TSCA-HQ-2004-0016, et. al. 

Second Quarter 2006 Progress Report July 14, 2006 

Page 1 of 6 

2nd Quarter 2006 Progress Report 

April 01, 2006 to June 30, 2006 

Biodegradation Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP)

Pursuant to Section V.l.a. of the SEP, DuPont is required to submit a quarterly report within thirty days 

after the end of each calendar-year quarter. This report which is due July 30, 2006 satisfies said 

requirement. 

1. Description of Activities Undertaken

A. DuPont Response to EPA Request from March 27, 2006 Conference Call 

On March 23, 2006, DuPont and EPA, by teleconference discussed the progress DuPont made toward the 

purification of the Fluorotelomer-based Commercial Products using the “Mabury Method”. On March 

27, 2006, EPA provided DuPont with a request for additional information. On April 7, 2006 DuPont 

provided a response (CD-2006-18) to the request from the EPA. The response included the following: 1) 

DuPont’s response to specific questions posed by the EPA, 2) copies of available DuPont analytical 

methods used to measure target compounds and 3) requested analytical data. 

B. Panel Administrator Contract Negotiation and Contract Submission 

Section V.E.2 of the SEP provides that by March 15, 2006, DuPont must provide EPA with a final draft 

of the proposed contract that DuPont and the Panel Administrator have negotiated. Since the Panel 

Administrator was not chosen and agreed upon by the EPA and DuPont until February 22, 2006, a first 

request for extension (CD-2006-15) was requested by DuPont on March 13, 2006 and granted by the 

EPA. The deadline for Panel Administrator Contract submission to the EPA was extended to April 14, 

2006. 

On February 27, 2006, contract negotiations began between ISLI and DuPont and concluded successfully 

on April 10, 2006. The first draft of the negotiated Panel Administrator Contract, both CBI (CD-2006-

19) and public versions (CD-2006-19a) was submitted to the EPA for review on April 12, 2006. Since 

April 12, 2006, EPA and DuPont have met by teleconference to address questions regarding the contract 

documents. The Panel Administrator Contract is currently under review by the EPA. 

C. Purification Progress Report – Part 4 of 4 

Pursuant of Section I.E.2.a. of the SEP, DuPont and the EPA are to come to agreement as to a method for 

purifying the Fluorotelomer-based Commercial Products. Since exploratory studies on the applicability 

of the “Mabury Method” for the purification of Fluorotelomers-based Commercial Products began on 

February 7, 2006, a series of reports were submitted (CD-2006-14, 16 and 17). 

On March 23, 2006, EPA and DuPont had a conference call to discuss the progress with the applicability 

of the “Mabury Method” for the purification of the Fluorotelomers-based Commercial Products. The 

analytical results from the progress reports outlined above were discussed. The EPA and DuPont 

discussed how, if at all, the Mabury Method could be modified or further developed such that it could be 

used to produce the nine Purified Fluorotelomer Products in a timely, feasible, and efficient manner. 

Based upon evaluation of the results from the first three purification progress reports, on March 27, 2006, 

the EPA proposed additional experiments to conduct on two test substances. DuPont provided its final 

progress report entitled “Exploratory Studies on the Applicability of the “Mabury Method” to Large Scale 
TSCA-HQ-2004-0016, et. al. 

Second Quarter 2006 Progress Report July 14, 2006 

Page 2 of 6 

Purification of Fluorotelomer-based Products for Biodegradation Studies – Part 4 – Data from March 22, 

2006 to April 04, 2006 (CD-2006-20).

Currently, DuPont and EPA are in the process of coming to agreement on the additional experiments 

proposed for two specific test substances identified by EPA. 

D. Third Request for Extension- Purification Procedure Agreement 

Section I.E.2.a. of SEP A provides that “On or before February 1, 2006, DuPont and EPA will agree on 

the procedure(s) that DuPont will use to purify the Fluorotelomer Products to produce Purified 

Fluorotelomer Products, taking into consideration the need to optimize various factors, including the 

appropriate duration of extraction and re-dispersion processes, the desired purity of the Purified 

Fluorotelomer Products, the schedule for delivery of the Purified Fluorotelomer Products to the 

laboratories for characterization, testing, and the overall schedule for completing this biodegradation 

SEP.” 

The time for the parties to reach agreement on the purification procedure was first extended to March 2, 

2006 (CD-2006-05) and then extended a second time to April 17, 2006 (CD-2006-14). The parties are 

still actively evaluating parameters for modification of the Mabury Method and are also engaged in 

discussion concerning two additional experiments to be conducted that may provide further relevant 

information on the appropriate purification procedure to implement. As such, a third extension of time 

was necessary for the experiments to be conducted and for the parties to reach agreement on the 

purification procedure. Section II.L.3. of SEP A provides that extensions of time beyond a first extension 

are subject to EPA’s discretion and are granted for good cause shown. 

Progress toward establishing a purification method was presented to show that good cause existed for the 

granting of the third extension of time. The time period for the third extension was based upon the length 

of time needed to conduct additional experiments. A request for a third extension was submitted to the 

EPA on April 12, 2006 (CD-2006-21). On April 14, the EPA granted an extension for agreement on the 

Purification Procedure to June 30, 2006. 

E. Submission of First Quarter 2006 Progress Report Describing Progress from January 01, 2005 to 

March 31, 2006 

Section V.I.a. of the CAFO provides that “Within thirty days after the end of each calendar-year quarter 

(i.e., by April 30, July 31, October 30 and January 30) after execution of this Consent Agreement 

pursuant to Paragraph IX.9., respondent shall submit in writing a quarterly report for the preceding 

quarter that shall include a discussion of the Respondent’s progress in satisfying its obligations in 

connection with each SEP including a minimum, a narrative description of activities undertaken, 

compliance with the schedules or milestones set forth in the applicable appendix, and a summary of costs 

incurred since the previous report.” 

On April 26, 2006, the first quarter 2006 progress report covering the time period from January 01, 2006 

to March 31, 2006 was submitted to the EPA (CD-2006-22). 

F. Requested Information from the April 19, 2006 Conference Call between EPA and DuPont 

On April 19, 2006, DuPont and EPA, by teleconference discussed the progress DuPont made toward the 

purification of the Fluorotelomer-based Commercial Products using the “Mabury Method”. On April 28, 

2006 DuPont provided a response to the request from the EPA (CD-2006-23). The request included the 

following: 1) one table including single operator precision data for the DuPont Polymer Solids Analysis 
TSCA-HQ-2004-0016, et. al. 

Second Quarter 2006 Progress Report July 14, 2006 

Page 3 of 6 

Method and 2) one table including spike recovery information for the DuPont GC-MS and LC-MS-MS 

methods for the analysis of alcohol, iodide and acid, respectively. 

G. Purification Path Forward Agreement 

Section I.E.2.a. of SEP A provides that “On or before February 1, 2006, DuPont and EPA will agree on 

the procedure(s) that DuPont will use to purify the Fluorotelomer Products to produce Purified 

Fluorotelomer Products, taking into consideration the need to optimize various factors, including the 

appropriate duration of extraction and re-dispersion processes, the desired purity of the Purified 

Fluorotelomer Products, the schedule for delivery of the Purified Fluorotelomer Products to the 

laboratories for characterization, testing and studies, and the overall schedule for completing this 

biodegradation SEP.” Since February 2006, DuPont has conducted experiments and reported the results 

to EPA for several screening studies targeted at evaluating whether the “Mabury Method” could be 

modified to produce the nine Purified Fluorotelomer Products (CD 2006-14, 16, 17 and 20). After a 

telephone conference call on May 3, 2006 to discuss progress, EPA requested two additional experiments 

using the “Mabury Method”. 

In an effort to outline the conditions related to the two additional experiments, DuPont and EPA worked 

together to put together a path forward agreement. To formalize the agreement, DuPont submitted a path 

forward agreement (CD-2006-24) on June 26, 2006 to request written concurrence from the Agency that 

EPA agrees with the experiments and test conditions set forth. DuPont is currently waiting official 

approval of the path forward agreement. 

H. Fourth Request for Extension- Purification Procedure Agreement 

Section I.E.2.a. of SEP A provides that “On or before February 1, 2006, DuPont and EPA will agree on 

the procedure(s) that DuPont will use to purify the Fluorotelomer Products to produce Purified 

Fluorotelomer Products, taking into consideration the need to optimize various factors, including the 

appropriate duration of extraction and re-dispersion processes, the desired purity of the Purified 

Fluorotelomer Products, the schedule for delivery of the Purified Fluorotelomer Products to the 

laboratories for characterization, testing and studies, and the overall schedule for completing this 

biodegradation SEP.” 

The time for the parties to reach agreement on the purification procedure was first extended to March 2, 

2006 (CD-2006-05), extended a second time to April 17, 2006 (CD-2006-14), and then extended a third 

time on April 14, 2006 (CD-2006-21) to June 30, 2006. Pending the approval of the path forward 

agreement which was submitted to EPA on June 26, 2006, DuPont submitted a fourth request for 

extension for the purification procedure agreement. The request for extension to September 30, 2006 is 

currently under consideration by EPA. 

I. Additional Progress 

DuPont has secured the following: 1) the required quantities of the nine Fluorotelomer-based Commercial 

Products, 2) the raw materials to make the nine lab-made Fluorotelomer-based Commercial products and 

3) the high purity raw materials to make the lab-made high purity variants of the nine Fluorotelomerbased Commercial Products. DuPont has also set up a separate laboratory where the purification process 

is being performed. 

Appendix A - Table 1 shows the progress DuPont has made toward the synthesis of the nine Commercial 

Fluorotelomer-based Products, nine Lab Synthesized Commercial Fluorotelomer-based Products and the 

Table 1 in Appendix A also shows the quantities of the material required and the material currently 

available. All nine of the Commercial Fluorotelomer-based are ready and available for shipment. Seven 

of the nine Lab Synthesized Commercial Fluorotelomer-based Products and six of the nine Lab 
TSCA-HQ-2004-0016, et. al. 

Second Quarter 2006 Progress Report July 14, 2006 

Page 4 of 6 

Synthesized Fluorotelomer-based Commercial Products made from high purity raw material are also 

available for shipment. The remaining five test substances will be synthesized and available by July 30, 

2006. 

2. Pending Issues and Document Reviews

 A. Requests for Proposals to the EPA for Approval 

Section III. B. of the SEP provides that “By February 1, 2006, DuPont shall submit to EPA on or more 

draft Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to be sent to all of the laboratories identified in Attachment G to 

solicit proposals for (1) characterizing the Fluorotelomer Products and any Corresponding Polymers, and 

(2) conducting the OECD Guideline 303A and SCAS studies on the Fluorotelomer Products and any 

Corresponding Polymers (including pilot testing).” On January 27, 2006, DuPont requested and was 

granted a first extension (CD-2006-05) to March 2, 2006. 

The Analytical Laboratory Request for Proposal (both CBI and Public versions, CD-2006-12, CD 2006-

12a and CD-2006 12b) was submitted to the EPA on February 22, 2006. Similarly, the Biodegradation 

Laboratory Request for Proposal (both CBI and Public versions, CD-2006-11 and CD 2006-11a) was 

submitted to the EPA on March 1, 2006. The Biodegradation Laboratory and Analytical Laboratory 

RFPs are under review by the EPA. 

B. Panel Administrator Contract 

Section V.E.2 of the SEP provides that by March 15, 2006, DuPont must provide EPA with a final draft 

of the proposed contract that DuPont and the Panel Administrator have negotiated. Since the Panel 

Administrator was not chosen and agreed upon by the EPA and DuPont until February 22, 2006, the 

deadline for Panel Administrator Contract submission to the EPA was extended to April 14, 2006. The 

first draft of the negotiated Panel Administrator Contract (both CBI and public versions, CD-2006-19 and 

CD-2006-19a) was submitted to the EPA for review on April 12, 2006. The Panel Administrator 

Contract is currently under review by the EPA. 

 C. Agreement on the Mabury Method of Purification 

Pending the approval from EPA on the path forward agreement for two additional sparging experiments 

which was submitted to EPA on June 26, 2006, DuPont submitted a fourth request for extension for the 

purification procedure agreement. The request for extension for a new deadline date of September 

30, 2006 is currently under consideration by EPA. 

3. Compliance with Schedules or Milestones

This section outlines the various requests for extension granted between April 01, 2006 and June 30, 

2006. All deadlines were met. Pending deadlines and open issues are described below. 

A. Purification Procedure 

Section I.E.2.a. of SEP A provides that “On or before February 1, 2006, DuPont and EPA will agree on 

the procedure(s) that DuPont will use to purify the Fluorotelomer Products to produce Purified 

Fluorotelomer Products, taking into consideration the need to optimize various factors, including the 

appropriate duration of extraction and re-dispersion processes, the desired purity of the Purified 

Fluorotelomer Products, the schedule for delivery of the Purified Fluorotelomer Products to the 

laboratories for characterization, testing and studies, and the overall schedule for completing this 

biodegradation SEP.” 
TSCA-HQ-2004-0016, et. al. 

Second Quarter 2006 Progress Report July 14, 2006 

Page 5 of 6 

The time for the parties to reach agreement on the purification procedure was first extended to March 2, 

2006 (CD-2006-05), extended a second time to April 17, 2006 (CD-2006-14) and extended a third time to 

June 30, 2006 (CD-2006-21). On June 26, 2006, DuPont submitted a fourth request for extension and 

that extension request is currently under consideration by the EPA. 

B. Panel Administrator Contract Submission to the EPA 

Section V.E.2 of the SEP provides that by March 15, 2006, DuPont must provide EPA with a final draft 

of the proposed contract that DuPont and the Panel Administrator have negotiated. Since the Panel 

Administrator was not chosen and agreed upon by the EPA and DuPont until February 22, 2006, a first 

request for extension (CD-2006-15) was requested by DuPont on March 13, 2006 and granted by the 

EPA. The deadline for Panel Administrator Contract submission to the EPA was extended to April 14, 

2006. The first draft of the negotiated Panel Administrator Contract (both CBI and public versions, CD2006-19 and CD-2006-19a) was submitted to the EPA for review on April 12, 2006. The Panel 

Administrator Contract is currently under review by EPA. 

 C. Quarterly Progress Reports 

Section V.I.a. of the CAFO provides that “Within thirty days after the end of each calendar-year quarter 

(i.e., by April 30, July 31, October 30 and January 30) after execution of this Consent Agreement 

pursuant to Paragraph IX.9., respondent shall submit in writing a quarterly report for the preceding 

quarter that shall include a discussion of the Respondent’s progress in satisfying its obligations in 

connection with each SEP including a minimum, a narrative description of activities undertaken, 

compliance with the schedules or milestones set forth in the applicable appendix, and a summary of costs 

incurred since the previous report.” 

On April 26, 2006, the first quarter 2006 progress report covering the time period from January 01, 2006 

to March 31, 2006 was submitted to the EPA (CD-2006-22). 

 D. Deadlines 

All deadlines were met in the second quarter of 2006. The only pending deadline is for the Agreement of 

the Purification Method which is currently under consideration by EPA. 

4. Summary of Costs Incurred

DuPont has established a system to capture all costs incurred for this SEP. Cost is broken down into two 

accounts, the “SEP Biodegradation Main” account (VZ789011724) and the “SEP Biodegradation 

Synthesis” account (VZ78101073). The SEP Biodegradation Main account is used for all eligible SEP 

costs while the SEP Biodegradation Synthesis account is used for DuPont costs resulting from 

preparation, purification, synthesis and characterization of the test substances as supplied to the SEP. 

The cost of the SEP from April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006 as it was accounted on cost ledger is shown in 

Attachment B Page 1 of 4 (Cost Analysis for April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006). The table shows the costs 

from both accounts and breaks the cost distribution down into salaries, overheads, travel, operating 

supplies and analytical costs. The year to date (YTD) costs are $88,065 and $102,543 for the SEP 

Biodegradation Main and the SEP Biodegradation Synthesis accounts, respectively. 

Attachment B Page 2 and 3 of 4, shows the breakdown of staff hours for the second quarter from April 1, 

2006 to June 30, 2006. Barley Mill and Chambers Works are staff locations. 
TSCA-HQ-2004-0016, et. al. 

Second Quarter 2006 Progress Report July 14, 2006 

Page 6 of 6 

Attachment B Page 4 of 4 (Cost Corrections for 1Q 2006, January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2006), shows the 

initial costs reported in the First Quarter 2006 Progress Report (CD-2006-22). In this table, the reported 

costs are in black and the corrected or omitted costs are in red. In the first quarterly progress report for 

2006, the reported costs were incorrect due to confusion from conversion of an old cost system to a new 

cost system (SAP) within DuPont. The cost (in red and black) now shown in Attachment B page 4 of 4 

are now the correct and actual costs for the first quarter of 2006. 

5. Attachments

 Title Number of Pages

Attachment A. Quantity of Test Substance Required and Prepared 1 

Attachment B Cost Distribution for 2Q 2006 4