Document DG6wVw0aMeqZYR4rKMngaJonB

AR226-2160 Chris E Shoop_ 07/12/2001 01:17 PM To: cc: Subject: Robert F Pinchot/DEV/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Debbie J Mulrdoney/AE/DuPont@DuPont David M Rural</AE/DuPont@DuPont, H David Ramsey/SBDuPontQDuPont, Stephen J Gissy/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Robert L Ritchey/CL/DuPont@DuPont, John J Mentink/CL/DuPont@DuPont. Bernard J Reilly/AE/DuPont@DuPont, John R Bowman/AEyDuPontQDuPont, Andrea V Malinowski/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Oscar T Garza/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Maurice Astorga/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Catherine A Barton/AE/DuPont@DuPont Re: Air dispersion modeling strategy [j Rob / Debbie, Here's a table of the data requested. I cited flow rather than velocity. I suggest we refer to the different vent points by their Reg 29 ID'S which are a three-digit number. Note that point 699 now consists of 181-ft dia- vents. But I think Tai Wei's plans call for a single point or at least smaller number of larger diameter vents. Note also that Trini said the current target recovery is 85% across both the scrubber and the filters. But the device (T6IZC) was described as bringing the overall recovery up to 90%. Last note - Point 658 is grandfalhered- Points 652 and 216 have limits on total particulate (and production) because the calculations did not address C-8 separately. Consequently there are no actual permit limits for these points. Please let me know if you need to have an estimate of an "implied" limit for 652 & 658, but consider that these are small contributors to the overall emissions. Chris Snoop Stacks & Surfactant Emissions.xis EDD0074383