Document 7OQ0owBwbreykanpLy82k7kbE

AR226-2293 ,/"'"' Pebble J Mulrooney 11/04/2002 12:16 PM To: cc: Subject Catherine A Barton/ABDuPont DuPont FYI (C8 Modeling) - Penntt Detennlnation - Discussion wllh DAQ -- Forwarded by Debbie J Mulrooney/AE/DuPont on 11/04/200Z 12:15 PM - k Robert L HItchey r 11/04/2002 10:30 AM To: cc: Subject: Kart G Kronberg/AE/DuPont DuPont, Michael T Evans/AE/DuPont@DuPont, John E Crum/SE/DuPontDuPon( David F Altman/SE/DuPont @ DuPont, Andrea V Malinowskf/AE/DuPont DuPont, M. Ann Bradley/STB/DUPQDUP, Paula L DursVSTB/DUPDUP, Robbin Baneriee/AE/DuPonI DuPont, Fred M Lenlz/SE/DuPont DuPont, Debbie J Mulroonay/AE/DuPont@DuPont Permit Determination - Discussion with DAQ After obtaining modeling results from Deb Mulrooney today on the proposed installation of facilities to evaluate reducing emissions at stack C1 FSE, permitted under R13-2365A, I called John Benedict, DAQ, today to review the proposal with him and request his reaction, as per Ann Bradle/s guidance. I indicated to Mr. Benedict that the proposed installation, targeted for 1Q03, would not increase emissions and has the potential to reduce emissions. I indicated that on this basis, we were prepared to approve the change as an internal permit determination of no permit required, and that if successful, we would do testing to quantify the reduction, and if not, we would revert back to the present installation. I indicated that we had modeled the impact of the proposed change by changing the stack location to 5 meters east of present location and reducing the stack flow from 1000 ftSAnin to 850 ft3/min, to allow for space to install the equipment and for the anticipated effect on flow, and that the results were no change in the location of the receptor with max concentration, and that concentration changes insignificantly.... at the third digit, going from .637 to .638 ug/m3. (The modeling was done assuming no change in emissions to be conservaUve.) Mr. Benedict asked how soon we would like a response. I indicated that a week would be fine. He indicated that DAQ stilj owes us a response as to whether they find that we are in compliance with the screening level and are still working on that. He asked whether one response coufd combine the two issues, and I replied that I would tike to keep this request separate and moving since it is aimed at reducing emissions and has no significant effect on the question of compliance with a screening level. He indicated he would review the proposal with his staff and get back to me In a week. /"" CAB000278 EID630895