Document 3GJqQeEKBO0m5ex008w1GkZ6
}
TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
Com
ay
wl.
425 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1800
CINCINNATaIxs, $aO13HmaIrOasi4e5n202-3957
----
ed
SZiEuFImia
hi
RSoCsionnrrgsAu.erBraonm
AR226 _ 1188
October 25, 2002
TELECOPY AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Perry D. McDaniel. Esq.
West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection
Office of Legal Services
1356 Hansford Street Charleston, WV 25301
on
SZ
= BE
Zz o2
=
oo
Re:
Dear Perry:
Response To WVDEP's September 13. 2002. Letter Regarding CAT Team Activities Involving C-8
This lenter responds to the letter from your office dated September 13.2002. As you are aware. we did not receive a copy of that letter until October 10. 2002 - the day we reviewed files
made available to us at WVDEP's offices and noticed copies of the letter in those tiles. Based on
our review of WVDEP's files on October 10. 2002. which included several earlier drafts of the
September
dratted the
13. 2002.
letter for
letter in the fi
your signature
lesofDr. Dee
to respond to
Ann Staats. we understand t
questions raised in our letter
hat Dr.
dated
Staats
August
19,
2f0r0o2m.tAhseeexxpprleasisnreedqubierleomwe,ntWsVofDtEhPe'sCroensspeonntsOercdoenrtiernmtseretdhatbeWtwVeDeEnPtihneeSxtpaltiecaanbdlyE.Id.evdiuaPtoendt de
Nemours and Company (the "Consent Order") that set up the process that the C-8 Assessment of
Toxicity Team ("CAT Team") was supposed to follow in its assessment ofC-8 toxicity issues.
The Consent Order clearly and expressly provided for the CAT Team to perform its
aicntviovlitvieeds
piunbtlhirceemebeatsiicng"sPthoadsiesscuasss
stehtefCorAthToTnePaamgepsroCc-e4ss-.C-9Doufrtinhge
Consent
Phase II.
Order. Phase
WVDEP's
|
consultant. TERA. was to assume primary responsibility for each of the following tasks:
1.
Revoifethwe toxicological information regarding C-8 provided by WVDEP and
development ofa proposal for selecting provisional reference doses, screening.
levels, and a risk assessment for C-8:
s03dsre
ARTA NC OR
Perry D. McDaniel. Esq. October 25.2002 Page
2 SCtoanastusl.traetgiaorndiwnigthTtEhReAo'tsheprrtoopxoisceoldoagipsptrsooacnhthfeorCdAevTelToepaimn,g pasrocvoiosridoinnaaltreedfebryenDcre. doses. screening levels. and risk assessment activities for C-8:
3. dDeervmeallop(imfepnotssoifblper)ovriosuitoensalofreexfeproesnucree:doses for C-8 for the oral. inhalation. and
4.
Calculation of screening levels factors estimated by TERA:
for
C-8
in
water.
soil.
and
air
based
on
the
risk
5. Performanceof one general risk assessment involving comparison of exposure cefofnocretnstrsautcihoanss tWoVsDcErePe'nsinagnldevDeulPso(nuts'isngaidramtoadoebltianign)efdorftrohmeoLtehtearrtonLagnodifnigll,C-D8ry Run Landfill. Local Landfill, Washington Works Plant, and Lubeck Public SinecrlvuidcienDgiswtorrikcterwsataenrdsruepspildye,nttsh.atwiftohcussuecshornisckuarsresnetssrmiesknttotohuinmcalundeh:ealth.
A.
Identificationof reasonably groundwater use:
anticipated
land
use,
surface
water
and
B. Identifoifcreactepitoorsn:
C. Identification of exposure pathways:
D. Identification of exposure concentrations: and
E. Comparison of exposure concentrations to appropriate screening levels.
6. Reviewof available information to determine whether sufficient studies have been performedand data have been collected to develop C-8 screening criteria for protectionofecological health. particularly aquatic health: and
7. Preparation ofa draft and final document that discusses the results of TERA's efforts and summarizes the data utilized tromotherC-8 efforts.
(Consent Order. at C4 through C-5.) Under the Consent Order. Phase II of the CAT Team's work is to involve a "second public meeting" designed to "present to the citizenry the results of trehseiedfefnotritasl owfeltlhse aGnIdSTpuablnidcCweAlTlsTtehaemsscrienecnliundginlgevCel-s8acnodnctehnetrgeanteiroanls irnisgkraosusnedswsametnets.GeAimr
Perry D. McDaniel, Esq. OPcatgoeber 23. 2002
`modeling resultsof the efforts of WVDEP and DuPont will be discussed also. The WVDEP will address any further actions that may be necessary." (/d. at C-5.)
Itis nowclear from the Final CAT Team Report and the September 13, 2002. letter from
youroffice
Team were
that
not
tasks to be
performed
bayccToEmRpAli.shasedrebqyuiTrEedRuAndaesrptahret
ofthe "Phase II"
Consent Order.
activities of the CAT
More specifically.
aWsVseDsEsmPenctointfwiarsmesduipnpothseedSetpo tpeemrbfeorrm13u.nd2e00r2t.heleCnotenrstehnatt
TERA
Order,
did
and
not perform
that the one
the general
page.
risk
"Comparison of Screening Levels to Site-Related Data" that now appears as Section 3 of the
Final CAT Team Report was, in fact. drafted by WVDEP and not by any representatives of
TERA. In fact. it has now been confirmed that "TERA did not have the information necessary 0
draft" the information set out in Section 3 of the Report. (WVDEP's September 13, 2002. letter
at 1.) No
necessary
explanation
to complete
has
the
been provided as to why TERA was
actual risk assessment activiy it was
not provided
supposed to
the information
perform as part
of
the Phase [I CAT Team work, or why WVDEP unilaterally took over the tasok f completing that
entire Section of the Final CAT Team Report. In addition, no explanation has been provided as
to why the risk assessment information prepared solely by WVDEP inexplicably omits the
information required under the Consent Order relating to: identificationofreasonably anticipated
land use,
exposure
spuartfhawcaeyswa:teirde.ntainfdicgartoiounndowfaatlel rexupsoe;suirdeenctoinfciecanttiroantioofrnesc:eapntdorasc:tuiadlenetxipfoiscautrieon
of
concentrations at the three DuPont landfills specified in the Consent Order. WVDEP's one page
"risk assessment" also says nothing
communities surrounding DuPont's
about the cumulative risk posed to those living in the
Washington Works facility who are being exposed to
C-8
in
both air and water. and possibly soils. It is not clear whether WVDEP now even intends to
collect any soil data.
have
In
been
addition.
provided
despite the express requirementsof the Consent Order
data obtained from the ongoing DuPont and WVDEP
that TERA should
air modeling of C-3
emissions. (see Consent Order, at C-5), WVDEP's September 13. 2002. letter confirms that
'WVDEP did not share that information with the other members of the CAT Team.including
TERA. (See WVDEP September 13. 2002. letter, at 3 (WVDEP confirms that. although Dr.
Staats and WVDEP were awareof the level ofDuPont's C-8 air emissions, "the other members
of the [CAT Team] toxicology panel were not provided with information on the air modeling. ").)
The lack ofany involvement by TERA or anyofthe other membersofthe CAT Team in
any of the actual risk assessment activities required under the Consent Order beyond selection of
screening levels isfurther confirmed by the lackof any reference to those additional risk
as
in
sessment
the final
activities or
CAT Team
evalua
Report
tions
itself
in any of the meeti
, except for the one
ng
pa
notes from the CAT Team members
ge "Comparisonof Screening Levels
or
to
Site Related Data" that we now understand was prepared solely by WVDEP. It is noted tat the
ool'
Perry D. McDaniel, Esq. October 25, 2002
Page 4
final" CAT Team Report also inexplicably omits any information with respect to the development of screening criteria for protectionof ecological health. as expressiy required under the Consent Order. other than a reference at the beginning of the CAT Team Report that such
information may be forthcoming in "an addendum to (the final CAT Team] Report... to be
released in fall 2002." It is not clear why WVDEP chose (0 ignore the express requirements of
the Consent Order to include the results of all of the risk assessment activities required under the
Consent Order. along with the screening criteria for protectionofecological health, in one final
CAT Team Report before the report was released to the public. It is alsounclearas to why
'WVDEP apparently chose not to complete "Phase II" ofthe CAT Team work, which requires a
second public meeting to present to the citizenry the results of the "general risk assessment"
activities required under the Consent Order. and "air modeling results of the efforts of WVDEP and DuPont." (See Consent Order. at C-3.)
OFparticular concem to our clients is WVDEP's failure to explainwhy WVDEP has said nothing publically with respect to whether DuPont is exceeding the screening levels selected by the CAT Team for C-8 in air. Although WVDEP wasted no time releasing to the public
assurances that DuPont was not exceeding the CAT Team's screening level for C-8 in water within only a matterofdays after the CAT Team selected that screening level. it has now been severalmonths since the CAT Team selected its screening levels for C-8 in air but there has been no comment from WVDEP with respect to whether WVDEP's and DuPont's air emissions data indicate that DuPont has exceeded the appropriate air levels in either West Virginia or Ohio. The lackof comment from WVDEP on this issue is puzzling, given that the Year 2000 air modeling data contained within WVDEP's own public files confirms and has confirmed for several months that those air emissions exceed the lower end of the CAT Team's air screening level range (from
0.3 ug'm3 to 10 ug/m3) for C-8 in the local community. and indisputably exceed the "median
value" air screening level of| ug/m3 at the Washington Works property line.
Although the Consent Order expressly provides WVDEP the authority to promptly issue a notice to DuPont that "DuPont's operations have resulted in C-8 exposures above the screening levels." which would trigger DuPont's obligation to prepare a plan to reduce its C-8 air emissions. we are unaware of WVDEP having taken any steps to send sucha notice to DuPont. Instead. we understand that. rather than relying upon the year 2000 air modeling data generated
by DuPont and WVDEP to determine DuPont's compliance with the C-8 air screening levels. the
generation of which was required under the terms of the Consent Order, WVDEP apparently is now providing DuPont the opportunity to try to generate new. different air emissions data. This
point was confirmed on page 46 of the final CAT Team Report where WVDEP notes that "the air
`modeling effort continues and is currently focusing on determining the resultsofair emissions.
reduction efforts by DuPont required in the Consent Orde.r.. by the end of 2003." (Final CAT
Team Report. at 46.)
odet7y
Perry D. McDaniel, Esq. October 25, 2002 Pages DuPont`iCsonesxecqeueednitnlgy.thweeCuAndTerTsetaamn'dsthsactr.ereantihnegr ltehvaenl mfaorkiCn-g8 aindeaterumsiinnagttihoenYaesatro2w0h0e0ther misohdoelldiinnggdoaftfamraekqiuinrgedanuyndseurchthdeetCeornmsiennattiOorndeunrtitlhaatftweoruDludPcoonntfihrams sbuecehn egxicveeendaanccheasn.ceWVtoDtrEyPto gDeunPeornattehnaeswe.xacnededdeidfftehreenatirasrcreemeinsisnigonrsandgatea.forWCV-8DEesPtabslhiosuhleddebxypltahienCpAroTmpTtelaymwhientehiethrer bWoetshtDVuiPrgoinntiaanord OWhViDoEuPsi,ngorthaet Yleeaastre2x0p0l0aimnohdeolwinlgondgatDauPalornetadwyilglenbeergaitveednatnodtproystsoegsesneedrabtye new. different data and why.
The comment in your September 13, 2002 letter that DEP has not received onbehalf of our clients "any substantive comments abou the process used by the agency in the evaluation of the scientific studies" by the CAT Team is disingenuous. at best. Numerous letters have been submited to WVDEP setting out specific objections toand concemswiththe methodology and. tesults of the CAT Team process. In particular, we forwarded to your agency, along with each of the members of the CAT Team, including Dr. Staats,a leter dated June 10, 2002, providing very detailed substantive comments relating to ourclients' concerns with respect to the process used. by WVDEP and the CAT Team in evaluating C-8, and the CAT Team's evaluationofthe scientific studies relating to C-8. That levter identified numerous problems inherent in the methodology used by CAT Team and the CAT Team's results. As pointed out in that letter. these problems resulted in the generationof C-8 screening levels over 150 times higher than the levels that should have been selected aftr reviewing the relevant studies according to the appropriate agency guidance and methodology. This point is confirmed by WVDEP's own C-8 socfretehenienxgacltevselamcealsctuuldaiteisonrsefvrieowmetdhebysthue CmAomTf2Te0e0ar1m.. wwhiithchthweeerxecebpatsieodnoon faanleatvearlutawtoi-on of all generation rat reproduction study that was not finalized until the Springof2002.. (See Anachment A (copy of WVDEP's C-8 screening level calculations from the summer of 2001. which were retrieved from the computer files that had been deleted by Dr. Staats).) As confirmed in the "Revised Draft Hazard Assessment of PFOA and Its Salts" releasedto the public on October 17, 2002, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA's C-8 Report"), that later two-generation rat reproduction study confirmed the existenceofcertain adverse effects that require an even mare conservative approach to protecting public health - not Less conservative. (See USEPA's C-8 Report, at 5-6. 64-73.)
Now that the Final CAT Team Report has been released, we note that WVDEP has failed to explain the extent to which its screening level calculations are based on exposures in adults versus children. As confirmed in one of theearlierdraft screening level charts sent by TERA only to Dr. Staats. the screening level numbers can vary dramatically depending on whether the exposure group is assumed to be adults or children. (See Attachment B (also a document retrieved from computer files that had been deleted by Dr. Staats).) Screening levels for children
000180
Perry D. McDaniel, Esq. October 25. 2002 Page 6
(wSoeueliddb)e Alelstshtohuagnhhawlefptrheessucmree.enfionrgexleavmepllsed.erthiavtedtfhoer1a5d0ulptspb wacactoerrdsicnrgeetoniTnEgRlAev'esl ciaslbcualsaetdioonsn,
adult been
exposures. handled in
there is no explanation as to selecting the final screening
how the levels set
lower forth
sincrteheenCinAgTleTveelasmfoRrecphoirltd,ren
have
screeninWgVlDeEvePls'sforSeCp-t8emtbhreorug13h.a20p0r2oc.elsesttehratalwsaosndoewsicgonnefdirtmositdheanttiWfyVtDhEosPe sdcerreievneidngitslevels
fthoaltlocwousltdanbdearadgraegeedntcoybpyroace"dmaujroersitfyor" soelfaecctionmgmithtetesecrteheantinignclleuvdeelds DthuaPtoanrte.thTehumso,straptrhoetrectthiavne.
loefvhelusmraenprheesaelntthojnulsytitfihaobslee luenvdeelsr tthhaetecxoiusltidnbgetoaxgirceoeldogtiocatlhrdoautga.h tahemaCjoArTityTevaomt'insgspcrroeceensisngfoar
dgersocurpiptthiaotnionfcltuhdeemdaDnunPeornti.n wThhiechprtahcetisccarleeefnfiencgtolfeveslucfhoraCp-r8ocienassi iwsahsighsleilegchtteedd. inAlWtVhDoEugPh'sitis
uugnd/ims3puwtaesdjtuhsattifmieamblbeeurnsdeorf tthhee eCxAisTtiTngeatomxibceollioegviecdaltdhaatata fsocrreCe-n8i,ngWlVeDveElfPorhaCs-8coinnafiirrmoefd0t.h3at
Ttheaat mpaprtriecfuelraerdsctroereenliynognletvoexlicwoalsognioctalsedlaetcatetdh.atbceocualudsesuspopmoerotfatnhaeirotshcerreemneinmgbelrevseol fftorheC-C8AaTs ~
mhigg/hma3s i1n0ourgd/emr3.to bYeett.heramtohserttphraontescetlievcet otfhepumbolriec hceoantshe.rvtahteiCveACT-8Tesacrmeesneilnegctleedvealf"omreadiiranof 0.3
value of no doubt
| ug/m3 that the
as ts CAT
final screening level for C-8 Team did not select the most
in a as a compromise. conservative screening
There is, therefore. level for C-8 in air
that was supporable by the available toxicological data.
report
wiOlulrbcelireenltesasleodokcofnotrawianridngtothperoremsputltscoonfafilrlomafttihone
from WVDEP as to when a ecological screening levels
CAT Team and risk
afsinsaelsiszmedenatndacativvaiitliaebslet.hawtearweoruelqduilriekde utondperrocteheedCownisthenctomOprdleert.ingOntcheedaellpoofstihtiaotnoifnfDorr.maSttiaaotns.is
WWeVDalEsoPltoookimfmoerdwiaartdeltyo pernfoomrpctecDounPfoinrtm'astioobnlifgraotmionWsVuDndEePr tahsetCoownhsaetntacOtridonesr wtiolelnbseurteaktehantbiyts
C-8 and
emissions do not exceed applicable Ohio communities. Thank you.
C-
screening
levels
in
the
surrounding
West
Virginia
Very uly yous.
Sol /
Rob Abad
RAB/mdm Attachments
obeas:
Perry D. McDaniel. Esq. October 25.2002 Page 7 ce: R. Edison Hill. Esq. (w/ antachments)
LarrAy. Winter. Esq. (w/ attachments) Heather Heiskell Jones. Esq. (w/ anachments) John R. McGhee. Jr.. Esq. (w/ attachments) Richard A. Hayhurst. Esq. (w/ attachments) Greg Smith. Esq, (Ohio EPA. Legal) (w! attachments) JanusZz. Byczkowski. Ph.D. (Ohio EPA) (wi anachments) Janet Sharke. Esq. (USEPA. Region 3) (w! anachments) Lillian Pinzon. Esq. (USEPA. Region 5) (w/ attachments)
080182
DRREAFFET:REDNECVEEDLOOSPEMSEANNTDOFPRPERLOIVMIISNIAORNYALSCORREAELNIANNGD L[EIVNHEALLSAFTIOORN AMMONIUM PERFLUOROOCTANOATE
for AmmAonPirouvmisiPoenraflluOorraolocRteafneoraetnec(eCD8o)saend(PaRIPrDoov)isoifon3alxI1nh0a-l5aEtioorn0R.e0f0e0r0e3ncmeg kg day CProenlciemnitnraartyioSncrPeRenCin)g Loefvel0.0(2PuSgL/wm)' fhoarvgerboeuenndwdaetveerloopfed1 pbpybWwVaDsEcPa.lculSautbesdeqbuaesnetdlyo.n a this PRADO and on the model for the water ingestion exposure pathway with default psearrvaemeatsetrhsecPormelmiomnilnayryusSecdrebeyniUnSgELPeAvealn(dPWSLV)DEfPor.air.ThTehPeRsIcCiientoiffic 0r.0a2tpiognmal'e wusoeudldto develop the PREC and the PRIDo, and to calculate the PSLw is described below.
DevelopmeatoftheProvisionalOralReferenceDose:
biologicAmmemdioan.ituhme apmermfolunoiruoomctqauniocaktleyd(iCss8oocriaAtePsF.O)CSi.s aasppoetrefnltusoyrnotohcettaincoisucrfaaccitdant, [n
(ToPxFiOcAi)t.y sctoumdpireissheasve93be-e9n8c%oondfucFtCe-d14o3n AFPLFUOO,RPAFDOAB.raannddFFlCu-o1r4o3c.hemTihcealUSSuErPfaActahnats.
cfoinnddiuncgtseadrea sliutmemraarruirezesedarinchthaendDrraeftviHeawzoafrdtoAxsicsoelsosgmiecanltodaftaPFreOgAard(iinngprPeFpaOrAat.iotnh)e.ir This
dDoucPuomnetn.ta,nidntchleuddiantga
supporting contained
ornef7erceonmcepsa,catnddisicnsfoarsmpaatritoonf
provided to the TSCA
WVDEP submittal
by by
3M
were the reference
major doses.
sources
of
toxicological
information
utilized
in
the
developmentof
the
exposurTehsetufdiiresst.stCehprionntihcesdteuvdeielsoputmielnitziongfathreeafpeprreonpcreidatoeseroiustteoo fideenxtpiofsyuarpepraonpdriaantiemal
smuobdcehlroanriecmsotsutdiheisghutliylidzeisnigraobtlhee.r rHoouwteesveofriefxspuocsuhrsetumdaiyesbaereemnpotloayvaeidlafbolre.retfheernence dose
.
dObesveerlvoapbmleentAdbvyerinsceluEdfifencgtadLdeivteilo,nwalasundceetretarimnutnyedfacintotrhse.
Ideally a NOAEL. No study: however. if a NOAEL
weamsplnooyteddetinerrmeifneerde,nctehdenosaeLdOeAveElLo.pmLeonwtesbty OinbcsleurdvianbgleanAaddvdeirtsioenaElffuenccteLretvaeiln,tymafayctobre.
cats fedTFhCe-1on4l3yovcehrronaitcwoor-ayleearxppoesruiroed s(t3uMd.y a19v8a7i)l.ablAe wLaOsAcEoLndoufc3t0ed0ipnpmmal(e14a.n2d female mdegcrkegasdeadybfoodrymawleei.ghatndgai16n.s1; imngc/rkega/sdeadylifveemraalned) kwiadsnedyetweerimgihnte;dainndrtaotxsibcaitsyedinotnhe hematological and hepatic systems. However. a LOAEL for female ratesof 30 ppm (1.6 mgkgday) was determined based on incidence of ataxia and reversible ovanan tubular hyperplasia.
To date. four 90-day subchronic oral exposure animal studies have been conducted - two in monkeys and two in rats. A LOAEL of 30 ppm (1.72 mg/kg/day) was determined by Goldenthal (1978a) in male rats exposed to a diet including FC-143 based
ss0183
ROR] oer
at
oPnalianzczr0ela0s(e1d9l9i3v)erfwoeiugnhatd;NiOncAreEaLseodfbl30oopd pglu(c1o.s4e4: mangdkgd/edcarye)aseadndreadLceOlAl EcoLuntosf. 100 Pinmcre(a4s.e9d7ambsgo'lkudt/edaayn)d braelsaetdivoenlidveecrrweeaisgehdtsbowdiythwehiepgahttoacenldlubloadryhywpeeirgthrtogpahiyn,inanmdaloenais exposed (0 PFOA in the diet for 13 weeks.
monkeysG.oldHeonwtehvaelr(.1t9h7i8sbd)odseetgerromuipneodccaansioornalalNlyOhAaEdLsooftf s3tomogls kogr:dmaoydeirnartheestousmarked ddieacrrrehaesae.daanldkaflriontehypheomesspihsa.tasAelsloe,vetlhserien wtehirsedtorseendgsrotuop.ward increased glucose levels. and
liver weiBguhttenihnofcfy.noetmoal.lgu(s20m0o1n)kfeoyusn,dwahniocrhalocLcuOrEreLdoaft s3emrgumkgc:ondcaeyntbraasteidonosnthiantcreased
overlapped those enlargement was
observed in some considered to be a
wsoirgnkiefriscawnittehffheicgthbeyxpthoesuaruet;hotrsh.erefAorNeOthEeLliwvaers
not
determined in this study. as evidenced by the long
Because the monkey is most half-life of C8 in humans (1
physiologically - 3.5 years) and
similar monkeys.
humans. This
LOEL was utilized 10 estimate an the PRD as decribed below:
PRMo= LOEL
(CFH) (LFA) (LFS) (UFL) (MF)
:
where:
PRiDo = Provisional Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg/day);
LOEL = Lowest Observable Effect Level (mgkgday) = 3:
UF = Uncertainty Factors (unitless);
#
=
intrahuman variability population =10;
accounts
for
variation
in
sensitivity
among
the
human
A = animal to human extrapolation = 10;
S L
= =
extrapolation extrapolation
from from
subchronic a LOEL to
aexNpOosEuLre=to1c0;hronic
exposure
=
10;
D = insufficiency in the toxicological database = 3;
MF = Modifying Factor (unitless) = 3
A modifying factor of3 was used becaoufsthee following characteristicsofCS
Long halflife in humans (approximately | - 3.5 years):
Potentialforbioaccumulation:
Potential for biopersistence:
Unusual physical properties such as solubility and partition coefficient.
Therefore. the PRIDo equals 3 x 10E-5.
00184
WVDEP 12547
Calculation of the Preliminary Screening Level for C8 in Water:
The PSL of following equation
1 ug/L or ppb was calculated and default parameters:
using
a
Hazard
Quotient
of
|
and
the.
GW = (PRfDo) (BWa) (CF) (RW)
where:
GW = concentration in Groundwater (ug/L);
PRIDo 8Wa =
=aduPlrtovbiosidoynawleiOgrhatl (Rkegf)er=en70c;e
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
=3
x
10E-5:
CF = conversionfactor (from mg to kg) = 1000;
{RWa = Ingestion Rateof Waterforan adult (Liday) =2.
Development of Provision Inhalation Reference Concentration:
HoweverN,o
tmwoontkweoy-wienheakla(t6iohnr/edxapy:osfuirvee
dstauydsi/ewseheakv)eibnehaelnatcioonnduexcptoesdufroer
PFOA. studies
were
bcaosnedducotneddeicnrreaatssebdybDoudPyownetig(h19t94a)n.d hIenpattheicfiirnsjtusryt.udyI,n athLeOsAecEoLndosftu||dym,ga/Nm'OAwaEsLfoofun|d
Smtgapml'es weatsal.de(t1e9r8m4i)neidn.feTmhailseNraOtsAdEuLrianggraedeedvweiltohpmaeNntOaAlEtLoxiocif|tymsgtu/dmy3offoPuFndOAby
{nhalation below.
reference
doses
were
calculated
for
the
NOAEL
and
the
LOAEL
as
described
Based on the LOAEL:
Conversion from intermiRtent exposure to continuous exposure:
LOAEL = x D (26h) x W (days7 days)
Where:
LOAEL = ll mg/m';
ED
==
ehxopuorssuorfe
level in mg/m';
exposure (6);
W = daysofexposure (5);
Thus the continuous exposure LOAELc = 1.95 mgm';
PRICi=
LOAELc (UFH) (UFA) (UFS) (UFL) (MF)
000185
WVDEP 1:
.
where.
PLROIACEiL=cP=roLvioswieosntalObInshearlvaatbiolne ERfeffeecrtenLceeveClon(cmengtmra)ti=on11(;mg/m);
UF = UnHce=rtianitnrtayhFuamcatnorvsar(iuanbiitleistsy)a;ccounts or variation in sensitivity among the human
A = animpaolputloahtiuomna=n10e;xtrapolation = 10;
L
= =
eexxttrraappoollaattiioonn
from from
subchronic a LOEL to
aexNpOosEuLre=to10c;hronic
exposure
=
10;
MF = MoOdi=fiynisnugffFiacciteoncry(uinnittlheesst)ox=ic3ological database = 3;
A+ moLdoinfgyihnaglffalcitofirenohfu3mwaanss u(saepdprboexciamuasteeolfyt|h-e 3f.o5llyoewarisn)g,characteristicsofC3
PPootteennttiiaallffoorrbbiiooapcecrsuimsutleantcei;on;
* Unusual physical properties such as solubility and partition coefficient,
Therefore. the PRICi equals 0.022ug/m' based on the LOAEL of 11 mgm'
Based on the NOAEL.
Conversion from intermittent exposure to continuous exposure: NOAEL = E x D (24h) x W (days/7 days)
Where:
NE O=AeExpLos=ur|emlgevme'l:in mgm';|
DW
==
hdoauyrssooffexepxpoossuurree
(6); (5);
Ths the continuous exposure NOAELG = 0.18 mgm';
PRICi=
NOAEL (CFH) (UFA) (UFS) (LFL) (MF)
where:
PNROIACEiL=ePr=ovNiosiOobnaslerIvnahballaetEifofneRcetfLeerveenlce(Cmogncme)ntr=atI;ion (mg/m');
UF = UnHce=rtnatinrtayhuFamcatnorvsan(aunbiitllietsys)a;ccounts for vanation in sensitivity among the human
A = animpaolputloahtiuomna=n10e;xtrapolation = 10;
S D
= =
eixntsruafpfoilcaiteinocny
finrotmhestuobxcihcroolnoigciceaxlpdoastuarbeasteo
chronic = 3;
exposure
=
10;
ooe1ss
WVDEP 12:
MF = Modifying Factor (unitless) = 3 A modifying factorof 3 was used becauseofthe following characteristicsofCS. + Long half-life in humans (approximately | - 3.5 years); + Potential for bioaccumulation: Potential for biopersistence; Unusual physical properties such as solubility and partition coefficient.
eThseurmeaftoreed.utshiengPtRheCNOeqAuaElLs 0a.n0d2uthge/mL'ObAaEseLdaorne tahpeprNoOxiAmEatLeloyfe|qumaglr.'. The PREC
000187
WVDEP 11
References:
cByutneonmhoolfgf,usJLm.onetkaely.s2a0f0t1e.r tTwoexnitcyi-tsyixofwaemekmsoonfiourmapledrofsliunogro(oicntparneopasrtaeti(oAn)P.FO) in DuPont Haskell Laboratory 1994 update. Toxicology revoifeC8w. CGiolhloirlta.nd.DoF.cto1r9a9l2.theFslisu.orDoicvhiesmiiocnoalfsEannvdirHounmmeanntaHleaalntdh:OcSctuupdaiteisoinnalanHeOaclctuhp,atUinoinvaerlsity of Minnesota.
Gpielrlfilluaonrdo.oFc.tDa.noaincdacMiadndperlo,du1cSt.ion19p9l3a.nt. MoJrOalMit35y(a9)m:o9n5g0-e95m4p.loyees ofa
Gilliland. enzymes.
li.pDo.praontdeiMnsa,ndaenld,c1hoSl.est1e9r9o6l.:
ASesrtuumdyopefrofclcuuoproaotcitoannaolicexapciodseadndmehne,patAimc.
J
Ind: Med 29:560-568.
GPorledpeanrtehdalf.orEJ.LM., 1St9.78P4a.ul.NiMnientnyesDoatya.SbubyaIcnutteemaRtaitonTaolxiRceisteyaSrtcuhdya.ndFDineavleRleoppomret.nt Corporation. St. Paul, Minnesota, November 6, 1978.
Goldenthal. E.L. Report. Prepared
1f9or783bM., NSit.nePtayulD,aMyinSnuebsaoctuat.ebRyheIsntuesmaMtoinonkaelyRTeosxeiacricthy aSntuddy.
Final
Development Corporation. St. Paul, Minnesota, November 10, 1978.
3FCM-.141398(7P.erTflwuoo-rYoeocatranOarnael A(Dmimevo)nTioxuimciCtayrabnoxdyClaartcei)noingeRnaitcsi.tyFiSntauldRyepoofrtF.luoVrool.che1m-i3cal 3M RIKER Exp. No. 0281CR0012; SEHQ-1087-0394, October 16.
OAlnseenp.idGeWmi.olGoilgliiclainndv,esFtDi;gaBtiuornloefwr,epMrMo:ducBturirvies.hJoMr:moMnaensdeiln.mJeSn:
Mandel. JH. 1998a. with occupational
exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid. JOEM 40(7):614-622.
IOnlvseesnt.igGaWti:onBoufrrPilsa,sJmMa;CBhuorlleecwy,stMoMki:niMnaannddelH,epJHa.tic19F9u8nbc.tioAnninEpPiedrefmliuootlooogcitcanoic Acid Production Workers. Final Report. 3M Company.
PPaelraizlzuoolroo,ocMt.aJn.oat1e99(3C. ATShiNrot.ee3n82W5e-2e6k-1)DiientaMrayleToRxaitcsi.tyFSitnauldyRewpiotrht.T-5La1b8o0r,aAtomrmyonium Project Indenufication HWI 6329-100. Hazleton Wisconsin Ine.
STtearpalteosg.enR.iEc..PoBtuenrtgieaslso.fB.AAm.,moanndiuKmesP,erfWl.uDor.ooa19t8e4.(APTFheO)Eminbrtyhoe-RFaett.alFuTnodx.icAiptpyla.nTdox. 4429-440.
000188
WVDEP 1
ie
rChire|coNomnpeaentc[eraScree|ninogwahaLev||e|l Vadwluaershf|o|r (8an| || ett
:8
I
foT m T|| ki
iy
Lt PR
ret om [agree[eee
mtr oe
mae
g
ay
000183
ondelsuc ttceetathdohaoepentfod hinftt a ooos fna1SQoftt 3yERInDEccvTosHceonferHRTheRslIicidhunnnosoled tsehpottlay 2
[A----
Dil pore Panter or clobtons
dTrytWUedg (O1s)co (00) T1 0kg dl: 15 be child
AEvepragaing eTimqe u(AT)): Expuanc Dursion (1)
10d0ayd9ayye8n01 65) years
||
SWoalrpIenignenRtReo(cR(SR)W). 120L0mippagd,dt| ,d2o0y0mcpidd chi
Genes Assumptions
+ =
CrnaaRmeptpomcrautc iintgs sdoalenalles iaryai'odnewraemrawel cntdooxnciaocndvesadlueetsthheesrctfrvneoeldrieflmezetooctiqfsuoCaotBnriboyfnsoFmouttcrasduteiclxtiapnehlocn:; thheerrfeoorne
occ ctimaling contin from del exposure wie ol were cided he ecrng level cain
g 53 w.
gEZ wcwm ul
HDX TQTED RwA1000T upg.
000130
Teche Wire 18020
armas or J ese WeW120R0,
F---- Vrain. <8 GEE
5 an thi
amma Yd Reon Sci epic nc
RT, tf mg been
000191
:
ArnCHE nC
1 heenfo 10 3 ir ots
A eonsE 0g h Ft ed nal 95 HLS Treo. th
e lcoesn ft evoadmesstonct ohsl
wld tn clon boot i
RC ugin'y RC 1102 ATH1E000 img
"Rx Li50m+o0000 "Rican
3
8
g
00192