Document 0qDBR5K2qxdGBnVOQ3xa4ng2k

From: Bernard J P e d y on 10/07/2001 09 55 AM To Marttie t. Reea/A/DuPorTtOuPont, Andrea V Malinowski/AE/OuPontOuPont c: Subject: Environ Moncgrapn Forwarded by Bernard j R#iliy/AE/DuPont or 10/07/2001 09:55 AM From. Bernard J Reilly on 10/07/2001 08 47 AM To Steve Washburn <SWaehburn cc: Robert Hams <RHams Jonn R Sowmen. Joseph Rodrrcks <jRodrtcks. Annette Subject: Environ Monograph Q Steve. Since we now find we are unable to schedule a meeting with E P A Region 3 next week, then the end of next week for the P F O A m onograph sum m ary is fine. A s to the summary, ideally it is short (single digit p age s?) out with enough data and analysis and to assure a regulatory official that levels of P F O A significantly above the DuPont C E O of 1 ppb in drinking water do not present an em ergency situation requmng an Safe Drinking W ater Act* order to provide alternative drinking water, even if there also is exposure to P F O A in ambient air (Dr Staats on our caH last week seem ed determined to assign a large does to air since that route of exposure is more difficult to deal with (e g. she said It might require the public to wear "g a s m asks'), of course she is aware of the recent dispersion m odeling from the plant). i assum e that your extrapolations from lab anim als to man involve calculating an acceptable 'daily dose* from all routes of exposure. If that is d e a r in the sum m ary then you can m ake w hatever split between air and water that is the general practice to turn a dose into a concentration in water and air, that would give us enough background to engage a debate with E P A or the W V D E P If they want to assum e air or water the larger source. -B em ie Section 1431(a) of Safe Drinking Water Acl authorizes the EPA Administrator to take action necesary. to include ordering alternative drinking water to protea the public's health from an imminent and substantial endangennent created by contaminants in a public water system or an underground source of dnnkmg water. In US v Price, the 3rd Circuit ruled 'imminent and substantial endangennent" authorizes the issuance of injunctions when there is but a 'risk of harm*, a more lenient standard than the traditional requirement of threatened irreparable harm. However, the Houae Report on the SDWa states the emergency authority not to be umd in cases "when the risk of harm is remote in tune, completely speculative in nature, or <k mtmmts in degree. ' Further, action by the EPA is only authorized whan ate and local authorities have not acted first We may urn that provision to press EPA to defer to the WVDEP or WVDHHR. However, an our last call Dr. Staats. while agreeing that peroxisome proliferation is not a risk driver tor human health, did seem to feel that 1 ppb in dnnkmg water was juflifiad aa an action level. Steve Washburn SWuhbumQonvironcorp com on 10/06/2001 02:S3:28 PM Steve Washburn <3 Washbumenvironcorp.com> on 10/00/2001 02:93:28 PM To R E IU 2 J ee: Robert Heme RHenw, BOW MA2JR, Joaapn Round /Round. Aimafle Sh oo A S * * * Janet Kartar jkaawr 000011 KDDO0?6442  Subject RE. E n w w f'put BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3erme - I am currently planning to get a draft jummary of the monograph for you by the end of next week, since the primary author of the monograph Janet Kestar: is out 'until 10/10. Let me know if you think that you will need something earlier in the weex. I received the gooa news this morning from John 3cwman that 3M will allow Joe Po i n o k s to review and provide input on the monograph, and I have already forwarded a ropy to Jce. In Janet's acser.ce, I am also working with one of ENVlRDN's lead toxicologists, Annette Sr.ipp, to resolve any outstanding issues on the draft monograpn. Joe, Annette, and I are-planning to ca-k on Monday, and discuss how to best summarize the results of the monograph. Do you have an idea of what level of detail you would like to see in the summary, or how long you would like it to be? At this point, based on our communications. I am assuming that the primary focus would be on presenting our basis for a higher drinking water advisory level, including identification of the key studies ar.d a discussion of the appropriate uncertainty factors to apply m relating the results of those studies to establishing protective levels of exposure for the general population. Steve ---- Original Message----From: Bernard J Reilly [mailtoBernard.J.ReillyHUSA.dupont.caml Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 11:03 AM To: Steve Washburn cc: Bernard J Reilly; Robert Harris; cyndl Migliacclo; John R Bowman; Andrea V Malinowski; M. Ann Bradlay; Paula L Durst; David M Rurak; Gerald L Kennedy; Isidoros J Zamkos, Martha 1 Rees; Robert F Pinchot Subject: Environ Input Steve, As you know, we have an urgent need to open the minds of EPA and the WVDEP about the extremely conservative nature of cur DEG. it must not be used to trigger a mandate for drinking wester -- we may oorain much larger concentrations m drinking water from the new test protocol. We have decided we will not need anyone from Environ at the first meeting with the regulators, buc will need at least a summary of your findings. We triad to sat up a meeting next week on tnis duo have failed so far, and not sure we will get a meeting week of Oct IS. indeed I now have a voicemail asking wa put our concarns in a writing before any meeting, chat would be highly unsatisfactory it seams to us. I will keep you posted, hoping you can gat us maybe a draft summary of tha monograph in tha near future. --Berme Steve Washburn <SWashburnBanvlroncorp.como on ;j/cs/2aoi 12:56:35 PM To: REILL2BJ cc: Robert Harris <RHarrisienviror.corp.co xa Cyndl Migliaccio <CMigliaceio(3environcorp.com* Subject: RE: EPA Region 3 Cannot Meet Next Week 000012 SSS0076443 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3errvie : am cn e c k m g with tne primary author Janet Kester: and internal reviewer Annette Shipp> of the Monograph to acertain their availability on the Sates you indicates in your email. Bob and 1 are both out of the office and ur.avi.iable on October 1', 19, and 19, but it may not ce essentia for us be at the meeting with Region 111 if .Tar.ec and':: Annette can attend. 3ob ar.d I would both be available on the 24t.o and probably also on the 22nd. Steve ---- Original Message----From: Bernard J Reilly (mailto :Bernard. 0 .Pei..,} V 5 A . cupont.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 ^ ::4 ?M To: swashburn3ar.vironcorp.com; rharris3envic:nc:rp cor. Subject: EPA Region 2 Cannot Meet Next Wee it --------------------- Forwarded by Bernard J Reiliy/A/DuPont on 1C /04/2001 07:03 P M ........ -................ From: Bernard J Reilly on 10/04/2001 Z~ 22 ?M To: David M Rurak/AE/DuPontUDufont Robert F Finchoc/DEV/AE/DuJront 3DuP ont M. Ann Bradley/STB/DUF9DUP Robert L Ritehey/CL/DuPontSOuPont Gerald L Kennedy/AE/DuPont3DuPont .Andrew S Hartten/A/DuPonc3DuPonc Isidoros J Zamkos/AJE/DuPor.t8DuPont cc: Martha L Rees/AE/DuPontdDuPonc John R Bowman/AE/DuPonc9DuFont Subject; EPA Region 3 Cannot Meet Next Week I finally linked up late today with Janet Sharke. counsel for EPA Region 3 with our urgent reguest to meet next week to present our deep concerns about the Region using our CEG as a screening level above which there may be health concerns (and thus, for example, warrant an order to provide drinking water), and to give details on our new analytical method and sampling protocol. [We planned to provide t.-.e 3M advisory level of 6-7 ppb and draft Environ Monograph.] She was very interested m these topics and voiced a sincere desire to accommodate our request, but next week simp.y is impossible given her schedule, and she feels she is an essentia, participant. She asked if we could cover these topics during our meeting witn the WVDEP Oct 16, but when I learned Region 3 will cover by phone 2 said that likely would not give our presentation a fair hearing. She suggested we then meet eight after the 16th, X said we are very concerned tnat the Region mignt issue an order using our CEG as a trigger for drinking water she assured me the order is moving a but slower than they had hoped and that they would not issue it until they had heard our concert. This extra c r e a t h m g room may be a good thing, but may be best if we do not have first results (if high) from the new technique for our first maeting. Shall we try to meet with the Region later that week, e.g. Oct 17, 18, or 19? I am good those days, how about the remainder of our cox subteaa (Gerry, Rob, Dave, Ann, Andrew, Iizy, Boo r '> Also good oct 22 and 24. -- Bernie This message may contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received the message in error, please notify the sender by reply email 3environcorp.com and delete the message without copying or disclosing. Thank you very much. 000033