 16 monitoring, I think I would want to think about that 17 before responding. As far as the drinking water 18 monitoring, we suggested the need to do monitoring 19 around the production and use facilities and that 20 would include appropriate media in those areas. And 21 if there is a need to consider drinking water 22 concentrations in those locales, I would think that's 56 1 something that we would consider for discussion within 2 the room.

3 MS. THAYER: And what about the food migration?

4 Again, is that something you think more about?

5 MR. AUER: Well, the reason I'm hesitating is I 6 don't have authority for food or food migration per 7 se, and so I would need to consider whether that's 8 appropriate area for me to get into and that's why I 9 am deferring a response to you.

10 MR. SPEAKER: The Center for Regulatory 11 Effectiveness. We agree with you completely with the 12 Agency's statement that the Data Quality Act under 13 very good guidelines that EPA issued pursuant to that 14 Act will govern those proceedings in their entirety.

15 As you know, an integral part of the EPA's guidelines 16 are predissemination review provision, which would 17 mean the data that the Agency collects is subject to 18 review by the Agency to see if it conforms with the 19 guidelines you set out.

20 The question I have to you and other members of 21 the panel, have you set up a process for 22 predissemination review and release by the Agency of 57 1 the very large substantial amount of data we would 2 expect you to receive from this proceeding?

3 MR. AUER: I think it would be helpful to us if 4 we had a better understanding of the issue that you're 5 presenting, perhaps you could submit a written comment 6 to that effect.

7 MS. TENNANT: I'm Della Tennant of Tennant 8 Rentals in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Along with my 9 husband, we own Tennant Rentals Box 3117, in 10 Parkersburg, West Virginia. I come to you today as a 11 very concerned  a very concerned person of God, as a 12 mother, a grandmother, a sister, a sister in law, a 13 landlord, a friend, and a neighbor in the Middle Ohio 14 Valley. We own property next to the DuPont landfill 15 on Route 68 south of Lubeck, Virginia and our property 16 is at that the end of that fifteen hundred feet of the 17 DuPont landfill.

18 Although I understand we are not here today to 19 discuss the landfill, but we are here today to talk 20 about the PFOA or in my  I will just say the Teflon 21 chemical because it is easier for me to do that  and 22 the contamination that is being done in the Middle 58 1 Ohio Valley. We at one point used to own about 68 2 acres of property that is the DuPont landfill now and 3 I would like at this time to be assured and assure 4 everybody to understand that this property was not 5 sold in any way ever sold to become a chemical 6 unregulated or regulated chemical dump in any way.

7 A few years back we sued DuPont. Going up 8 against DuPont was hard for us to do, but it was 9 something that needed to be done because our family 10 was sick, my family was sick, Earl and Sandy Tennant's 11 family was sick, Jack and his wife, their family was 12 all sick, my mother in law being in good health, and 13 this was before we sued DuPont, passed away recently 14 with getting sick very sudden coming into lung and 15 heart problems.

16 During this time, we was represented by the 17 best law firm there is in the United States of America 18 and two of the best lawyers on the face of the earth 19 that I could ask that any of God's people could have.

20 And I think they are to be commended for a job well 21 done, for it was in that time of our lawsuit that they 22 discovered this Teflon related chemical that has 59 1 contaminated the Middle Ohio Valley.

2 The problems with the contamination in and 3 around the landfill with the deers dying, the cattle 4 dying by the hundreds, is the contamination in the 5 environment is why we are here today. If they hadn't 6 discovered that the Teflon chemical had contaminated 7 our Middle Ohio Valley, it would not have been 8 overturned because DuPont ( inaudible) for 50 years.

9 In March I put a article on a medical chart and put it 10 in a medical directory opposing the DuPont landfill 11 renewal.

12 MR. AUER: Excuse me. We're trying to focus 13 the discussion here on the Framework document, if you 14 could attempt to direct your comments in that way, if 15 you have other more general points that you would like 16 to make which perhaps might fit more as an opening 17 statement we would be very pleased to receive that,

18 but the time is limited here and I would like to try 19 to focus on the goals of this discussion.

20 MS. TENNANT: Can I talk about the health 21 problems in the Middle Ohio Valley at this time or 22 will I get an opportunity to do so later? 60 1 MR. AUER: How about if we give you a slot in 2 the public comments section.

3 MS. TENNANT: Okay. Thank You.

4 MR. AUER: Thank you. I appreciate your 5 assistance. Okay. Well, so far we've got a couple of 6 areas where people think we need to do more work. I 7 am also interested in beginning discussion of areas 8 where interested parties might think that there's 9 perhaps more agreement at the outset and we might be 10 able to move towards closure. Don, please help me.

11 MR. DUNCAN: I hope I can. As the spokesperson 12 for SPI's Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group, I would 13 like to make a couple of comments. If I can impose on 14 you, I'd like to read them. Trying to speak for many,

15 many companies becomes important that what we say is 16 precise and to the point.

17 After receiving the information involved in 18 your Framework over a week ago, the FMG assembled a 19 team of technical professionals from all the member 20 companies to evaluate and comment on the information 21 and concepts that were presented by the EPA. The 22 detailed results of that effort have been submitted to 61 1 the EPA in written form.

2 For the purposes of this meeting, I would like 3 to summarize our findings and the commitment that we 4 made. First, I think it's important to say that we 5 believe we understand the content, specifics and 6 reasoning behind the 11 items that were requested of 7 the fluoropolymer industry in that area. Second, the 8 FMG supports the need for data in each of the broad 9 categories in the Framework document. Third, there 10 are no issues raised in the Framework that the FMG 11 categorically rejects. Fourth, the FMG is encouraged 12 by its belief that much of what is being is either 13 already available within the tremendous amounts of 14 existing information developed around PFOA, or will be 15 provided as a result of the commitments made in the 16 LOI assigned by the FMG. And fifth, the FMG believes 17 that the key to meeting the data needs of all 18 interested parties is identical to the process used 19 earlier this year to develop the LOIs specifically,

20 close cooperation between the senior technical 21 professionals in the EPA and the fluoropolymer 22 industries, and other stakeholder groups. 62 1 In summary, the FMG supports ECA process for 2 completing the development and analysis of critical 3 data needed to assess the regulatory implications for 4 PFOA. The FMG is committed to cooperating with the 5 EPA and other stakeholders in creating ECAs that help 6 understand the routes of exposure to PFOA.

7 Thank you very much.

8 MS. THAYER: Hi, Kris Thayer again from the 9 Environmental Working Group. Just looking at the 10 blood monitoring data where certain PFA related 11 chemicals that were used in carpet treatments seem to 12 be higher in children and the highest ( inaudible) PFOA 13 in the general population as far as from coming from a 14 child.

15 We were wondering if you were going to have any 16 sort of specific exposure change directed toward 17 infants and children. For example, levels of telomers 18 in the air that might off gas from carpets in an 19 infants breathing zone, or also maybe secondary users 20 who might have sprayed Stain Master on furniture or 21 carpets in the back room?

22 MR. AUER: I think that those kinds of studies 63 1 would fit within proposal to include tests to 2 understand release of PFOA over time from products and 3 articles, and so to the extent there are specific 4 issues that you might wish to suggest be focused on 5 and discuss, I think that would be the place to fit 6 that data.

7 DR. ZUCKERMAN: I'm Dr. Diana Zuckerman,

8 President of the National Center for Policy Research 9 for Women and Families. I would like to thank you for 10 allowing us in the audience to speak.

11 I had a question, it's come to our attention 12 that Gore Tex, a Teflon related product, has been used 13 for implants inside the human body for about 20 years,

14 for vascular surgery, and more recently for facelifts 15 and other plastic surgery on the face. And I don't 16 believe that the FDA has data on any health effects of 17 these implants, but I thought it might be relevant to 18 your work and I'm wondering if you checked to see if 19 there data available, and if not, I would certainly 20 want the FDA to know about the work that you're doing 21 in order to know about communication between the two 22 agencies. 64 1 MR. AUER: Let me start with the last bit of 2 your intervention. We have been communicating with 3 the FDA for some time on PFO and PFOA and they're 4 fully informed as to the understanding that we have 5 and the issues that we're looking at, we've been 6 involved in a number of discussions with them over 7 this time. As far as any work that might be 8 contemplated under the Enforceable Consent Agreement 9 dealing with medical devices, that's an area where 10 we're moving beyond the authority that we have, so we 11 would not be able to consider that data in this 12 content.

13 DR. ZUCKERMAN: No, I understood that. I just 14 wanted to make sure that there is communication 15 between you because obviously there are risks,

16 reproductive risk, people want to know  I think you 17 would want the FDA to know about that because they're 18 placing these products inside the human body.

19 MR. AUER: We have given them a set of all the 20 CD's that we have accumulated in the administrative 21 record on this action.

22 MR. SLAUGHTER: Once again, this is Scott 65 1 Slaughter for The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.

2 I just wanted to make sure that I understand the 3 process here. As I understand it, efforts to validate 4 human and animal serum tests are currently not in the 5 context ongoing now and they are not part of this ECA 6 process; am I correct?

7 MR. AUER: The validation work for human serum 8 is otherwise occurring and, yes, it is not considered 9 to be part of this ECA process, principally because we 10 are not contemplating any data development regarding 11 human serum. To the extent we get into analytical 12 protocols in other media where there is inadequate 13 validation available, the development of that 14 understanding would as appropriate be part of this 15 proceeding to ensure that when results are obtained we 16 understand the confidence that should be given to them 17 and so forth.

18 MR. SLAUGHTER: And in regards to serum test 19 validation that's being conducted in ( inaudible)

20 content; am I correct?

21 MR. AUER: I'm sorry?

22 MR. SLAUGHTER: The CDC? 66 1 MR. AUER: Well, CDC has done  is doing work 2 in that area, but 3M and DuPont are also pursuing work 3 in this area to validate those measurements in human 4 blood, as well as in rodent blood.

5 MR. SLAUGHTER: Thank you very much.

6 MR. AUER: So we are looking forward to having 7 that work done, so that we can fully appreciate the 8 values to be attributed to those data.

9 MR. SLAUGHTER: But the work is ongoing now and 10 not complete; is that right?

11 MR. AUER: To my knowledge it's not complete,

12 but I'm not necessarily the best one to answer the 13 question.

14 MR. SLAUGHTER: Thank you very much.

15 MR. AUER: You know when you are in consensus 16 discussions you can take the view that silence is an 17 agreement, and I haven't heard anyone speak against 18 any of the data needs that are included in EPA's 19 Framework. There has been some discussion in the 20 opening remarks about testing that might of more or 21 less interest or more or less accommodated under the 22 LOIs. 67 1 It would be really useful in this section of 2 the meeting if we can begin to identify those areas 3 where there's more versus potentially less agreement.

4 I suggested in my remarks that the fate area might be 5 one that perhaps is more ready for moving into 6 technical discussions as opposed to the monitoring 7 area where because of the complexity of those studies 8 the absence of standard protocols and whatnot you 9 might need more discussions.

10 If we could get comments along these lines I 11 think it could be very helpful in structuring the 12 discussions that would occur after 2 o'clock, which is 13 really the heart of the meeting where we begin to 14 consider areas that might be ripe for going directly 15 into technical consultations where experts from 16 amongst the interested parties would go off and talk 17 about the specifics of the biodegradation protocol or 18 hydrolysis protocol, whatever the case might be, and 19 then other issues that would be most appropriately 20 retained in the plenary forum, where we can have 21 continued discussion until we can get to the point of 22 arriving at the agreement in principle, which is the 68 1 way that the ECA procedural language has us working,

2 to try to come to an agreement in principle on a given 3 data need and then recognizing that you get into a lot 4 of technical details, shifting to get out of a larger 5 forum into a smaller, more expert oriented forum where 6 the goal there is to elaborate the specifics of the 7 test standard that would then emerge and be included 8 in the written Enforceable Consent Agreement.

9 So I hope that helps explain what we're trying 10 to do here and what I hope to do in the next section,

11 so comments, discussions?

12 MS. SMYTHE: The TRP has reviewed the data 13 needs that were outlined in EPA's Framework document 14 in order to identify potential candidates for ECA 15 discussions. In doing so, the TRP has identified work 16 that qualifies as the next logical step contained in 17 the LOI commitments. Another important consideration 18 for our comments today which is to focus on activities 19 not in the LOIs to assure that the ECA negotiations do 20 not impede ongoing work.

21 Based on this review, the TRP has identified 22 additional areas that are fruitful subjects for ECA 69 1 discussions. TRP proposes to analyze the telomer 2 alcohol raw material in telomer products in eight 3 products and to release and exposure assessments. It 4 should be noted that validated analytical methods do 5 not yet exist, but will be developed carrying out its 6 work.

7 The TRP will conduct analyses using real 8 simulations rather than at customer sites due to the 9 potential for PFOA contamination from historical use 10 of other supplier products. If PFOA is generated from 11 telomer product degradation it will be 12 indistinguishable from PFOA that is present or is 13 released resulted from other sources.

14 TRP further proposes to augment its LOI 15 commitment in the area of incineration by conducting 16 initial incineration studies on representative telomer 17 products, but will also focus on developing an 18 understanding of decomposition, temperature profile,

19 and the temperature at which complete combustion 20 occurs.

21 The TRP companies ( inaudible) commitment by 22 these additional commitments is the best overall 70 1 approach to understand the potential contribution 2 telomer products may have to PFOA levels in the 3 environment. The data generated by TRP will resolve 4 most issues and will inform future discussions about 5 additional data development efforts that TRP is 6 prepared to discuss with the Agency and other 7 stakeholders for the scope of such work.

8 Any reasonable attempt to address these issues 9 in a scientifically sound timely manner must proceed 10 in a stepwise fashion. TRP's current research program 11 as outlined in the LOI, plus the additional work 12 proposed today largely fulfills EPA's data needs cited 13 in the preliminary PFOA ECA Framework. The TRP member 14 companies stand by the substantial and scientifically 15 sound commitments to EPA as described in our Letter of 16 Intent and in our main response to EPA questions and 17 its proposals made today.

18 MR. AUER: Thank you for that. I think the 19 general comment that has been made is that we 20 understand the LOI commitments at a general level, and 21 have been working with the companies to better 22 understand the specifics of what is intended to be 71 1 done under the LOIs. As I've indicated, we're 2 interested in obtaining what information we can 3 through the LOI process to provide framework for or 4 foundation for discussions focused on testing beyond 5 that level.

6 I certainly welcome the TRP comments as to your 7 intention to expand the work that you're including 8 within your LOI. I would ask that you submit that in 9 writing to the Agency with as much specificity as 10 possible as to chemicals, materials, you know, what 11 products and whatnot, what methods would you be using,

12 things like that, so that we and other interested 13 parties would be in a position of fully understanding 14 what is intended to be done in that regard and then 15 can consider what work, if any, is appropriate for 16 consideration here in a given area.

17 MS. THAYER: I was wondering if data need 18 number 7 under fluoropolymers presence of PFOA,

19 emitted from fluoropolymer treated products and 20 articles as they age during use, if that includes 21 Teflon and other non stick cookware or appliances?

22 MR. AUER: Yes, it would. 72 1 MS. THAYER: Okay. I guess I have a few other 2 questions to ask. What is sort of the process for 3 maybe dealing with some of concerns about CBI for 4 specific products, is there any ( inaudible) on blood 5 monitoring. I mean, we think it's important that if 6 you have gone through the process of selecting 7 manufacturing or use facilities and also control sites 8 it seems important to have that final integration 9 measure of human blood to confirm the monitoring or 10 modeling data.

11 MR. AUER: On the human monitoring, as we noted 12 in our Framework document we're not proposing to go 13 into that area at this juncture, but once additional 14 information of the types discussed here as well, as 15 other information becomes available, we would be open 16 to revisiting that issue in the future. I think we 17 also want to take advantage of whatever work the CDC 18 might be able to do in the near term such that we 19 could be fully informed as we go into that, and then 20 frame an understanding and hopefully move to consensus 21 as to what additional work would be needed and how to 22 most effectively orient that work. 73 1 MS. THAYER: Any thoughts on the CBI concerns?

2 MR. AUER: Well, the CBI areas, as a general 3 matter we are encouraging the industry to be as 4 forthcoming as they can in providing information. I 5 think it is helpful to assure other interested parties 6 if there is understanding at some level as to the, you 7 know, the significance of a given set of actions, that 8 was why I attempted in my opening remarks to 9 characterize the 12 chemicals that TRP is proposing to 10 test in general terms to give interested parties some 11 sense of the extent of coverage which is afforded by 12 those materials, while at the same time there will be 13 some areas where coverage may be less than fully 14 adequate.

15 I think this is going to be an area where it's 16 going to be difficult to go very far toward specifics,

17 but I think the challenge is to figure out ways where 18 we can be working with the industry and other 19 interested parties, convey an understanding that can 20 provide a measure of confidence as to what's covered 21 and not covered in the work, while at the same time 22 protecting a legitimate CBI. 74 1 MR. DUNCAN: Just as kind of a process check to 2 see if you're getting what you need and it's kind of a 3 follow up of what the Telomer people just said. One 4 of the things that we will like to do is to make sure 5 we're kind of assisting in this process, as you had 6 suggested the telomers group that the fluoropolymer 7 group cast its responses in writing, but if we can 8 look back in the past it looks as though our most 9 effective method resolving issues that are of great 10 concern to you is to work closely to make sure that we 11 understand what we're looking for, make sure we get 12 that data available.

13 Our understanding was that while we try to 14 identify these things and have an initial response 15 today to those 11 items that the best and forward 16 would include then in continuing interactive sessions 17 with you to make sure we understand precisely what it 18 is that you're looking for. Specificity seems to be 19 the most important characteristic here.

20 We're very heartened to develop in a relatively 21 short period of time to come up with some statements,

22 but what we really look forward to do is to make sure 75 1 that we've understood what you're looking for both in 2 terms of specifics and intensity, so all I wanted to 3 do is follow up of my original comments to make sure,

4 if you would like for us to go into more details on 5 each of those 11 items today we can, but we thought 6 really this was a mechanism that would take a of time 7 to make sure that we have all the technical people in 8 place to elaborate in the most appropriate manner, as 9 to what those issues involve, how much information is 10 really available, how much information in your opinion 11 needs to be added to that, and that kind of thing; so 12 are we on the right track here, Charlie?

13 MR. AUER: Yeah. One thing to note that if you 14 turn to appendix A in our Framework document, there we 15 provide rationales for the proposed testing and in a 16 number of these areas we provide specific references 17 to test procedures, either EPA test guidelines or OECD 18 test guidelines or ASTM or as appropriate and 19 available in these areas. Ultimately, within the ECA 20 that's the level of specificity that we need to 21 provide, which would include chemicals to which these 22 test that are to be conducted and then the specific 76 1 tests which are to be conducted, and recognizing the 2 unusual properties of perfluorinated materials and the 3 appropriate modifications to those standard test 4 procedures to allow you to adequately deal with the 5 specifics of the material that would be the test 6 substance.

7 So to the extent we can get that kind of 8 specificity either here or in follow up correspondence 9 that would be very good, knowing the test protocol 10 that is intended to be used in any of the LOI testing 11 of a given type, for example, we have some of that 12 understanding, but from talking with my staff I think 13 it's not clear in all cases what is contemplated. It 14 may be that there are choices and you haven't made 15 that choice yet, but to get that information to us so 16 that we can understand as quickly as possible what's 17 covered and not covered within the LOIs.

18 MS. BITTNER: I'm Patte Bittner with the U. S.

19 Consumer Products Safety Commission, and if you are 20 looking for points of agreement we can certainly agree 21 that marketing product information would be useful to 22 us, identifying which products contain these chemicals 77 1 is very difficult for us at this time. Also we are in 2 agreement that information would be useful on the 3 presence of PFOA and the precursors and particular 4 products, carpets and textiles have been mentioned 5 today, and those data would be particularly of 6 interest to us and products as they age.

7 And one thing that perhaps I missed, but if 8 it's not there that we would be interested in is data 9 on direct photolysis data on these products, carpets 10 and textiles.

11 MR. CORTINA: I'm Tom Cortina. I'm here on 12 behalf of the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition which is an 13 organization of manufacturers of fire fighting foams 14 and fluorosurfactants that are used in them. I wanted 15 to address item number 11, but first I want to point 16 out that fire fighting foams are an extremely small 17 use of telomer based products, but a highly critical 18 use in that they're used for life safety. Also fire 19 fighting foam fluorosurfactants that are used in them 20 are mostly C6 based fluorosurfactant, so that kind of 21 indirectly involves the issue, but we did see item 22 number 11 of the telomer item needs and we have 78 1 already begun to collect some existing data in which 2 we just found out about some ground water sampling in 3 places where the DOD facilities where fire fighting 4 foams have been used, so we would like to collect all 5 of that information and come to the Agency with it and 6 go from there discussing whether there is any 7 additional monitoring whether you need to or not.

8 MR. AUER: That would be very helpful.

9 Regarding that use while the volume may not be great 10 of course, it gets released into the environment,

11 which is the reason why we're focused on that. As our 12 understanding of this industry has grown we have come 13 to appreciate that that's predominantly the C6 14 material. It is an area where I would like to pursue 15 work in this forum, principally because of the direct 16 release situation that's operating there.

17 I think your offer to collect available 18 information and to make that available to us as part 19 of this process is certainly very welcome and we look 20 forward to receiving that, but as I've indicated 21 because of the specific issues which are presented 22 there, we think it is important for us to consider 79 1 that.

2 I would also note that the Toxic Substances 3 Control Act as a statute is considered to require a 4 balancing of risks and benefits and any control 5 actions that are taken at the end of the day, so in 6 that regard the nature of a use critically used, as in 7 fire fighting foams, is part of the important factor 8 to consider in any such undertaking and as a matter of 9 the statutory framework under which we operate that 10 would be a part of that approach.

11 I have obtained information that the suggestion 12 from CPSC for photolysis work on products seems to be 13 a new need that has been identified. There is the 14 need identified in our Framework as well as in perhaps 15 some of the LOIs, photolysis studies on the neat 16 material, but evidently the product of photolysis is a 17 new area, so I bring that to your attention.

18 MR. BILOTT: Rob Bilott from Taft, Stettinius &

19 Hollister on behalf of the Ohio and West Virginia 20 Class Action Claims. I had a question giving to the 21 form to what extent is there agreement of certain 22 issues. You had mentioned identifying various 80 1 manufacturing processing use facilities and other 2 spill locations for testing, and I was curious as to 3 where that stands right now as far as identifying 4 which particular facilities would fit within that list 5 and the extent to which there is agreement on which of 6 those sites would be included on the list.

7 MR. AUER: We have received some information 8 from the industry, some of it preceded the LOIs, other 9 information is coming to us in the course of the LOI 10 proceeding and that information to the extent we could 11 make it available will be in a record of this 12 proceeding, as well there is additional information 13 that could be found in the administrative record for 14 the general proceeding, but that would form important 15 information in informing us as to the possibly for 16 monitoring studies that given are at different kinds 17 of facilities as part of this undertaking.

18 MR. PURDY: Richard Purdy. I was wondering if 19 we could consider in the biodegradation studies and 20 the other studies with telomers also looking at the 21 other telomer products that wouldn't necessarily 22 breakdown in PFOA. The reason most of those aren't on 81 1 the radar screen is that they haven't been monitored 2 for before and the few monitorings that had been done 3 in terms of higher concentrations of PFOA, so it is 4 possible that are going to be as important or more 5 important if we consider an accumulative class later 6 and as PFOA.

7 So I would like to suggest that we look for 8 those products also in the studies of degradation of 9 telomers. It's not that much more cost to look at 10 those along with PFOA ( inaudible) and look at several 11 compounds in a single run and that would be just a 12 matter of standards and standard terms.

13 MR. AUER: Rich, is your proposal directed to 14 what you're attempting to detect being formed through 15 the degradation product or is it the starting material 16 for the degradation?

17 MR. PURDY: I don't understand your question.

18 MR. AUER: Are you proposing that we do 19 biodegradation studies on

20 MR. PURDY: There are proposals to do it on 21 telomers and telomer products and telomers containing 22 other compounds that will break down to PFOA, and you 82 1 will find those if you look for them, if you don't 2 look for them then you won't have that information,

3 they'll be there in the matrix, but you won't 4 necessarily analyze for them unless you decide to up 5 front. Like photo degradation studies of a 6 degradation of a polymer that's used for carpet 7 treatments, you possibly can get PFOA out there, but 8 also PFDA and so forth.

9 MR. AUER: Okay. Well, we're interested in 10 identifying PFOA precursors, so to the extent

11 MR. PURDY: Well, PFDA shouldn't be a precursor 12 of PFOA, but PFDA is found in higher concentrations in 13 the environment than most ( inaudible) than PFOA and 14 they obviously, where can they come from but telomers.

15 MR. AUER: I think one way to try to handle 16 this is to  I mean this is really a questions of 17 what you're looking for as the biodegradation products 18 from a given material, and depending on what the 19 starting material is for that is kind of an issue that 20 could be presented, and I would suggest that we take 21 it up when we get to that point in the process, so it 22 would be in the more technical discussions as to the 83 1 specifics of what you're looking for in those studies.

2 MR. PURDY: Thank you.

3 MS. ALLER: I'm Linda Aller from Bennett &

4 Williams we work for a consultant company. I noticed 5 as part of appendix A that you were listing specific 6 chemical properties that you wanted to make sure you 7 had information for, and I just wanted to encourage 8 you not to think that this is an inclusive list of 9 everything that might be needed. I know in hunting 10 for specific chemical properties they might be 11 available to the companies, but they're not 12 necessarily available publicly, so when the chemical 13 process is done you have a complete list of things 14 including density and effects of PFOA and some of 15 chemicals it would be helpful.

16 MR. AUER: If there are specific areas that you 17 would like to suggest in that regard, that's the kind 18 of additional data need, so I encourage you to either 19 enumerate them now or it would be better to submit 20 them as written comment.

21 MS. ALLER: Well, one in particular would be 22 density, it has a lot to do with what you would 84 1 collect for samples, particularly ground water, in the 2 environments, some of other things that we've noticed 3 is a correlation between PFOA and levels of C8 found 4 specifically in ground water that may also go to soil 5 as well, so those would be two specific ones off the 6 top of my head that should be included somewhere along 7 the line, and I could provide additional comments 8 later.

9 MR. AUER: That would be great.

10 MS. ALLER: Thank you.

11 MR. AUER: Well, I don't see any more hands.

12 We are scheduled to take a break right about at this 13 point in the meeting. Why don't we come back at 2: 20 14 and give ourselves a little bit more time. What I 15 would like people to do is to talk amongst yourselves 16 as interested parties want to talk about certain 17 things and what I'm looking to get in the next 18 discussion is to develop opportunities and approaches 19 for how we might go forward, this is where I would try 20 to identify those areas that might be appropriate for 21 spinning them off into technical discussions at an 22 earlier point, other things that might be more 85 1 appropriate for additional plenary discussions, how we 2 might approach it in the plenary, basically how we 3 work the process to help us move along the path 4 towards consensus on specific issues. So why don't we 5 take a break now and come back at 2: 20. Thank you.

6 ( Short break.)

7 MR. AUER: We're now at the point in the agenda 8 where I want to identify and discuss opportunities and 9 approaches for moving towards agreement in principle 10 in specific areas where we might be able to spin the 11 work into technical subgroups and then other areas,

12 issues where there's still issues that would benefit 13 from plenary discussions in order to reach the 14 agreement in principle and then handle those in the 15 future in forum such as this.

16 We're particularly interested in attempting to 17 identify topics that would be amenable to quick 18 resolution, those would be ones that would benefit now 19 from going into technical discussions to discuss.

20 Certain fate testing might be an area that would work,

21 and then others that would require more discussion.

22 To the extent there are areas where there's 86 1 agreement in principle at this point where we could 2 move into technical groups, what I would be looking to 3 at that point is to identify the specific interested 4 parties who know at this point that they would be 5 interested in participating in what would be more 6 expert discussions about protocols and conditions and 7 et cetera, et cetera, such that we can then constitute 8 those groups and arrange for those discussions to 9 occur over a period of time after which that group 10 would report back to a plenary session, they would 11 also report back to the plenary on progress, with the 12 goal ultimately of that group working to refine the 13 agreement and then to bring a proposal back into the 14 plenary where we test the consensus and then see if 15 there's agreement among the interested parties such 16 that we could move to actually drafting and finalizing 17 the Enforceable Consent Agreement.

18 Other issues where there's perhaps less 19 specifics available in the form of test guidelines or 20 test standards, those are the kinds of things that 21 might benefit from more discussion in the plenary such 22 that we could come to a general agreement as to the 87 1 scope of those activities, where you're not trying to 2 define the specifics of what would be done, the 3 methods and whatnot, but you would be talking more 4 about the shape of that activity, thinking here 5 specifically about monitoring studies or perhaps the 6 product work, the aging product work, and if we could 7 have that kind of a discussion perhaps in plenary, you 8 then can perhaps reach a general understanding and 9 agreement in principle on that scope, and then that 10 would be referred to a technical group made up of 11 expert representatives amongst the interested parties,

12 who would then work out at a more specific level of 13 detail, the nature of the work to be undertaken and 14 whatnot, and then that would be brought back to 15 plenary and you test to see whether's agreement or not 16 and then you would proceed to finish that up.

17 When you have gotten to the point of bringing 18 it back to plenary and getting that agreement that 19 this product from the technical group is satisfactory,

20 at that point the next step involves the submission of 21 the detailed proposals for testing, these are 22 developed by the sponsors of the testings, would be 88 1 the companies who would be responsible for doing that 2 testing, so that would then give you the more specific 3 details, it would be similar to the kind of test 4 standard requirements that appear in other enforceable 5 consent agreements that we have developed where we've 6 got ( inaudible) statements and ( inaudible) statements 7 and certain specific requirements that have to be met.

8 That would be the responsibility of the test sponsor 9 to elaborate the understanding at that level, and then 10 the whole package is brought together and if agreement 11 can be obtained, that then goes forward taking the 12 form of an enforceable consent agreement, which would 13 have the dates associated with certain tests and 14 whatnot and then when that's finalized the responsible 15 parties go off and do the work and then those are 16 reported back. And that's pretty much the way that 17 the process works.

18 EPA would be working to at the same time once 19 you've got to that point to develop the specific 20 language that goes into the Enforceable Consent 21 Agreement, the protocol related material is attached 22 to that, you've got the Enforceable Consent Agreement 89 1 with some boilerplate sections, as well as specific 2 sections as appropriate to this action and then 3 attached to that you've got the protocol elements, and 4 then that entire package constitutes the Enforceable 5 Consent Agreement.

6 So at this point I would like us to, as the 7 agenda suggests, focus on identifying ECA topics that 8 might be amenable to quick resolution, that way we 9 might be able to spin them into technical 10 consultations which could happen sometime in the 11 coming weeks to begin moving towards closure on the 12 specifics, and then that would be followed by 13 discussions of other areas of where we might have need 14 for additional discussion in plenary.

15 So I hope for those of you who haven't been 16 involved in this process previously, it is 17 sufficiently clear as to what I am trying to do, if 18 there are any questions I would be happy to attempt to 19 clarify, but at this point I would like to open the 20 floor to the interested parties for purposes of 21 identifying specific opportunities for early progress.

22 Environmental Working Group followed by SPI. 90 1 MS. THAYER: Kris Thayer from the Environmental 2 Working Group. I was wondering if we might think 3 about maybe a process for given some of the CBI 4 issues, just from you know our perspective when we are 5 talking about specific products that might be tested,

6 are we going to be given the information at the level 7 of carpet, paper, textile products, will it be popcorn 8 bags, Stain Master, specific products, and so without,

9 you know, I am a little concerned that if we don't 10 have details, it's going to be difficult for us to 11 evaluate whether the breadth of product testing is 12 sufficient. And so I was wondering if maybe you can 13 think about any way to address those issues in 14 short term?

15 MR. AUER: What I would suggest for 16 consideration by the interested parties is perhaps, I 17 think probably a small group with particular interest 18 in this area might go off and try some general 19 discussions, so that there's a clear understanding of 20 the needs and expectations of the parties and to see 21 if there is some way where information could be 22 provided at a level that begins to speak to some of 91 1 needs of certain interested parties, while at the same 2 time protecting CBI interests of others.

3 And what I have in mind is something that would 4 be along the lines of what I described in my opening 5 remarks, which is that the characterization of the 6 kinds of products that the 12 chemicals covered and 7 the fraction of, at least a general statement as to 8 the portion of the market that was represented.

9 This is the kind of thing where with those 10 discussions there may be ways that EPA could apply 11 those understandings in a way that could provide 12 information at a more general level of detail that 13 would balance out the two competing interests, and I 14 tell you it's a lot easier for us to try to do that if 15 we're working with people that have an interest in 16 this issue than if we try to do it against the strict 17 requirements that we have.

18 So I think at this point I'll let you think 19 about that concept, let the room think about the 20 concept and then we can come back to it and then 21 perhaps reach some understanding as to how we might 22 proceed with that area. 92 1 MS. THAYER: We would definitely be interested 2 in pursuing it.

3 MR. AUER: Don, SPI.

4 MR. DUNCAN: Charlie, with respect to trying to 5 pick some low hanging fruits and to maybe come up with 6 some ideas particularly on how we might put some 7 substance behind the ECA targets, I'm wondering if I 8 might take the 12 fluoropolymers 11 items that were in 9 your Framework and maybe comment on four or five of 10 them either to invoke discussion or to solicit 11 unanimity around it as a method of getting the process 12 started. Would that be okay?

13 MR. AUER: That would great.

14 MR. DUNCAN: If you would excuse my back now, I 15 would like to refer to my notes. I would like to get 16 this right. I am a chemical engineer by training I 17 would like to make sure that something as complicated 18 as this subject gets done and at least in as 19 technically correct manner as possible.

20 What I would like to do is to refer to probably 21 four or five of the 11 items that are included in the 22 fluoropolymers piece of the Framework, and at least 93 1 offer to you some thoughts in terms of where the 2 fluoropolymers industry is and then allow that maybe 3 to provoke discussion and if necessary we just take 4 one at a time until the discussions is finished.

5 MR. AUER: Or if you want to outline it and 6 then we can perhaps get a general reaction.

7 MR. DUNCAN: Outline four or five first?

8 MR. AUER: That would be good. And I am hoping 9 that I just get everyone to agree.

10 MR. DUNCAN: Okay. Let's go for it. The first 11 item I would like to call your attention to is item 8 12 in that list. And item 8 calls for the determination 13 of incineration byproducts of fluoropolymer and 14 fluoropolymer treated products and articles. Although 15 some information is available on incineration of 16 fluoropolymers in this information  and this 17 information is publicly availability, I think clearly 18 in light of the situation we find ourselves in today,

19 the industry groups supports the need for incineration 20 testing to better characterize potential byproducts of 21 fluoropolymer incineration. We recognize that what 22 may be currently in the information that's part of the 94 1 public domain may not be complete enough and certainly 2 maybe hasn't had the kind of scrutiny that it deserves 3 in today's environment.

4 We would like to suggest that this is one of 5 the things that we can agree to, but like a lot of 6 other things, the devils and details with respect to 7 precisely how that analysis will take place, what 8 we'll look for, how the samples are taken, et cetera,

9 but I think what we want to do as an industry group is 10 to say that we concur with that analysis.

11 Even more importantly, if I can move onto item 12 9, before you can get to item 9 you really have to 13 have done what needs to be done in item 8, and so 14 while item 9 calls for determination of physical 15 chemical fate and transport properties in incineration 16 products, we really think that should be deferred 17 until we get a pretty good comprehensive assessment of 18 what the incineration byproducts are. And then after 19 that determination is made, then launch into the item 20 9 piece with some degree of understanding as to what 21 it is we're going to go into.

22 So those two we see kind of joined at the hip 95 1 saying the first priority should be with item 8, and 2 let's use the best available technology we've got 3 today to define what those incineration products are.

4 If we do item 8 right it seems as though that then 5 leads us to the proper dealing with item 9.

6 The next item I would like to put up then for 7 consideration is item 7, and that calls for the 8 determination of the presence of PFOA emitted from 9 fluoropolymer treated products and articles as they 10 age during use. The test substances are to be 11 representative fluoropolymers from manufacturers and 12 importers in indoor air adjacent to, and dust from or 13 adjacent to, in your case you said carpet, textile,

14 and paper. Carpet, textile, and paper are not 15 necessarily the principle market segments into which 16 the fluoropolymers go into, but I think if we kind of 17 went back to the some of the expectations that we put 18 into our Letter Of Intent with respect to what the 19 primary data screen consumer contact applications for 20 fluoropolymers are, we see this is a very responsible 21 area consistent with what we inferred, maybe not in 22 enough detail, but certainly what we inferred what we 96 1 were looking to do in the LOI, so again we think this 2 is appropriate fine tuning it, so it is very specific 3 to those appropriate products that are fluoropolymer 4 based, is something that the industry would not 5 already agree to it, but I think we are already 6 dedicated to doing it.

7 So that would be item 7, the other candidate 8 that I would nominate would be item 1. And item 1 9 calls for comprehensive fluoropolymer market 10 information, including CAS numbers, chemical names and 11 so on and so forth. I think I can just briefly make 12 the position that we in the industry think that's a 13 very legitimate request and we fully support it, and 14 if that's appropriate for an ECA item, we would be 15 more than willing to provide whatever data is 16 necessary to make sure that that's done correctly.

17 And then in the last item I would comment on 18 would be item 11. And item 11 calls for product 19 stewardship information concerning PFOA and 20 fluoropolymer products and article manufacture, use,

21 and disposal. Product stewardship, as you heard from 22 a number of speakers including Dr. Chowdhry, is an 97 1 integral part of the entire plastics industry, so from 2 a concept from a philosophical standpoint there is 3 absolutely no divergence opinion on that. If 4 anything, I think one of the things that maybe makes 5 this something more than just another good apple pie,

6 is that the context of product stewardship in the last 7 five years or so has increased significant. And so I 8 think bringing the full scope of the current 9 definitions of the product stewardship to bear on this 10 issue is not only appropriate, but something that 11 we're fully committed to doing.

12 Like so many other things, I think the 13 definition of product stewardship that we need to make 14 sure that we agree about that is both the American 15 Chemical Society  excuse me  the American 16 Chemistry Counsel and the ( inaudible) Group have 17 responsible care type programs, they're pretty much 18 overlapping, but I think we just want to make sure 19 which one would be the one we use as the basis for 20 reporting back to you. So, again, I think that's 21 something that we can agree to.

22 Now, the other items, I'm not just leaving them 98 1 out because we're not in agreement or anything, but I 2 thought those are the ones that we can say very much 3 up front we agree with, we think they are appropriate.

4 Obviously there is some definitional issues, testing 5 issues, that type of thing, but those are the kinds of 6 things that could be given to the subgroups and 7 challenge to work out the appropriate details 8 necessary to make sure we got the appropriate 9 responses and come back.

10 So, Charlie, that's an attempt to get in touch 11 of what we're trying to do in this process.

12 MR. AUER: That's very helpful, Don. I 13 appreciate that. Some points for you and the others 14 to consider, as described in the table work such as 15 that on 8 would be applied to representative 16 fluoropolymer and fluoropolymer treated articles. I 17 think this is the kind of thing that could be 18 discussed and elaborated in technical discussions.

19 The other point is that the suggestion you made 20 regarding number 1, the comprehensive market 21 information, maybe there's a way for that to be 22 combined with Kris's suggestion of EWG, maybe for 99 1 purposes of the ECA that should be information at a 2 non CBI level, which could then be made available to 3 appropriately inform the public interested parties in 4 these areas and then you, under the LOI, have been 5 committed to provide us with that information much of 6 it company specific and CBI, so perhaps that is one 7 way where you could work towards this commitment and 8 then the engagement with EWG and others come to 9 understand the needs, and in fact come up with a 10 better way of meeting those needs while protecting the 11 general interest, so I offer that for the 12 consideration by the room. West Virginia, Dee Ann.

13 MS. STAATS: Yes. I would think that item 14 number 2, the physical chemical properties to inform 15 fate testing, would be another item that probably the 16 industry has most of the information already on that,

17 and is something they can move forward rather quickly 18 with a technical group focused on that that reports 19 back to the plenary and itemizes and defines what 20 physical chemical properties that they want and the 21 testing to be done, which probably already has been 22 done in most situations. 100 1 And the idea that this lady over here had about 2 adding density in there ( inaudible) of pH on the 3 migration and the chemical physical properties of PFOA 4 as it moves through the environment.

5 MR. AUER: Thank you for that. That was Dee 6 Ann Staats from West Virginia Department of 7 Environmental Protection.

8 DR. THOMAS: Good afternoon. My name is Dr.

9 Treye Thomas and I'm with the U. S. Consumer Product 10 Safety Commission. And we are interested it what has 11 been mentioned about determining in which products 12 these compounds can be found and we are interested in 13 some of CBI information as well. We would like to 14 know as comprehensively as possible where these 15 compounds can be found, particularly consumer products 16 where there would be more direct exposure. We're also 17 interested in other compounds as it's been mentioned 18 earlier, that maybe in the PFOA families that may or 19 may not be precursors, but again may have the 20 potential exposure in consumer products.

21 MR. AUER: Okay, well, we can certainly arrange 22 to share CBI with a sister agency, and so that can be 101 1 arranged, part of that, and then as far as other 2 chemicals, I think they're useful to understand and 3 perhaps useful to have a discussion offline about 4 those, the specifics of your interest in this regard 5 and then we can consider how that might be brought 6 into this forum or if it's appropriate for dealing 7 with in another forum. Thanks for that.

8 MR. PURDY: Rich Purdy. I got a question and I 9 am a little bit confused, and I think it came up when 10 you talked about the products for the  that would be 11 tested for the polymers because under the polymers, I 12 assume that you meant mainly PFE type of polymers and 13 not polymers that would be made up of telomers, which 14 would also be considered as fluoropolymers. And since 15 whoever wrote that put the products that are the 16 fluorotelomers in there I just wanted to know if there 17 is a clear distinction that that second list of tests 18 is just for the Teflon type polymers and if the first 19 list is for telomer type chemicals which include 20 polymers with telomers  using telomers.

21 MR. AUER: Well, it is my understanding, let me 22 try that, is that Don was speaking to the 102 1 fluoropolymer manufacturers and I am looking forward 2 to hearing from the telomer group.

3 MR. PURDY: I was curious if you, the EPA, made 4 a distinction whether the telomer based polymers are 5 in the first group or the second group.

6 MR. AUER: Our understanding is that they are 7 in the TRP group, but I could stand to be corrected in 8 that regard. What I'm trying to do here is to be as 9 clear as we can and the proposals that are being 10 offered and those limits and I would presume that 11 there would be one set of ECAs for fluoropolymers and 12 a separate set of ECAs for telomers as the ultimate 13 product. And it may be that some issues are ready to 14 go into technical groups from both of those entities 15 and there are other issues where one is ready and 16 other are issues that would benefit from plenary 17 discussion.

18 MR. PURDY: I guess my concern is if you have a 19 telomer based polymer and you should be looking at it 20 holistically in one that can break down ( inaudible) of 21 the telomers can break it down, and you would  your 22 evaluation you would probably want to keep them 103 1 together rather than putting them in the two different 2 groups you have right now, the polymer group and the 3 group of chemicals that could break down into PFOA.

4 MR. AUER: Well, it is the kind of issue where 5 I think the starting point for it is to deal with the 6 industry that's associated with that product and it 7 may be that as you have these discussions, there's 8 agreement to try to work together and find 9 commonalities wherever possible or they have 10 separately come into the plenary, and that's another 11 opportunity to try to look for more common approaches 12 as appropriate.

13 MR. PURDY: I don't think it's a big issue, I 14 just think it's just the way they're split or lumped.

15 MR. AUER: I think that at least the starting 16 point is that the way that we present it is that you 17 have the telomer portion and you have the 18 fluoropolymer portion, we could agree here to lump 19 them or we can agree here to split them. I mean, the 20 hand's in the group, but as I say the starting point 21 is to keep them separate and to maintain that and 22 eventually it will come back to plenary and if it 104 1 looks like a good ideas for one group, for those to be 2 considered in the other.

3 MR. DUNCAN: Just to respond to that for a 4 minute, while we can see the technical maybe incentive 5 for that there's some practical incentives basically 6 starting with the LOI procedures that already have 7 kind of lined up a process that we're going to follow 8 here, so we would just like to put it in our vision to 9 try to maintain that continuity and the degree of 10 coordination between the groups integrity of those 11 LOI based and then subsequent ECA based things is very 12 important I believe, but we will try not to let that 13 be a barrier between the two groups.

14 MS. SMYTHE: Katie Smythe for the Telomer 15 Research Program. Just a point of clarification, two 16 points actually, one in response to the CPSC question 17 earlier today about photolysis. There is work that is 18 already under the Letter Of Intent that has been 19 planned, it is in the design mode to monitor PFOA 20 formation on consumer products, carpets and textiles,

21 and that the study plans have already been submitted 22 to EPA and the protocol is being developed now, the 105 1 work will proceed, but that is already under the LOI,

2 so it's already in place.

3 Other items specifically, and we'll provide the 4 details item by item based on what was laid out in the 5 EPA Framework Document, but the bulk of the items are 6 already addressed in some manner under the LOI, but we 7 will offer  the TRP is already offering to expand,

8 preferably for the sake of doing the work in a more 9 timely manner we can expand the LOI items or it can be 10 offered as an item for the technical discussion 11 through the ECA process. But the items specifically 12 relate to analyzing for the telomer alcohol raw 13 material in products which addresses ECA item 7,

14 that's an addition that the TRP is ready to move 15 forward on. Analyzing also telomer alcohol in aged 16 products which is addressing ECA item 9, and the third 17 area would be the release and exposure assessments 18 which is ECA item 10. That's the addition of the 19 telomer alcohol.

20 The second addition, if you will, is 21 incineration studies on telomer products, which we 22 agreed to move forward on that work that is addressing 106 1 ECA item 5. In both of these areas they're looking to 2 address the fate issue, which has been obviously the 3 cornerstone to EPA's comments on the ECA. And we can 4 certainly provide the details of the other items in 5 our follow up written submission. But again these two 6 items, telomer alcohol work and the incineration 7 studies, we would have a preference to do it under the 8 current Letter of Intent to expand our Letter of 9 Intent commitments just because it would be faster to 10 do it in that mode. Thank you 11 MR. AUER: Thank you for that. As we 12 indicated, we certainly want to keep whatever work 13 that's been committed under the LOIs within the LOIs 14 to speed that work. You know one proposal to offer 15 here perhaps bring the group to either agreement or 16 disagreement in this area is to accept the suggestions 17 made by SPI and by the TRP, it seems like a good 18 starting point in those technical discussions would be 19 to lay out the details of what would be handled within 20 the LOIs, that technical group can then consider that 21 and if there are additional issues or needs that 22 emerge, those could be dealt with as appropriate in 107 1 that group and can be brought back to the plenary.

2 And I think that that affords an opportunity for 3 clarity for all of the interested parties as to the 4 work that would be included within the LOI and any 5 work that would be appropriate for being dealt with 6 otherwise.

7 So let me test that suggestion around the room.

8 I am asking for you to agree to constitute a technical 9 panel, whether it is one or two you, can figure out 10 the details of that, that we would, or however many 11 are appropriate, that we would have the issues that 12 have been mentioned by SPI which were number 8 and the 13 question triggering the findings from number 8, which 14 I think is pretty much contemplating that in our 15 proposal, number 7 the presence as products age,

16 number 1 the market information, and I think products 17 to which I don't know if we need a discussion per se,

18 we can work out the language to incorporate that 19 within the ECA.

20 And then the other would be to consider with 21 regard to the telomers the items under 7, 9 and 10 22 where TRP has indicated that they are including the 108 1 telomer alcohol as a precursor in that LOI testing,

2 and then otherwise to discuss what would come forth 3 under the LOI and then consider whether there are any 4 additional needs that should be considered and then 5 number 5 on the incineration studies.

6 So I am proposing to get agreement in the group 7 to move to those into technical discussions. Okay. I 8 think I have the agreement in the group. Thank for 9 that.

10 I have given you a chance to think about EWG's 11 CBI proposal, I would suggest a way to possibly link 12 that into item number 1, asked TRP to think about your 13 willingness to move in this direction as well. I 14 wonder if there is any reaction to my thought starter 15 proposal of trying to get a small group that could go 16 off and talk about this issue and come to provide the 17 understanding as to the needs and expectations and 18 whatnot, and see if there's some general guides to set 19 that may be able to come forward as to the kind of 20 information that would be provided in non CBI form as 21 part of the ECA to provide the information, otherwise 22 in number 1 in the EPA Framework. 109 1 So any reaction to that proposal? Silence is 2 agreement.

3 MR. DUNCAN: We would certainly agree to be a 4 part of the team.

5 MR. AUER: That was Don Duncan. Anyone from 6 TRP?

7 MS. SMYTHE: TRP also would be willing to 8 agree.

9 MR. AUER: Thank you. So TRP has also agreed 10 to participate in that.

11 MS. BITTNER: Patte Bittner from the Consumer 12 Product Safety Commission. We would certainly want to 13 be part of that discussion. I did want to ask Don 14 however with number 1 are you  initially were you 15 suggesting, Don, that you would provide the use under 16 use application and information just general 17 categories or would you also be willing to share who 18 your members might be selling to, so that we could get 19 further information on the products specifically? I 20 guess I am wondering if it is a general thing or if we 21 could find out what specific products might be 22 included. 110 1 MR. DUNCAN: At the risk of this becoming a 2 dialogue, I think maybe the best thing is for us to 3 get together outside this room and talk about it, but 4 part of the things that maybe you're interested in we 5 have included in the LOI in the area fluoropolymer 6 applications, and we have tried to take fluoropolymer 7 applications and split them up into various critical 8 application areas, one of which consumer products,

9 consumer oriented products. I think that would be a 10 good place for us to start here and see how much more 11 information you need beyond that.

12 So all I can say is without monopolizing the 13 time here there's a lot of information that can be put 14 in the public record that could be part of the public 15 record that that public information we would be 16 willing to share with you.

17 MR. AUER: And I would also note we can share 18 CBI with you once the appropriate steps would be taken 19 to the extent the information is available to us.

20 Let me ask if there are other interested 21 parties who would like to be part of this discussion 22 group on dealing with CBI, if you are interested 111 1 indicate now or identify yourselves subsequently, EWG,

2 yeah, I have you on record. When you start the idea,

3 you definitely get involved. Okay, good.

4 I think I can take from the silence that the 5 group is prepared to accept that as a component of 6 another special technical workgroup, if you will, to 7 go off and try to develop an approach here which could 8 then be brought back into the room and provide the 9 basis for production use, et cetera, reporting at a 10 non CBI level. Okay, thank you for that.

11 Let me check with my colleagues. I guess in 12 consulting the notes, West Virginia Department of 13 Environmental Protection suggested number 2, the 14 p chem properties specifically including an addition 15 to the points note that EPA Framework density pH, ask 16 the group whether this is an area that would be 17 appropriate for consideration in the first set of 18 technical groups that we had set up or would you 19 prefer that this be an area that we discuss further in 20 plenary? So if I could test the group on that one,

21 any reaction to that.

22 The proposal is or at least is raised by Dee 112 1 Ann in this discussion item to move the points under 2 number 2 on P chem properties into technical 3 discussions at this point, and then have them come 4 back to the plenary at some point in the future. Any 5 reaction to that, SPI?

6 MR. DUNCAN: For clarification, those the are 7 physical chemical properties for the fluoropolymers or 8 for PFOA? I mean, we presume fluoropolymers.

9 MR. AUER: Fluoropolymers. Is that a yes or 10 no?

11 MR. DUNCAN: Yes.

12 MR. AUER: Thank you. FMG has indicated that 13 they would be prepared to take that into the technical 14 group. Any reaction from TRP on this or do you want 15 to think more? If you want to think about it more we 16 can try to sweep it up in the future. Okay, I guess 17 these are the set of items where we believe there's 18 agreement in principle and they're moving into 19 technical discussion.

20 One item yet to be closed on, we'll get back to 21 it. I would ask if there are interested parties who 22 would want to participate in those technical groups, 113 1 one on fluoropolymers and another on the telomers, for 2 expert discussions to indicate your interest at this 3 time, so we can begin to build a list and you will be 4 given an opportunity to identify your interest in the 5 coming week or so as well.

6 So if there are interested parties who would 7 want to be part of that group, if you could indicate 8 your interest and maybe you could just read off the 9 names of the groups. Environmental Working Group, do 10 you have a comment as well?

11 MS. THAYER: Maybe not deciding today, would 12 there be any kind of message sent out?

13 MR. AUER: Yes, yes. We would try to arrange 14 the discussions to be compatible with the needs as 15 much as we could of the expert, obviously the larger 16 the group gets the more difficult that could become.

17 So at this point would be FMG and its member companies 18 would participate on that side, EWG is interested in 19 participating, the TRP and its member companies would 20 be interested in participating on the telomer, EWG 21 would like to participate in that as well.

22 Are there any other interested parties who 114 1 would like so indicate their interest to participate?

2 Okay, Bennett & Williams.

3 MS. ALLER: The fluoropolymers group.

4 MR. AUER: Okay, for the fluoropolymers group.

5 And then Rich Purdy for the telomer group, and CPSC,

6 and of course EPA is going to participate, but that's 7 understood. Okay, well, thank you for that.

8 I think that that's quite excellent progress in 9 working towards the elements of early agreement and 10 certifying the process and moving them into the 11 technical discussions.

12 Once again, if an interested party has an 13 interest in participating in those technical groups,

14 please indicate your interest. As far as the timing 15 for that first meeting, if the interested parties who 16 have said they would like to participate, if you could 17 think about whether  I would like to push this if we 18 could  the first meeting in two weeks, is that 19 reasonable or is three weeks something that's 20 necessary in order for people to get appropriately 21 organized, I hope more time is not required, but I 22 would like to try to not necessarily set the date 115 1 today, but to know whether it is going to be two weeks 2 or three weeks or whenever, so if you could think 3 about that and then we'll try to capture that as we 4 close today okay.

5 Why don't we move on from this to the remaining 6 issue areas which would be areas where we, by virtue 7 of them not being identified for early resolution, we 8 would want to have more discussion in the plenary and 9 if we could have some discussion as to ideas that 10 people have as to ways that we might approach those 11 issues within the next plenary meeting to allow us to 12 make as much progress as possible, we have them 13 specifically separated into telomer and fluoropolymer.

14 I think that is necessary to acquire that strict 15 order.

16 So the floor is now open for ways to deal with 17 these other issue areas in the context of continued 18 discussion in the plenary, or if it is easier we just 19 move them into technical groups. So any help from the 20 floor here?