J aed 2 > 4 Pr -- ~ -) ou J) = TE a fd = Lg J ~~ ; PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONYL FLUORIDE (POS; T-7661.4) TOXICITY STUDY BY INHALATION ADMINISTRATION TO CD RATS FOR 13 WEEKS FOLLOWED BY A 4 WEEK RECOVERY PERIOD Volume 2 MIN 3131023622 PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONYL FLUORIDE (POSF: T-7661.4) TOXICITY STUDY BY INHALATION ADMINISTRATION TO CD RATS FOR 13 WEEKS FOLLOWED BY A 4 WEEK RECOVERY PERIOD Volume 2 Sponsor 3M Center, B3uMilCdoirnpgo2ra0t2e6T-o0x2ic,ology, St Pau, MN 551333220, USA.

Alternatives listed in PFAS Annex E and reasons for non-replacement Application a) Sealing b) Wire insulation c) Immersion cooling Heat transfer fluid d) liquid crystal displays (LCD) PFAS Non-PFAS alternatives fluoroelastomers Ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) silicone rubbers PTFE, PFA, ETFE, FEP, Silicone materials FEPM, PFPE Polyetheretherketone(PEEK) mica EPDM Polyvinyl chloride ceramic based polymer Hydrofluoroethers Fluorinated amines -CF3 group Mineral oils synthetic oils natural oils Hydrocarbon fluids Cyano (-CN) group Reasons why PFAS cannot be replaced by non-PFAS In sealing material applications (e.g. packing), heat resistance, solvent resistance and low gas permeability are important, and EPDM and silicone rubber provide low or medium durability but not enough property, so they cannot replace all applications and fluorinated materials must be used.

AR226-2086 R^ob^er^t F^Pm^iih^Ot^M^/^20^/9^9j^M^:g^IA?

AR226-2107 --,-^-.y., ,^,^^p^^^ Test Results ;3'3^13S^v^fTn^^ftW:E^5i^a%=3^<'~^^5^'^''i"^^^TOKi^5^aA^--^'^^^^ Industrial Hygiene Saniple Date Range 1/1/80 1201/80 Coneefltratlon Range Action Level 100% SampteDt Sample Durado iType fariptoyee Name BTOi 07 LOC: 406 TCGHNICAL TF&-FEP-MELTINIDEXER-01'1 BENCH 10/23/80 57333 Z 10/2B/80 57334 z 10(31/80 57335 z para chemical fr C-8 08 BTOS 08 LOC; 701 TEFLON FINE POWDER DRYER-EAST SIDE #2 1201/80 62876 2 C-8 .

TeflonTM FEP 9494 Fluoroplastic Resin Product Information For inventory control purposes, product name may be followed by an X.

AR226-2219 EID294947 Emission Information tiBs !

AR226-2307 Scope and Cost of Air Dispersion Modeling Cathie Barton DuPont 03/10/03 Overview of the Scope I Can hire contractor or use in- house modeling resources Data Gathering > Modelim Interpreta of Resul 03/10/03 I Your input is critical here -vs^s^ Data Gathering Meteorological Data Terrain elevation maps Stack Parameters - Location (coordinates) - Height - Temperature - Stack gas vertical velocity - Diameter - Emission rates for each compound Plot Plan - Exact locations of all sources - Property line - Building locations and heights Modeler typi gets this information you 03/10/03 Standard Model and Methodo EPA's preferred model: Industrial Sou Complex Short Term 3 (ISCST3) Mode Procedures detailed in EPA's Guidelin Air Quality Models (40 CFR 51 Append http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidanc de/appw_01.pdf 03/10/03 Modeling Output Model will calculate hourly concentra in ug/m3 across a study area (5 km x km for example) Model will average those concentrati over a designated time period (24 ho monthly, yearly) Concentration contours showed exte different ug/m3 Also shows numerical values (top 10 the study area and locations) 03/10/03 Technicolor Example of Outp 2480000-H 247BOOO 2476000-1 W1000-\ 2472000H 2-170000-^ 2468000-1 2466000-'- 608000 610000 612000 614000 616000 618000 620000 62200 Interpretation of Results Compare maximum averaged concentration to appropriate "thres value - Maximum annual average would be compared to a chronic toxicity value - Maximum hourly average would be compared to an acute toxicity value 03/10/03 Cost and Timing Expect about 50 man-hours (_10 h Costs - Outside modeler charges approximate $150/hr - Meteorological data could be up to $1 - Estimate around $8,500 for an averag 03/10/03

PFAS Restriction Proposal Presented by: Audun Heggelund, Norwegian Environment Agency 1 Restriction proposal - content REACH = Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals Restriction proposal: Chemical identity Hazards, risks, effects Applications Availability of alternatives Socio-economic analysis - impact assessment 2 Preparation May - July 2020 Call for evidence July 2021 - Oct 2021 2nd stakeholder consultation Oct 2021 - Jan 2023 Drafting of proposal SSttaakkeehhoollddeerr iinntteerrvviieewwss,, lliitteerraattuurree sseeaarrcchh,, mmeeeettiinnggss Jan 2020 First meeting 13 January 2023 Submission of proposal 7 February 2023 Publication of proposal 3 Restriction process - next steps Public Consultation, 22 March - 25 September 2023 ECHA's scientific committees: Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) Decision by the Commission together with the member states, expected 2025/26 4 Next steps - key messages Dossier amendments are made on the basis of information submitted to the Public Consultation Well-substantiated scientific evidence is key: Alternatives, impacts (costs and benefits), missed uses, tonnages ECHA webinar and emissions, R&D efforts, etc.

E.

JFPA01 Tables and Images Cross reference - Comment Section 6: Missing Uses Section (a) 6: Missing Uses Section (b) 1.

AR226-3019 STATIC, ACUTB 48-KOOR SCMECRZlia TMT 0V 8-21095 TO csehaix WBHI POSJPOSS; This is a rangefinding study deigned to provide an estimat* of aquatic toxicity using fixed test concentrations and data oeasureiB^s^' ' at predetermined intervals.

Biotransformation of the ^C-labeled Fluorotelo Telomer B Alcohol* Wang N.1.

AR226-3387 A 90-Day Gavage Study with One-Generation Reproduction Evaluations in Rats with a Fluoroalkylethanol Mixture E.

Disclaimer: This email and the information contained therein and within any attachments is confidential and may be privileged.