Document LpR7odx9ErnoQYzBMJO7XqXwq

. O.UO 13-44 l^BLUb'." lty -Iff JP I 3.03-07 0 :1 ZT3IJ2 USB 4025 T S Z itt IBS 2 a " Fri)i:3j4-fcy~4ci(j PLiUHHS ` PhGE AR226-2149 2 002 FAX '[tete: Februaryn , )9*7 T O ; M a tt K o enin^a DUPOt Number o fpage indudm e cover sheet 2 F R O M : W. A. Weppncr 3M A&CM Group 223-6S-4 St. Paul, MN 55144 JP kan e: P A X P hone: (302)999-4925 P ho ne: (613)733-6374 F A X Phone: (612)736-7542 M ESSAG E: Malt Koainsi: Attached are 3Ms questions on environmental issues for our proposed meeting. W- A. Wcppner RJZ020612 EID093150 EXD093150 03/03/07 10:11 9 3 0 2 SBO 4B2S B2/Z7S9? 10121 POLYMERS @003 NU.Wfl WAd ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS: I. aJ* Y~ 3--w _ ___________ _ _ _ S rd S th ra ^ ^ n d w a te r.d i'iii to impenneahie layer, gioundwater flow rate awl direction, etc. IT " **** 1 Are the sites similar in regard io thair characteristics (type of oil) or *ra the soils very different? --------- -- , W-- . c - --'y -qgt f - 3 What only of soil and groundwater have been done and whatare the reajta? Have & i j J^anal yi ed for total organic fluorine? Ho* doe*the conceottataon ofFC-H3 - /v^fipar,- to the loud organic fluorine concentration? What other ftuonfiflted i tn PH-143 are known or believed to be present md at what concentrations? 4. If 3M w*re to perform analysis ofthe samples, howmtmy F of ^ (8oiU W* f' ) willthere be? w hat is the expected lower concwrstrsticinUmit in the samples? I90Z07nr EID093151 EID 0 9 3 1 5 1 0 2 /2 8/07 1 1 :8 7 t73U2 DOB 1028 POLYHERS Quo TOXICOLOGY QUESTIONS: 1. What does DuPont hope to gain from the tub-chronic monkey capsuio&eding study with PC' 143 (APFO) given that . a) there was an 11% (8/76) incidence ofpancreatic adenoma/carcinom* in rats fed two years at 300 ppm; therefore, this effectwould not be expected to occur in a 13-week monkey study and would require 80 monkeys per dose in this dose range to observe the effect In a Hfc-time study in monkeys; b) a 13-week study in.monkeys is notlikaly to produce observable pancreatic effects since pancreatic effects in rat are observed only aftertwo months of feeding with iha Wyeth compound, a much stronger peroxisome prolifcmtor than APFO; c) the mechanism by which DuPont feels AJPFO/CCKmay be related to production of pancreatic tumor* is not fully understood and, therefore, how will a sub-chronic monkey Study help to elucidatethatmechanism without additional background research? 2. What risk issues is DuPontconcerned about with aspect to APF0 and how are these reflected in the endpoints and hypotheses DuPontwishes to tost hr a sub-chronic study in monkeys? 3. Relative to the multiple effectors on hormonal levels, does DuPontfeel comfortable with the validity o fusing hormone levels generated In a sub-chronic monkey study to adequately assets a health effect endpoint? STEWARDSHIP QUESTIONS: . 1. What is life cycle exposure analysis ofAPFO after it is received by DuPont? 2. What are workplace controls throughoutmanufacture and formulation? 3. What we disposal and recycling methods used to reduce environmental exposures? 4- How does DuPont control its fbnnuUtort? 5. What are the consumer concernswithPTFE? And how does it relate? 6. What were FDA's concerns with PTFE's food additive application? 7. Could residual a PFQ (when heated) go into food and be eaten? 8. What about otherPTFE applications, Le.: tape? Will APFO be released? 9. We would like an exposure analysis (.*.: concerns) split out for APFO by physical form? (FC-I43 vs. FC-118) 10. Does DuPont supply explicit instructions for fbrraulators on handling and disposal? EID093152 EID 0 9 3 1 5 2