UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

NOTE 

SUBJECT Summary of December 19,2012, meeting with the Society of the Plastics Industry 

(SPI) 

TO EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0258 

FROM Katherine Sleasman 

The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) met with EPA to discuss the proposed 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic (LCPFAC) 

chemicals as part of carpets or to treat carpets, including the import of new carpet containing 

LCPFACs published on August 15,2012, as well as future rulemakings on LCPFACs. SPI 

referenced the comments they submitted to the docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0258-0029), and 

discussed their concerns regarding the category definition of LCPF ACs, specifically the 

inclusion ofPTFE and EPA's inclusion of structurally similar degradation products. EPA stated 

it would address their concerns regarding the category definition of LCPF AC in the final rule. 

Before the meeting, EPA provided SPI with the following questions: 

• Update of relative use volumes for the various uses provided by industry to EPA in 2004. 

• Market Share of SPI members for various uses or number of sites or companies that are 

not in the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program for the various uses. 

• Use volume ofPFC per site (average and range) for the various uses. 

SPI responded to these questions by describing the current market and offered to provide 

EPA with data on market trends and a 2005 processor study that is still relevant. As far as the 

current market SPI stated that China, India, and Russia are currently manufacturing PFOA and 

are working towards improving their technology to switch to lower chain length alternatives, 

however cost is a factor. In SPI's recent visit to China, they stated that some Chinese companies 

are manufacturing alternatives but they are in the minority. SPI also asserted that if EPA were to 

consider lifting the article exemption in a future rulemaking, testing articles that are imported 

into the United States would be very costly. EPA stated it would examine that data it has and 

request more information from SPI regarding use data and market share. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Meeting with the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) 

December 19,2012 EPA East 4140 

Name Ore:anization 

\(o.:~l~ S(~B2-aVVwt- I V~/u~ ~\( c c n 

t0 \~U0\5?. 

[,.)Ay-t>/ fe""ber-. e- Fit /Of>fT I(_ {. ( 

:JbE ft.VL\ r/ ~.C\:1 ov~ ~ 

L.c. ............. ""~<- L. ~lu rUs 

Phone 

J.oJ~)S u lf- 7 l { ~ 

~l{-s~6& 

')~4 17/ 

1;1..- q,4 - l~\ I 

Lcn .... ·S<;:;,.-y 8.S-S~3 

c.e-B 12-o z.- ~6 '-1- 8 t:; 37-

(joc;;rz 

3M 

(VlJKf ~At,~'( uJ 111 I #'oR 'l:> 

k<oLJf2 a~,!J ~ H t E /4 of~-r /c· c!) 

'"' ~ 

~ 

U-z. ~~ ~ D1 \tt 

.? 0 ) 7 3;J '·( L ::,- I 

~ ,1- T~3 -s'37 

6to,.3S&-o73o 

dO' _ ,... f _, :r -:> o~ o cr 0~''-t ) ~ / .. A 

O?c:xil - Y'~z ~ 

Email 

'3 (--e.I~ \ v-~, ~-<- (vu ('Q_ ~ Clc90V 

t"·"" he v-t"h. .. , -.; · v 

~\\~\..~'(. @~\l.t~~.~ 
October 15,2012 

·: ·. ; rl. ·.· · · : 

• f.J ..• fi . J 

Via Electronic Submission 

Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

Chemical Control Division (7405M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

Re: Proposed Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylates Significant New Use Rule; 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0268 

Dear Ms. Sleasman: 

The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI) is pleased to submit these comments to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the proposed Toxic Substances 

Control Act section 5(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 2604(a)(2), significant new use rule (SNUR) on longchain perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (LCPF ACs). 1 SPI represents the third largest manufacturing 

industry in the United States, employing approximately 900 thousand workers and providing 

nearly $341 billion in annual shipments. 2 SPI' s members represent the entire plastics industry 

supply chain. With members. including both manufacturers and processors of fluoropolymers, 

SPI has a specific interest in this proposal as it affects fluoropolymers introduced into U.S. 

commerce and exported abroad. 

SPI has long supported EPA's efforts to address the potential hazards of LCPFAC. SPI's 

Fluoropolymer Division (FPD) members formed the Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group 

(FMG) in June 2000 to work with EPA to understand the scope of the potential concerns and to 

provide information on the fluoropolymer industry's use and to assure that the benefits of 

fluoropolymers continue to be available to society. In particular, the fluoropolymer industry 

including the fluoropolymer processors, have worked to make such changes as are necessary to 

reduce or eliminate LCPF AC, and in particular, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), from 

fluoropolymers and products made with fluoropolymers. EPA is aware ofSPI's efforts, 

including those to address LCPF AC use non-U.S. markets and has supported efforts to work with 

European organizations as well as to engage and work with manufacturers and trade 

organizations in the Far East. · 

1 See "Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates and Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate Chemical Substances; Proposed 

Significant New Use Rule." 77 Fed. Reg. 48,924 (Aug. IS, 2012). 

2 For more information on SPI, visit www.plasticsindustry.org. 

1667 K Street, NW, Suite 1000 

Washington, DC 20006-1620 

www.plasticsindustry.org 

202.974.5200 tel. 

202.296.7005 fax 

www.npe.org 

The International 

Plastics Showcase 

M-n 23·27. 201~ I V.W-"-01"9 

0.""90 

~ 

eo..-ry c;o.,,..-r.~oon c... ... ,,_,.,_ USA 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October 15, 2012 

Page2 

SPI is also aware of the comments being submitted by the FluoroCouncil, whose 

membership includes, among others, the former members of the FMG. SPI supports the 

comments of the FluoroCouncil and urges EPA to thoroughly consider those comments as well 

as these. 

Briefly, SPI believes that the carpet SNUR is appropriate if these uses have been 

abandoned. As EPA well knows, fluoropolymers are not used in carpets, and SPI is primarily 

commenting on this proposal because of the overly broad definition ofLCPFACs. 

As described below, we believe this has occurred because the term " fluoropolymers" has 

not been clearly defined, and that the term has been incorrectly used, from the industry's 

viewpoint, to encompass any polymer that has fluorine covalently bonded to carbon somewhere 

in the molecule. In addition, no upper limit for the number of carbons in the perfluorinated chain 

was proposed in the definition. SPI offers a definition to clarify this situation and to avoid what 

we perceive as unintended consequences of the imprecise use of the term. The reasons for our 

conclusions and comments are discussed more fully below. 

I. Scope and Impact of EPA's Proposal 

On August 15, 2012, EPA proposed a SNUR that would require companies to submit a 

notification 90 days prior to manufacturing, importing or processing any LCPF AC for use as part 

of carpets or to treat carpets. 3 The LCPF AC chemical category refers to an extremely broad 

group of chemical substances containing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its higher 

homologues, salts, and precursors. In addition, the category apparently includes "certain" 

fluoropolymers and all fluorotelomers because of concerns that these categories of substances 

could be "precursors" of LCPF AC, because degradation products from these two categories of 

substances could include PFOA and related compounds. According to EPA, "the toxicity of 

PFOA has been extensively studied and available data have raised concerns about LCPF AC 

chemical substances' potential development, reproductive and systemic toxicity."5 EPA 

acknowledges, however, that "although there is an extensive database for PFOA, few studies 

have examined the toxicity of other LCPF AC chemical substances."6 Nevertheless, the Agency 

justified the inclusion of PFOA "precursors" in the LCPF AC category by summarily asserting 

that "the data suggest that the[ir] toxicity profile is quite similar to that ofPFOA, albeit at 

different dose levels."7 

The scope of the LCPF AC category is of particularly interest to fluoropolymer 

manufacturers and processors because the proposal triggered the requirement the 12(b) export 

notification requirement ofTSCA. That provision requires any person who exports or intends to 

export a chemical substance subject to among other requirements, a section 5 SNUR, to submit a 

3 See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,933 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 72 1.1 0536(b )(2)). 

4 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,927. 

s 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,929. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October 15,2012 

Page 3 

notice to EPA within seven days of deciding to export or the da:te of the export. Because of the 

broad definition of LCPF AC in the proposed SNUR, the provision could be interpreted to require 

export notices, apparently irrespective ofuse, offluoropolymers generally. We do not believe 

this is EPA's intent and are concerned that it is an unnecessary and unjustified requirement. To 

remedy this, we request that EPA clarify the definition as proposed in our comments below and 

make clear that fluoropolymers as we have defined them are not within the scope of the 

definition of LCPF AC. In the interim, we suggest that EPA should not pursue any enforcement 

activity with regard to export notices for fluoropolymers under TSCA § 12(b) unless and until 

this issue is resolved. 

II. The Definition of LCPF AC 

The proposed LCPF AC category is defined by chemical structure as follows: 

The chemical substances identified below, where n > 5 or m > 6 .. 

(i) CF3(CF2)n -Coo-M where M =.H+ or any other group where a 

formal dissociation can be made; 

(ii) CF3(CF2)n -CH=CH2; 

(iii) CF3(CF2)n -C(=O)-X where X is any chemical moiety; 

(iv) CF3(CF2)m -CH2-X where X is any chemical moiety; 

(v) CF3(CF2)m -Y-X where Y =non-S, noo-N hetero atom and 

where X is any chemical moiety; and 

(vi) structurally similar degradation products of any of the 

compounds in (i) through (v) of this paragraph.8 

In addition to the definition, in the discussion of the scope of the intended coverage of 

LCPF AC, EPA states, "The category also includes the salts and precursors of these chemical 

substances. The precursors may be simple derivatives of PFOA and higher homologues or 

polymers that contain or may degrade to PFOA or higher homologues. These precursors include 

certain fluoropolymers and all fluorotelomers." Later, EPA also asserts "Fluoropolymers such as 

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), which may contain some PF AC contamination, or that use 

PFOA as an emulsion stabilizer in aqueous dispersions, are included in the LCPF AC definition 

and have a large U.S. market." Thus, SPI is concerned that EPA is inadvertently (and thus 

improperly) broadening the definition of LCPF ACto include fluoropolymers that do not share 

the characteristics of EPA's concern with PFOA and its homologues. 

Furthermore, the term "structurally similar degradation products" in paragraph (vi) of the 

proposed LCPF AC category is overbroad, ambiguous, and not amenable to enforcement. The 

proposed SNUR provides no criteria or guidance to clarify what kind of structural variations 

would be brought within the rule as a result of paragraph (vi). Without such an explanation, this 

portion of the proposed SNUR does not meet the foundational criteria for a SNUR under TSCA 

8 See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,933 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 721.1 0536(b )(I)). 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October I 5, 20 12 

Page4 

§ 5(a)(2). And without more precision, the proposed SNUR does not provide regulated parties 

"fair notice" regarding the scope of the SNUR or their obligations under the SNUR. The failure 

to provide such notice results in a denial of due process of law. General Electric Co. v. EPA, 53 

F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. 1995). This provision thus cannot be enforced and will only cause 

confusion in implementation ofthe rule. For these reasons, SPI respectfully requests that EPA 

remove paragraph (vi) from the LCPF AC definition in the fmal SNUR. 

We believe the term "fluoropolymers" as used by the industry is limited to polymers that 

have a substantially or almost fully fluorinated backbone. In contrast, most "fluorotelomer-based 

polymers (FTBP)" are polymers made by attaching fluorinated chains on a hydrocarbon or 

siloxane backbone that "functionalize" the non-fluorinated polymer with chemical and stain 

resistance, among other properties. FTBP are not generally considered "fluoropolymers" in the 

industry. Terminology for fluoropolymers and FTBP is given, for example, by Buck, et al, 

Perjluoroalyl and polyjluoroalkyl substances in the environment: Terminology, classification, 

and origins. Although such fluorine-functionalized polymers have in the past been made by 

attaching a telomer-based perfluorinated oligomer as a side chain on the backbone, some recent 

applications include incorporating fluorinated monomers in acrylic copolymers or making 

polymer blends offluoropolymers with non-fluorinated polymers. See, for example, 

Branquinho, et al, Fluorinated Additives For Stain-Resistant Matt Latex Paints10, and Sunga et 

al, Effect Of Microstructure Of Fluorinated Acrylic Coatings On UV Degradation Testing.' ' 

SPI recommends that EPA adopt a definition of fluoropolymers and distinguish them 

from FTBP. Fluoropolymers should be defined as "polymers containing fluorine bound to one 

or both of the olefinic carbon atoms, to form a fluorinated carbon-only polymer backbone with 

fluorine atoms directly attached to it, including but not limited to: polyt~trafluoroethylene 

(PTFE), polyvinyl fluoride (PVF), copolymer of ethylene and chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE), 

copolymer of ethylene, tetrafluoroethylene, and hexafluoropropylene (EFEP), copolymer of 

ethylene and tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and 

hexafluoropropylene (FEP), copolymer of hexafluoropropylene, tetrafluoroethylene, and 

ethylene (HTE), copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoromethylvinylether (MFA), 

polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), copolymers of TFE fluorocarbon resins containing 

perfluoroalkoxy side chains (PFA), homopolymers_ofvinylidene fluoride copolymers with other 

fluorinated monomers (PVDF), copolymer oftetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene and 

vinylidenefluoride (THV)." 

9 Perfluoroalky/ and p olyjluoroa/ky/ substances in the environment: Terminology, classification, and origins. RC 

Buck, J Franklin, U Berger, JM Conder, IT Cousins, P de Voogt, AA Jensen, K Kannan, SA Mabury, and SPJ van 

Leeuwen, Integr Environ Assess Manag. Volume 7, Number 4 (201 I), 513-541. DOl: 10.1002/ieam.258. 

1

° Fluorinated Additives For Stain-Resistant Matt Latex Paints, J. Branquinho, J. A. C. Alves, Susana Carvalho, 

Jorge Moniz, Fernanda Oliveira and M. H. Gil, Journal of Coatings Technology and Research, Volume 6, Number 4 

(2009), 483-491, DOI: I 0.1 007/s11998-009-91 70-8. 

11 Effect Of Microstructure Of Fluorinated Acrylic Coatings On UV Degradation Testing, Li-Piin Sunga, *, Silvia 

Vicinib, Derek L. Hoa, Lotti Hedhlic, Christyn Olmsteadc, Kurt A. Wood, Polymer 45 (2004) 6639--6646 

doi: 10.10 16/j.polymer.2004.06.063. 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October 15,2012 

Page 5 

The impact of including such fluoropolymers in the SNUR is a concern to SPI and its 

members. EPA stated it intends to exrand the SNUR to prohibit other uses of LCPF ACs as 

those uses are phased out in the U .S.1 SPI members participate in and support the EPA 

2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program and are working towards the elimination of PFOA, 

precursor chemicals that can break down to PFOA, and related higher homologue chemicals 

from facility emissions and products by 2015. 

As EPA noted in its Long Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (LCPFC) Action Plan, 

"fluoropolymers ... are substances with special properties that have thousands of important 

manufacturing and industrial applications."13 Indeed, applications include medical devices, 

consumer products, commercial food processes, transportation, aerospace and military uses, 

construction, wire and cable insulation, computers and semiconductors, chemical and 

petrochemical processing equipment, and power generation pollution controls. While 

fluoropolymers have a large U.S. market, the Agency estimates that "the United States accounted 

for less than 25 percent of the world consumption of PTFE in 2007, and between 25 and 50 

percent of the world consumption of other fluoropolymers." Our members serve critical 

applications across the global marketplace. 

Including fluoropolymers in the definition of LCPF AC may characterize fluoropolymers 

improperly as having undesirable properties when in fact they do not. Such action by agencies 

like EPA can lead users to abandon useful technologies unnecessarily. In adopting the TSCA, 

Congress explicitly established as public policy the acknowledgement of innovation in the 

chemical industry as critical to improvements in society, instructing EPA to be mindful ofthe 

impact of its actions, and to take only those steps deemed necessary and least intrusive to protect 

public health and the environment. Accordingly, EPA should not include substances in the 

definition of LCPF AC that do not present simi Jar risks. Fluoropolymers fit this description. 

A. The Scope of LCPF A C Category Should Be Limited To Carbon Chains Of 20 

Carbons Or Less 

SPI is concerned that the LCPF AC category, as defined by EPA in the proposed SNUR, 

has no upper limits on the number of carbons in the perfluorinated chain. There are no scientific 

data demonstrating that perfluorinated chains greater than C20 are toxic. EPA's justification 

appears to be an unsupported general statement that higher homologues of PFOA have the same 

characteristics of toxicity that EPA believes are characteristic of PFOA. In this regard, we note 

that the Agency's LCPFC Action Plan is exclusively based on PBT data primarily on C8 

perfluorinated chemicals and to a much lesser extent on the other substances in the C6-C20 

range. 

EPA's justification for including FTBP in the definition is that the degradation 

compounds ofthose polymers include PFOA or precursors ofPFOA and related compounds. 

SPI acknowledges the scientific evidence that these processes occur, but reemphasizes that there 

is no evidence that fluoropolymers as we have defined them above degrade in use to produce 

12 !d. at 48,930. 

13 LCPFC Action Plan, p. 5 (Dec. 30, 2009). 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October 15, 2012 

Page6 

PFOA precursors. FMG members worked closely with EPA scientific staff for more than five 

years on a project to test that hypothesis reaching the conclusion that indeed, as the physicochemical theory predicted, no PFOA or precursors were observed, and that the possibility of 

producing such compounds from PTFE and similar fluoropolymers is essentially zero. 

Thus, SPI believes EPA's appropriate inclusion of polymers that can degrade into PFOA 

or precursors needs to be clarified. The Agency should specifically define the degradation 

mechanism so that manufacturers and processors clearly understand the scope of the SNUR, and 

for future purposes, the potential for including different classes of polymers in future regulatory 

proceedings. It is imperative that the chemistry be specific and accurate in this proceeding. To 

that end, EPA should limit the scope of the LCPF AC category to perfluorinated carbon 

substances of20 carbons or less in length. We turn to describe the reasons and technical support 

for this approach. 

EPA determined in 1984, and later confirmed in 1995, that, with some exceptions 

polymers generally do not represent an unreasonable risk to human health or the environrnent. 14 

EPA's analysis of risk for polymers was based on the conclusion that molecular weight is a 

determinant of risk because (1) molecular weight directly relates to the potential for the chemical 

to be absorbed; (2) to express toxicity a chemical compound must be absorbed so that it can 

"come into direct contact with the biological cells from which it elicits a response," and if it 

cannot be absorbed through the protective membranes that all organisms have, it "cannot elicit a 

response." 15 With exceptions described in the final rule preamble, EPA cited evidence that 

compounds with molecular weights above 400 are not readily absorbed through the slGn and that 

those over l 000 are not readily absorbed through the GI tract, and that for inhalation exposure, 

the polymer had to be in the form of a fine particulate small enough to penetrate the air exchange 

regions of the lung. Thus, EPA in its original publication of the polymer exemption determined 

that high molecular weight polymers, with some exceptions, did not present an unreasonable risk 

to human health or the environment. EPA's general definition of polymers that qualify for the 

polymer exemption are those that have a number average molecular weight greater than or equal 

to 10,000 and oligomer content less than 2 percent below MW 500 and less than 5 percent below 

MW 1,000. Nothing in EPA's current assessment of the LCPFAC suggests these generalizations 

are no longer valid. 

When the polymer exemption was modified in 2005 in light of the concerns about 

LCPF AC, certain fluoropolymers were excluded from eligibility for the exemption as follows: 

a polymer cannot be manufactured under this section if the 

polymer contains as an integral part of its composition, except as 

impurities, one or more of the following perfluoroalkyl moieties 

consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length: Perfluoroalkyl 

sulfonates (PF AS), perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PF A C), 

fluorotelomers, or perfluoroalkyl moieties that are covalently 

14 60 Fed. Reg. 16316. 

15 49 Fed. Reg. 46066, at 46081. 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October 15, 2012 

Page 7 

bound to either a carbon or sulfur atom where the carbon or sulfur 

atom is an integral part of the polymer molecule. 16 

Thus, tluoropolymers do not qualify for the polymer exemption per se, but there is clear 

evidence that many tluoropolymers do not degrade easily, and specifically are not potential 

sources of LCPF AC. But the definition is over-inclusive with regard to tluoropolymers that can 

be precursors to LCPF AC. 

As noted above, the FMG worked extensively with EPA for a number of years. As a 

result, there is a substantial set of technical information the FMG supplied in the PFOA docket. 

Among the projects FMG conducted-- with extensive EPA involvement-- was to examine the 

possibility of whether, under anticipated environmental and use conditions, 

polytetratluoroethylene (PTFE) degrades to LCPF AC and specifically to PFOA. Theoretically, 

there is little chance that this can occur, in light of the thermal stability, chemical resistance, and 

inert chemical nature of tluoropolymers. Thus, unless there is a linkage in the chemical structure 

that is susceptible to chemical or biological attack, tluoropolymers are not precursors to PFOA 

and other LCPF AC. 

Thus, the question becomes what structures in the polymer do present a risk that the 

degradation products under anticipated environmental and use conditions will include PFOA or 

other LCPFAC. EPA's statements in the preamble ofthe proposed rule clearly indicate that only 

"certain" fluoropolymers can degrade to the LCPF AC. At the very least, EPA should -indeed 

must - include appropriate definitions so its conclusions that the covered substances present a 

risk of contributing to exposure of concern are clearly stated and directed at the correct 

substances, and so that the regulated community can examine the underlying data and test the 

conclusions. Ideally, EPA would accept SPI's proposed definitions, but we do not have pride of 

authorship and are willing to work with EPA to come up with definitions that achieve EPA's and 

our joint objectives. Otherwise, EPA's justification does not provide the necessary record to 

allow judicial review. 

EPA is basing its justification for regulating the use of LCPF AC in carpets because, as 

noted above, it believes that PFOA is toxic, and that other LCPF AC may present similar toxicity: 

The toxicity of PFOA has been extensively studied and available 

data have raised concerns about LCPF AC chemical substances' 

potential developmental, reproductive, and systemic toxicity ... 

Although there is an extensive database for PFOA, few studies 

have examined the toxicity ofother LCPF AC chemical substances. 

However, the data suggest that the toxicity profile is quite similar 

to that of PFOA, albeit at different dose levels. 17 

However, as discussed above, EPA concluded in the initial polymer exemption that 

substances with molecular weights above 1000 are not absorbed in the GI tract or through the 

skin, and so the implication of the quoted text that longer-chain LCPF AC present a risk similar 

16 40 C.F.R. § 723.25(c)(6). 

17 ld. at 48,929 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October 15,2012 

Page 8 

to that ofPFOA is not supported. Perfluorinated chains of20 carbons in length have a molecular 

weight of more than I 000, and lengthening the chain only increases the molecular weight, at the 

same time reducing the potential for absorption. Thus, EPA has not presented any data 

supporting the idea that LCPF AC of more than 1000 molecular weight have the potential to be 

toxic, and unless there are data showing that such compounds degrade to PFOA or similar 

compounds, there is no evidence of risk associated with them. 

Fluoropolymers with chain lengths greater than C20 are particularly stable materials, both 

chemically and in the environment. Work by SPI members shows that there is little if any 

degradation of PTFE and similar fluoropolymers, let alone degradation to PFOA. Therefore, the 

definition ofLCPFAC should not include fluoropolymers because fluoropolymers do not share 

the characteristics that concern EPA. 

EPA should take note that other countries like Canada have reached this appropriate 

conclusion. The Canadian Action Plan for the Assessment and Management of Perjluorinated 

Carboxylic Acids and their Precursors published in the Canada Gazette in October 20 I 0 defines 

the category as containing 9 to 20 carbon atoms, and also listed 14 specific chemicals as 

precursors. As justification for including compounds with carbons numbers between 10 and 20, 

Canadian authorities cited data showing that perfluorinated compounds up to C 15 have been 

detected in various animal tissues and environmental samples. No reports of LCPF ACs with 

more than 20 carbons were cited. 

B. The Scope of the LCPFAC Category Should Not Include Fluoropolymers 

As SPI's FMG informed EPA more than ten years ago, some fluoropolymers are made 

with the ammonium salt ofPFOA as a polymerization ai_d. There are residues of this substance 

in some products, notably in dispersions that are used to make coatings and other products. SPI 

demonstrated early in the process of regulating LCPF AC that the processing of fluoropolymers 

involves heat treatment that causes the residual PFOA to be degraded. In fluoropolymers that are 

heat treated as part of the fluoropolymer manufacturing process, in articles made from 

fluoropolymer dispersions and heat treated, and in articles made from other fluoropolymers that 

are heat treated after being formed into articles, the PFOA is at part per billion levels or lower. 

In EPA's docket there are scientific papers from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and 

others documenting this fact. Thus, to include fluoropolymers generally in the category of 

LCPFAC is not supported both because some are not made with PFOA analogues and, of those 

that are, most do not contain significant amounts of residues. 

Defining the category to include fluoropolymers made with PFOA is problematic in 

another way. As EPA states in its announcement, PFOA is a persistent chemical, and it is widely 

dispersed in the environment. Given these facts, even fluoropolymers not made with PFOA can 

have detectable levels of PFOA in them due to cross-contamination. Indeed, EPA and FMG 

examined this very issue in its effort to determine if fluoropolymers degrade into PFOA. While 

the levels may not be high, the fact that contamination may occur creates a problem of 

enforcement for EPA and one of compliance for processors. How are they to know that a 

fluoropolymer was not made with PFOA? The uncertainty around this issue suggests that 

fluoropolymers should not be included in the LCPF AC category for this practical reason as well, 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October 15,2012 

Page9 

and that regulation of the use of PFOA and other LCPF AC in fluoropolymer manufacturing 

should be left to a more thorough and comprehensive effort. 

Moreover, the fluoropolymers made with PFOA and the use of PFOA and analogues in 

manufacturing of fluoropolymers is an existing use. As noted by the American Chemistry 

Council in their comments on the original PFOS SNUR in 2002, existing uses cannot be made 

subject to a significant new use rule because they are not, by definition, new. 

Because of this EPA should make clear in the final rule that the category of LCPF AC 

does not include fluoropolymers generally, but as noted above should distinguish between 

fluoropolymers and FTBP by adequately defining the categories. In addition, with regard to 

degradation products of concern, EPA should specify the substructures in a polymer that could 

degrade to LCPF AC and thus warrant their inclusion in the category. 

III. Suggestions for Amending the Proposal 

We respectfully request that EPA remove fluoropolymers altogether from the scope of 

the final rule by including the definitional categories described above. In addition, EPA should 

amend the proposed SNUR to narrow the scope ofthe LCPFAC category to those perfluoroalkyl 

carboxylates with chain lengths of less than C20, as there is no scientific reason to believe that 

compounds with greater than 20 carbons present the same concerns as PFOA and its 

homologues. In addition, we propose that EPA remove paragraph (vi) from the LCPF AC 

definition in the final SNUR or, at a minimum, positively identify the chemical structures and the 

kinds of perfluorinated chains that it believes may degrade to PFOA. EPA should exclude all 

other "precursors" from the SNUR. The category should not remain open-ended, as not all 

substances in the category would present a potential risk to be addressed, and such an openended definition creates uncertainty in the regulated community about the scope of their legal 

obligations. The present definition is unnecessarily vague. 

In the interim, we suggest that EPA should not pursue any enforcement activity for 

export notices related to fluoropolymers under TSCA § 12(b) unless and until the scope ofthe 

LCPF AC category is resolved. EPA should also clarify publicly that it will not pursue 

enforcement of any export notification requirements associated with this rule that otherwise 

would be based on paragraph (vi). 

In discussing the definitions we propose, EPA should list all of the fluoropolymers that 

are presently on the TSCA Inventory, identifying those that it believes could degrade to produce 

the LCPF AC that are of concern. SPI is prepared to work with EPA to make sure that the 

categories and definitions are appropriately drawn and that EPA's objective of limiting the use of 

LCPFAC that present potential risks is achieved. Indeed, EPA is in the unique position of being 

the only body that knows the entire list of substances on the TSCA Inventory. For those 

substances whose identity is confidential, EPA should include the generic name that the 

manufacturer submitted so that the regulated industry can be on notice that substances in those 

categories are possibly in the SNUR category and can file a bonafide inquiry for a specific 

substance. 
Ms. Katherine Sleasman 

October 15, 2012 

Page 10 

SPI supports EPA's efforts in pursuing the Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals 

(LCPFCs) Action Plan and will continue to work with the Agency and other industry groups to 

meet the 2015 goals. 

* * * 

We trust that these comments are helpful to EPA in finalizing the proposed rule. SPI and 

its members remain ready and able to assist EPA. Should there be any questions or a need for 

clarification, please feel free to contact me. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Marie R. Martinko 

Director, Industry Affairs - Environment & Health 

Of Counsel: 

David G. Sarvadi 

Keller and Heckman LLP 

1001 G Street, N.W. 

Suite 500 West 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: (202) 434-4100 

Adrienne M. Timme! 

Keller and Heckman LLP 

1001 G Street, N.W. 

Suite 500 West 

Washington, DC 2000 I 

Phone: (202) 434-4100