UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WA SH IN GT O N , D.C

. 20460

O FFI CE OF CH E M I CA L SAFETY AND POLLU TI ON 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 LCPFACs, 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 LCPFAC in the final rule.
Before the meeting, EPA provided SPI with the following questions :

• Update ofrelative use volume s 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 tha t 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. S PI also asserted that if EPA were to consider lifting the article exemption in a future rulemaking, testing articles that are imported into the United S tates 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.

I nternet Address (URL ) • h tt p :/ /www

. epa gov Recycled/Recyclable • Pri n ted with Vegetable O il Based I nks on 100% Postco n s u me r

. P rocess Chlori ne 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-

### (jo

# c;; rz 

# 3M (VlJKf

## ~At,~'( 

# uJ111 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-~, ~-<-** **(v u**  ('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 Polluti on 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), signi ficant new use ru le (SNUR) on longchain perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (LCPFACs). 1 SPI represents the third largest manufacturing industry in the United Sta tes , employing approximately 900 thou sand workers and providing nearly $341 billion in annual sh ipments. 2 SPI ' s members represent the entire plastics indu stry 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 w ith EPA to understand the scope ofthe 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 LCPFAC, and in particular, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), from fluoropol ymers 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 " Perfluoroalk yl Sulfonates and Long

-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate Chemical Substances; Proposed Sign ificant New Use Rule." 77 Fed. Reg. 48,924 (Aug. IS , 2012).
2 For more information on SPI, visit www.plasticsindustry

.org.

1667 K Stree t, NW, Suite 1000 Washington , DC 20006-1620 www.plasticsindustry.org 202.974.5200 tel

. 202.296.7005 fax
www.npe.org The Internat ional Plastics Showcase M-n 23·27

.**201~** I V.W-"-01"9 0.""90 eo..-ry**c;o.,,..-r.~oon** c...
...**~** ,,_,.,_ USAMs. Katherine S leasman October 15 , 20 12 Page2
SPI is also aware of the comments bei ng submitted by the FluoroCouncil, whose membership include s , among others, the form er members ofthe FMG. SP I s upports the comments of the FluoroCouncil and urges EPA to thoroughly consider those comments as well as these. Briefly , SP I believes that the carpet SNUR is appropriate ifthese uses have been abandoned. As EPA well knows, flu oropolymers are not used in carpets , and SP I is primarily commenting on this proposal because of the overly broad definition ofL CPFACs. As de scribed be low , 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 bond ed to carbon somewhere in the molecule. In addition, no upper limit for the number ofcarbons in the perfluorinated chain was proposed in th e definition. SPI offers a defi niti on to clarify thi s s ituation and to avoid what we perceive as unintended consequences ofthe imprecise us e ofthe term. The reasons for our conclusions and comments are discussed more fully below. I. 

### Scope and Impact of EPA's Proposal
On August 15, 20 1 2, EPA propo sed a SNUR that would require companie s to submit a notification 90 day s prior to manufacturing , importin g or processing any LCPF AC for use as part of carpets or to treat carpets. 3 The LCPFAC chemical category refers to an extremely broad group of chemical sub stances containing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its higher homologues , salts , and precursors. In additi on , t he category apparentl y includes "certain" fluoropolymers and all fluorotelomers because of concerns that these categories of substances coul d be " precurso rs " of LCPFAC, because degradationproducts from these two categories of sub stances could include PFOA and related compound s
. According to EPA , " the toxicity of PFOA has been extensively studied and available data ha ve 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 Nevert heless , the Agency justified the inclu s ion of PFOA "precursors" in th e LCPF AC category by s ummari l y asserting that " the data s ug gest t hat the[ir] toxicity profile is quite similar to that ofPFOA , a lbe it at different do se l evels." 7 The scope of the LCPFAC category is of particularly interest to fluoropolymer manufacturers and processors because the proposal triggered the requirement the 12(b) export notification requirement ofTS CA

. That provision requ ires any person who exports or intends to export a chemical substanc e 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 0 536(b)(2)).

4 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,927.

s 77 Fed. Re g. 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 LCPFAC 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 LCP FAC. 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 LCPFAC The proposed LCPFAC 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) ofthis paragraph. 8 In addition to the definition, in the discussion ofthe scope ofthe intended coverage of LCPFAC, EPA states, "The category also includes the salts and precur sors 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 PFAC 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) ofthe proposed LCPFAC category is overbroad, ambiguous, and not amenable to enforcement. The proposed SNUR provides no criter ia 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 ofthe proposed SNUR does not meet the foundational criteria for a SN UR 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 do es not provide regulated parties "fair notice " regarding the scope ofthe SNUR or their obligations und er the SNUR. The failure to provide such notice re su lts 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) f rom the LCPF AC definition in the fmal SNUR. We believe the term "fluoropolymers" as used by the industry is lim ited 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 c hemical and stain resistance, among other properties. FTBP are not generally considered "fluoropolym ers" 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 offluoropo lymers with non-fluorinated polymers. See , for example, Branquinho, et al, FluorinatedAdditives For Stain-Resistant Matt Latex Paints 10

, and Sunga et al, Effect Of Microstructure Of FluorinatedAcrylic Coatings On UVDegradation 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 o le finic 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), polyvinylfluoride (PVF), copolymer of ethylene and chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE) , copolymer ofethylene , tet rafluoroethylene, and hexafluoropropylene (EFEP) , copolymer of ethylene and tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) , copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and hexafluoropropylene (FEP), copolymer of hexafluoropropylene, tetrafluoroethylene, and ethylene (HTE), copolymer oftetrafluoroethylene and perfluoromethylvinylether (MFA), polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), copolymers of TFE fluorocarbon resins containing perfluoroalkoxy s ide chains (PFA), homopol ymers_ofv inylidene fluoride copo lymers with other fluorinated monomers (PVDF), copolymer oftetrafluoroethylene , hexafluoropropylene and vinylidenefluoride (THV)."

9 Perfluoroalky/ andp o l y jluoroa/ky/ substances in the environment: Terminology, clas s ifi cation, 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

## °FluorinatedAdditives 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 FluorinatedAcrylic 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.polyme r
.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 LCPFACs 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 Perflu orinated Chemicals (LC PFC) 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 ofthe world consumption of PTFE in 2007, and between 25 and 50 percent of the world cons umption 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 LCPFAC that do not present s imi 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 acknowledge s 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 futu re regulatory proceedings. It is imperative that the chemistry be specific and accurate in this proceeding

. To that end, EPA should li mit the scope ofthe LCPFAC category to perfluor inated carbon substances of20 carbons or less in lengt h. 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 d irect contact with the biological cells f r om 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 ofthe lung. Thus, EPA in its original publication ofthe 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 ofpolymers that qualify for the polymer exemption are those that have a number average molecular weight greater than or equal to 10,000 and o ligomer content less than 2 percent be l ow MW 500 and less than 5 percent below MW 1,000. Noth ing 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 LCPFAC , certain fluoropolymers were excluded from e ligibility for the exemption as fo ll ows:
a polymer cannot be manufactured under this section ifthe 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: Perfluoroalky l su lfonates (PFAS), perfluoroalk y l carboxylates (PFAC) , 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 ofthe polymer molecule. 1 6 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 LCPFAC. 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 LCPFAC 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 LCPFAC. 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 LCPFAC. At the very least, EPA should -indeed must

- include appropriate definitions so its conclusions that the covered s ubstances present a risk ofcontributing 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'sjustification does not provide the necessary record to allow judicial review. EPA is basing its justification for regulating the use of LCPFAC in carpets because, as noted above, it believes that PFOA is toxic, and that other LCPFAC may present simi lar toxicity: The toxicity of PFOA has been extensively studied and available data have raised concerns about LCPFAC chemical substances' potential developmental, reproductive, and systemic toxicity

... Although there is an extensive database for PFOA, few studies have examined the toxicity ofother LCPFAC chemical substances. However, the data suggest that the toxicity profile is quite simi lar to that of PFOA , albeit at different dose levels. 17 However, as discussed above, EPA concluded in the initial polymer exemption tha t 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 LCPFAC present a risk similar

16 40 C

. F.R

. § 723.25(c)(6).
17 ld. at 48 , 929Ms. 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 I000, 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 length s 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 s im ilar fluoropolymers, let alone degradation to PFOA. Therefore, t he 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 pub lished in the Canada Gazette in October 20 I0 defines the category as containing 9 to 20 carbon atoms, and also listed 14 specific chemicals as precursors
. Asjustification 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 LCPFACs 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 ofthis substance in some products , notably in dispersions that are used to make coatings and other products. SPI demonstrated early in the process of regulating LCPFAC that the processing of fluoropo lymers involves heat treatment that causes the residual PFOA to be degraded. In fluoropolymers that are heat treated as part ofthe fluoropolymer manufacturing process, in articles made from fluoropolymer dispersions and heat treated, and in article s 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 shoul d not be included in the LCPFAC 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 analogue s 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 ofthi s EPA should make clear in the final rule that the category of LCPFAC 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 LCPFAC 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 add ition , we propose that EPA remove paragraph (vi) from the LCPFAC 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 oftheir 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 LCPFAC category is resolved. EPA shou ld also clarify publicly that it will not pursue enforcement of any export notifica t ion requirements associated with this rule that otherwise would be based on paragraph (vi). In discussing the definitions we propose, EPA should li st all of the fluoropolymers that are presently on the TSCA Inventory, identi fying those that it believes could degrade to produce the LCPFAC 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 p osition 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 inqui ry for a specific substance.Ms. Katherine Sleasman October 15 , 2012 Page 10
SPI supports EPA's efforts in pursuing the Long -Cha in 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 helpfu l 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