Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0012-0146
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-07-18T04:00Z

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
July
8,
2003
Draft
Agenda
Monitoring
ECA
Technical
Workgroup
Meeting
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
1:
00­
4:
00
PM
Mission
Statement:
The
Monitoring
Workgroup
will
develop
ECA
proposal(
s)
for
screening­
level
environmental
monitoring
of
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors
as
identified
by
the
Plenary
Group.
The
initial
focus
will
be
for
data
needs
identified
in
item
10
of
Table
I
and
item
10
of
Table
II
of
the
EPA
Preliminary
Framework
document,
specifically
addressing
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
in
the
vicinity
of
telomer
and
fluoropolymer
manufacturing
and
use
facilities.
The
interested
parties
were
supportive
of
using
the
existing
3M
and
DuPont
analytical
protocols
and
sampling
methods
as
a
starting
place
to
discuss
developing
analytical
protocols
and
sampling
methods
specifically
addressing
PFOA
data
needs
as
ECA
proposals.
In
addition,
the
Workgroup
will
develop
considerations
for
site
selection
in
monitoring
studies.

Meeting
Objective:
Second
scoping
meeting
to:
1.
Clarify
the
scope
of
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
activities
contained
within
the
industry
LOIs
(
OPPT­
2003­
0012­
0007;
OPPT­
2003­
0012­
0012;
OPPT­
2003­
0012­
0013)
2.
Discuss
monitoring
activities
and
objectives
identified
within
the
EPA
Preliminary
Framework
to
determine
topics
for
ECA
development
3.
Prepare
workgroup
presentation
to
plenary
session
and
select
spokesperson.
4.
Identify
workgroup
next
steps
and
assignments.

Workgroup
Participants:
3M;
Bennett
&
Williams;
CPSC;
EPA;
EWG;
FMG;
Little
Hocking
Water
Association;
National
Center
for
Policy
Research
for
Women
and
Families;
Ohio
EPA;
Rich
Purdy;
TRP;
Tuppers
Plains­
Chester
Water
District;
WV
Class
Action
Plaintiffs
Order
of
Meeting:

°
Introductions:
Chair,
Phil
Oshida,
Director,
Chemical
Control
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
EPA
Technical
Lead,
Lawrence
Libelo,
Economics,
Exposure
&
Technology
Division
°
EPA
presentation
comparing
the
scope
of
the
LOI
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
activities
with
EPA
data
needs
and
monitoring
objectives
°
Identification
and
discussion
of
possible
screening­
level
environmental
sampling
and
monitoring
activities
for
ECA
development
°
Preparation
of
workgroup
report
to
plenary
session
and
selection
of
spokesperson
°
Identification
of
workgroup
next
steps;
determination
of
workgroup
assignments
PFOA
ECA
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
Meeting
July
9,
2003
Q~
W
~
42~
~
/
c~
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
~
e4'\
41I4~
4~'~,

~~&\
o~
n~
~
e~/
o~
rr
(~
C.

C~
pJfl~
4,)~
J,
L~
~/
O//~
I77~
2c
i­
5~
4~~#
f
f~'
L,~~
Dô,
v~
eJ~.

~

~),

~

/~,
t~
O
~

~

~~
j+~
L~+
f
~~
Per/~~
~

~­~/
q
~?
2~
u/
i~
9
/
t'~­~­­­­

~
e~(
OrPrJz~­~
n
~
Ftc1/~'
i
~`
a~­,~
V­
8,~"/

~

~

~

2o~/~
3~'

c~
c~
i
f
­~
1­
L~'~
,~

­

~

~

J~//~~
~
~
7
/~
C~

/
1
­
~
v
,
 
)
~
v/
5'~'
c~,
oJ~
j
~
~

/~~
P
A/,~
A7~,­~
~
77~
jp~

~

OL~
~
~
k~
k~'
N~
v
°
'

C~
fl
~
~

r4e~
L~
~

~
~/~

c,
Rsc~~
~
PA/
oPPr/~~

u1~~~
i~+

~
s~,
~
pA~
lORD
WL~
6ô
r~­

~
pp
C
F~
c~~
\~*
cc~

­
ç~
~
7/~
~
3
°
f­

OY­~?
Z(~
3
~
o~­~­~
sf
~
~

~
~
J~
j
~
I(
o~

~

~

~
~
OO
~
54'~~'~
~
e
pb~
c~
s~
v
~

~
L~
ze~
e1Lr~
t~~

~
~
~

~
0i)
et4
€
~
~
e~
A~
jô~
i
­~
~
,~
°

IOL
­~

~
j
PFOA
ECA
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
Meeting
July
9,
2003
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
~
5a7~/
i/
f~
ma/~
u
£
`
aiki
~~
ie~
i~
ii&,
c~
p
­~
te
€
~
!~
t
,
q/
~

~

Mt~
4
~
rn+
c~
cD
~
(
1~~
tj
~

C:~
1~(~
f
~

~
(~
oZ)
q~
ZL~

~
7VB~
J(~
2
1O~­~

(~~
74
~
`
t~
i4IA
~

~

~
~
~

~

~
~
~
~

LU~~
O~­
k\
c~~
PA
O­$~\
~`~
JW'~
Q
~
~
TAfl~

A~
L~
L~­
2­
2s~'­~
ac
A~
Lr~
O'~{~&
7(.
~

lb
IC
Du
~
i'~
T~
Qf~(~
5~
C7~~)
1/
S4.
I~'
eo4~

iUkrn/
ôW~/~./
~
s
Th~
r
~
T'
1~
44~
3­

~­
~
­
~
o~
i
4w1t~
e~
v\
V.
M4L­
1,
UW~'
X,&~
a.
dup2/
I~~
J
s4c~~
r~.
s
@~~
4~
p+
oc.
~

z~
i~
4j6uo
1~
PA/~
i~
3uo.~
A,'~­
h1~)
~
f~
7oV
­~
L4~~~(
C~
~
I~
f/~
CP
Zoz/~
gC(~(
67
°

flS~~
CL~
~
7~
Cr?
L1
V
(­
i~~
sccipJ~.~
Q6~

°
£
d~
H­~
L~
c~
r
(
3~
Q
J~
r~
~
4
(
o
v~
S~
~
~
c2_~

­
q~
y~
p
~
2
~

~`
W'
l~,
2~
3?
L(~
bob.
s"
s$"~(~..
co'i1
~
Li~~
2c
/

°
a
PFOA
ECA
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
Meeting
July
9,
2003
c
Th1~/
O~
Iz~
*
°
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
#
E­
MAIL
ADDRESS
.
C)
14z/,
p
e~,
q7oi
~\
LLt~)
\
Jt~
tc~
kdIer~
utdI
5?~
2­
o2~
1/
3W
V
ZC2~
T14~
Z33
5~
AfA­
P1
(~
L4­
uis
~
oiv\
P~
Vf~
bMAt'
1
@
Soc
fLAS.
a~

DA~
n1~
1~
ui~­
k~­
V~(
fO'v7
~,
4vi2~.
f.
RKSt,
7~,


o
p
~
c)
k
d
~
i~°;

~
vt~
ej­
Kki~
~
4
~~,
s­
ait~

€
~
vma/~
kt~
yffQ~

~
3o

­
­
ST~­~
S~

~­~
 
2~
OOq~)

202.
?
3~
95'
i~
ç~

~
z­~
3
­~
7(
°

~­
i/
tt~~
C~~
1
~
KLe&
i@~
~)
r~

~
~
d.
~

~
4~
L/~
L?~~­
i/~
~
Y2f
~
~
&}
l~
p~
e~
1~
M~
­~
Cr­
~
~
57.
7~&
J7
~
yq~
5
(~
i(
Pi~
t~­~
~
914/
H;//
at~/
flih7/
1'
~~
oi1~
 
ro~
4.~.
b
~
GJ~
iS~.
c~
pc~
i'
9.
ccn'~

~~
dnii~
j~/(
L
 
~
1~
t*
tQ
\
~
~

,~
/~
/
Cc!)~
~
~
~

~
z/
4
b~
k5~
61~

~

°

?
x~
i­
Si~
1h
773~
~
­~
~

~
5~
5­
33
`
5~
~
js~

Li~~­&
~

`~

°~
a~
cpsccjoV
~

~

/~
Iie,~
~­~
net~
g
LtJ,'
JJ~
a(
flS
g0,
j
~
Lii­~~
1Qc
 
~
~~
aici
/
AL/~&
r­
c~/~
f.
i~
z
±
7~
oce~
j
~

­~
1~
~
4~/~
~
P.
4(~
iae~
V~

~
2c~
2_
5~
oLI~
Q32&

Z~~~
V~

.

3
éPI~­
b/
Environmental
Monitoring
U.
S.
EPA
July
9,
2003
LOI
Monitoring
Presentation
°
APFO
Manufacturing
site
°
APFO
User
Sites
°
Dispersion
Processor
Sites
°
Telomer
Manufacturing
°
Telomer
User
Site
LOI
Monitoring
°
APFO
Manufacturing
sites
 
Cottage
Grove,
MN
°
Groundwater
(
5
existing
wells)

°
Effluent
 
Decatur,
AL
°
Groundwater
(
8
existing
wells)

°
Surface
water
°
Sediments
°
Biota
(
fish)
LOI
Monitoring
°
APFO
Manufacturing
site
 
Fayetteville,
NC
°
Groundwater
(
4
existing
wells)

°
Wastewater
LOI
Monitoring
°
APFO
User
Sites
 
3
sites
°
Daikin,
Dyneon/
3M
sites
in
Decatur,
AL
 
Ongoing
°
Washington
Works,
Parkersburg,
WV
 
No
additional
monitoring
 
Surface
Water
°
Upstream,
at
site,
downstream,
public
water
system
 
Wastewater
outfalls
 
Groundwater
using
existing
wells
LOI
Monitoring
°
APFO
User
Sites
Objective:

"
to
determine
whether
there
has
been
any
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment.."

°
Based
on
WV
toxicity
levels
LOI
Monitoring
°
Dispersion
Processors
 
No
environmental
monitoring
 
Process
modeling
LOI
Monitoring
°
Telomers
 
No
environmental
monitoring
at
processing
or
use
sites
 
Process
modeling
LOI
Monitoring/
EPA
Needs
 
"
Health
impact"
objective
of
LOI
monitoring
not
the
same
as
EPA's
objective
of
achieving
PFOA
source
and
pathway
understanding;
different
objectives
call
for
different
approaches
 
EPA
needs
monitoring
based
on
analytical
limits
°
LOI
monitoring
decisions
based
on
WV
screening
levels
would
not
achieve
PFOA
source
and
pathway
understanding
 
Air
modeling
is
not
sufficient.
Actual
monitoring
of
vapor,
particulate,
and
water
phase
needed
LOI
Monitoring/
EPA
Needs
°
No
environmental
monitoring
at
telomer
manufacture,
processing
or
use
sites.

 
Processing
engineering
modeling
is
not
sufficient
for
determining
environmental
concentrations.

 
Monitoring
is
required
°
Environmental
matrix
samples
insufficient
at
most
sites
 
No
biota,
sludge,
air
etc
°
Proposed
sampling
frequency
inadequate
at
some
sites
°
Proposed
Objective:

 
Determine
how
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors
are
released
into
the
environment,
their
fate
and
transport
once
released,
and
routes
and
levels
of
human
and
environmental
exposure.

 
Monitoring
must
provide
information
on
releases
and
routes
of
exposure
in
sufficient
detail
to
understand
the
contributions
of
PFOA
from
various
possible
sources,

and
to
inform
a
cumulative
assessment
of
the
exposure.
Current
Knowledge
°
Blood
analysis
suggests
widespread
exposure
°
Existing
monitoring
data
shows
measurable
levels
of
PFOA
and
possible
PFOA
precursors
in
water,

soil,
sediments,
air,
municipal
sludges,
and
biota
°
Unidentified
pathways
for
PFOA
and
PFOA
precursors
must
be
identified
with
full
transparency
Acceptable
Approach
Must
Include
°
Screening
level
monitoring
focused
on
worst
case
scenarios
°
Manufacturing,
processing,
and
use
°
Sampling
of
all
environmental
media
 
Surface
water,
groundwater,
wastewater,

sludge,
air,
particulates,
rain,
biota
Scope
°
Sufficient
to
identify
background
levels
of
concentration
and
exposure
°
Sufficient
number
of
sites
to
ensure
that
worst
case
sites
and
processes
have
been
identified,
and
to
determine
associated
level
of
uncertainty.

°
Collect
enough
data
to
allow
extrapolation
to
other
plant
sites
and
areas
°
Manufacturing
sites
 
All
°
Processor
sites
 
Selected
sites
°
End
user
sites
 
Representative
sites
from
all
processes
°
Analyze
for
PFOA
and
all
known
or
suspected
precursors
°
Sampling
based
on
analytical
detection
limits
FMG
Presentation
to
Monitoring
Technical
Workgroup
1
Monitoring
2
Monitoring
°
APFO
Manufacturing
 
Under
the
LOI,
the
current
US
manufacturer
will
conduct
water
monitoring
and
air
dispersion
modeling
on
an
ongoing
basis
 
Under
the
LOI,
the
prior
US
manufacturer
is
conducting
broadbased
monitoring
on
an
ongoing
basis
 
Results
at
these
facilities
to
be
reported
to
the
EPA
per
the
LOI.

°
Industry
group
recommendation
 
The
monitoring
programs
at
these
sites
are
comprehensive
and
sufficient
3
Monitoring
°
Fluoropolymer
Manufacturing
 
Other
Manufacturing
Sites?

°
75%
of
the
existing
manufacturing
sites
in
the
US
that
continue
to
use
APFO
are
covered
in
the
monitoring
studies
discussed
by
industry
 
Biota
Sampling?

°
Bio­
concentration
factors
are
low
°
Fish
testing
by
3M
indicates
no
significant
levels
 
Market
basket
data?

°
Very
few
random
detections/
none
replicated
4
APME
Study­
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
PFOA
to
Soil
°
Adsorption/
Desorption
study
submitted
on
July
7,
2003
°
Used
OECD
106
Guidelines­
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
PFOA
to
Soil
°
Representative
Results
­
Adsorption
Coefficient,
Kd
 
Silty
Clay
Loam,
4.25­
8.86
mL/
g
(
low­
med
foc
%)

 
Sandy
Clay
Loam,
0.41­
0.83
mL/
g
(
low
foc
%)

 
Wilmington
Sludge,
12.6­
36.8
mL/
g
(
high
foc
%)

°
Natural
soils
all
displayed
very
low
Kd
values
°
Key
conclusions
 
PFOA
has
low
affinity
for
adsorption
onto
soils
 
Low
foc
soils
desorb
PFOA
better
5
APME
Study­
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
PFOA
to
Soil,
cont.

°
LHWA
Soil
Investigation
consistent
with
APME
Study
°
Results:

 
Near
surface,
fine
grained,
higher
foc
soils
displayed
highest
PFOA
in
soil
results
(
highest
was
170
ug/
kg)

 
Deeper,
coarser
soils
(
i.
e.,
sands)
displayed
very
low
to
ND
results
°
Industry
Group
Recommendation
 
Based
on
actual
results
in
Ohio
and
adsorption/
desorption
testing
results,
there
is
no
need
to
do
soil
testing.
6
Dispersion
Processor
Material
Balance
°
Dispersion
processors
 
Water
sampling
°
Protocols
for
sample
collection
and
sample
analysis
are
being
chosen
consistent
with
WV
MMCO
 
Air
sampling
°
Protocols
for
stack
sample
collection
and
stack
sample
analysis
are
being
chosen
consistent
with
WV
MMCO
 
Sampling
will
be
conducted
at
the
following
dispersion
processor
types
°
Metal
coaters/
formulators
°
Glass
cloth
coaters
°
Additives
°
Others
by
processing
temperature
 
Results
will
be
submitted
to
EPA
by
the
end
of
2003
7
Monitoring
°
Summary/
Recommendations
 
APFO
Manufacturing
Monitoring
data
to
be
reported
to
EPA
as
defined
in
the
LOI
 
Fluoropolymer
Manufacturing
Monitoring
is
sufficient
as
planned
and/
or
completed.

 
Dispersion
processor
material
balance
to
be
reported
by
the
end
of
2003
TRP
Telomer
Research
Program
Monitoring
Letter
of
Intent
Commitments
&

ECA
Discussion
9
July
2003
9
July
2003,
page
2
Telomer
Research
Program
TRP
ECA
Technical
Work
Groups
(
TWG)

Monitoring

ECA
Item
#
10,
LOI
Items
#
3/
4
and
Appendix
1.

9
July
2003

Telomers
Technical
Working
Group

ECA
Items
#
2­
9,
12,
LOI
Items
#
1,
2,
5,
6,
and
Related
Activities

10
July
2003
9
July
2003,
page
3
Telomer
Research
Program
DuPont
Specific
Commitments
in
LOI:

LOI
Appendix
#
1,
ECA
#
10
Status
Report

Develop
site
specific
plans
on
its
US
operations
to
assess
levels
of
PFOA
in
air
and
water
from
manufacturing
operations
around
each
site;
development
of
plans
will
begin
not
later
than
30
days
after
the
date
of
this
letter.
Status:
Planning
done,
protocols
developed,
resources
identified,
and
timing
established.

Conduct
site­
specific
air
dispersion
modeling
for
applicable
manufacturing
operations,
using
the
EPA
approved
Industrial
Source
Complex
Short
Term
3
(
ISCSTS)
model,
as
described
in
EPA's
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Models
(
40
C.
F.
R.

Part
51,
Appendix
W),
and
assess
the
results
using
the
air
screening
levels
established
in
West
Virginia.
Status:
Models
under
construction,
plan
on
track,

actual
data
being
assembled
for
input
into
models

Conduct
ground
and
surface
water
analyses
at
each
site,
and
assess
the
results
using
the
water
screening
levels
established
in
West
Virginia.
Status:
Protocols
have
been
developed,
confirming
analytical
methods,
sample
collection
has
begun
9
July
2003,
page
4
Telomer
Research
Program
DuPont
Specific
Commitments
in
LOI:

LOI
Appendix
#
1,
ECA
#
10
Status
Report

Use
the
West
Virginia
screening
levels
to
determine
what
additional
actions,
if
any,
may
need
to
be
taken,
after
reviewing
the
information
with
EPA.
Status:
Actions
based
on
study
results.

Six
months
after
this
Letter
is
submitted,
reports
will
be
submitted
for
each
site
on
progress
made
with
respect
to
environmental
assessments.
Status:
On
track.

Provide
EPA
with
applicable
existing
industrial
hygiene
air
monitoring
data
for
PFOA
from
DuPont
operations
at
Chambers
Works

Status:
Item
completed.
9
July
2003,
page
5
Telomer
Research
Program
TRP
Approach
to
the
Monitoring
Processes

TRP
is
Committed
to
Processes
which

Focus
on
relevant
releases
and
exposures
during
the
life­
cycle
of
telomer­
based
products
and
articles

Products
and
treated
articles
were
chosen
using
criteria
such
as
market
end
use,
chemistry
type/
class,
chemical
volume,
article
type,
and
potential
for
human
exposure.

Focus
on
fate
and
monitoring
studies
based
on
release
and
exposure
analyses
and
considerations

Consider
testing
and
measurements
in
an
iterative,
step­
wise
approach
triggered
by
improved
knowledge
gained
9
July
2003,
page
6
Telomer
Research
Program
Telomer
Product
Supplier
Carpet
Mill
Consumer
:

Commercial
&

Residential
Disposal
°
landfill
°
recycle
Install
DISTRIBUTION
USE
DISPOSAL
Production
Where
the
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
is
Applied
to
the
Article
Product
Trail
:
Carpet
Background
9
July
2003,
page
7
Telomer
Research
Program
Wet
Application
°
immersion
°
spray
°
foam
Drying
"
Input"
Substrate
°
carpet
°
textile
fabric
°
paper
°
Bath
concentration
°
Application
Rate
°
Water
°
Air
Potential
Environmental
Releases
°
Solid
Waste
°
Trimming
Waste
Treated
Article
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Application
Process
Telomer
Product
Application
Process
°
Processing
equipment
is
uniform
across
industries,
has
been
used
for
many
years,
and
is
well
understood
9
July
2003,
page
8
Telomer
Research
Program
Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Application
Process
for
Carpet,
Textiles,
&
Paper
Characterize
Releases
from
Article
Manufacture
:

Mass
Balance
Treated
Article
Solid
mg/
g
Water
mg/
L
Air
pg/
m3
Potential
Environmental
Releases
Amount
Used
X
ES
EW
EA
Mass
Balance
:
Amount
Used
=
X
+
ES
+
EW
+
EA
9
July
2003,
page
9
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Release
Model
:

Product
Input
Variables

Telomer
Polymeric
Product
Variables

wt.%
active
ingredient
in
product
(~
20%)

wt.%
fluorine

wt.%
telomer
raw
materials

wt.%
eight­
fluorinated
carbon
chain
C8F17­

PFOA
(
from
product
analysis)

80%
Water
20%
Telomer
Polymer
°
Aqueous
Dispersion
of .

°
Polymeric
Particles
100­
200
nm
with...

°
Hydrocarbon
Surfactant(
s)
9
July
2003,
page
10
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Release
Model
:

Process
Input
Variables

Mill
Process
Variables

average
daily
product
usage
(
kg/
day)

number
of
user
locations

application
bath
concentration
g/
L

wt.%
application
bath
to
wastewater
(
EW)

wt.%
PFOA
to
air
(
EA)

wt.%
PFOA
to
solid
waste
(
ES)
Integrate
to
Predict
Total
U.
S.
Environmental
Releases
&
Concentrations
9
July
2003,
page
11
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Release
Model

From
these
Product
&
Process
input
variables

PFOA
releases
to
water,
air
and
solid
waste
can
be
estimated
for
each
"
user"
site,
including
predicted
environmental
concentrations
(
PEC's)
for
air
and
water.

Overall
U.
S.
releases
predicted

This
is
critical
information
required
in
order
to
define
"
fitness
for
purpose"
for
PFOA
sampling
and
analysis
methods.
9
July
2003,
page
12
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Pilot
Study
:

Represents
Real
Commercial
Processing

To
Follow
the
Release
Modeling
 ...

A
controlled,
realistic
Scientific
Study
to
Verify
the
Release
Model

pilot
production
line

capability
for
water
and
exhaust
air
sampling

based
upon
demonstrated
capability
to
determine
VOC
emissions
for
textile,
carpet
and
paper
chemicals

free
from
other
contribution
sources,
past
or
present

to
assess
only
the
telomer
contribution
and
eliminate
non­
telomer
contributions

begin
with
total
organic
fluorine
analysis
to
verify
overall
mass
balance

chemical­
specific
determination
:
PFOA

need
to
develop
and
validate
sampling
and
analysis
methods
9
July
2003,
page
13
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Pilot
Study
:

Represents
Real
Commercial
Processing

Pilot
Facility

Equipment

industry­
standard,
scaled­
down
version
of
what
is
actually
used
in
the
mill

pad
or
spray
application
and
dryer

used
industry­
wide
for
research
and
development

well
accepted
as
indicative
and
representative
of
real
mill
processing

Sampling

application
bath
:
before
and
after
application

exhaust
air
:
OSHA
versatile
air
sampler

treated
article

Analysis

total
organic
fluorine

PFOA
9
July
2003,
page
14
Telomer
Research
Program
Mill
Pilot
Study
:
Mass
Balance
Application
°
Pad
°
Spray
°
Foam
%
wet
pick
up
"
untreated"
"
treated"
Dryer
"
Roll­
Up"

Aqueous
Application
Bath
(
g/
L)

Amount
Used
X
Mass
Balance
:
Amount
Used
=
X
+
EW
+
EA
+
ES
Potential
Environmental
Releases
°
Water
EW
°
Air
EA
°
Solid
Waste
ES
9
July
2003,
page
15
Telomer
Research
Program
Characterize
Fate
&
Transport
Properties
Release
Estimate
Characterize
Potential
Environmental
Exposure
Environment
Mill
Pilot
Study
Release
Model
Human
Exposure
Assessment
:

Environment

These
Studies
will
address
PFOA:

environmental
releases
&

concentrations
from
Industrial
Procces

air

water

solid
/
land