Document DdMmN0YYY5yYJ4y7mD3bRJYGQ

AR226-2293 Oebbte J Mulrooney 11/04/2002 12:16 PM cc:To: Catherine A Barton/AE/DuPont@ DuPont Subject FYI (C8 Modeling) - Permit Determination - Discussion with DAQ ------------------- Forwarded by Debbie J Mulrooney/AE/DuPont on 11/04/200212:15 P M Robert L Ritchey 11/04/2002 10:30 A M To: Kart G Kronberg/AE/DuPont DuPont, Michael T Evans/AE/DuPont@DuPont, John E Crum/SE/DuPont@DuPont cc: David F Altman/SE/DuPont@ DuPont, Andrea V Malinowski/AE/DuPont DuPont, M. Ann Bradley/STB/DUP@DUP, Paula L Durst/STB/DUP@DUP, Robbin Banerjee/AE/DuPonl@ DuPont, Fred M Lentz/SE/DuPont@ DuPont, Debbie J Mulrooney/AE/DuPont@DuPont Subject: Permit Determination - Discussion with DAQ After obtaining m odeling results from D e b M ulrooney today on the proposed installation of facilities to evaluate reducing e m issio n s at stack C 1 F S E , permitted under R 13-2365A , I called John Benedict, D A Q , today to review the proposal with him and request h is reaction, a s p er A n n Bradley's guidance. I indicated to Mr. Benedict that the proposed installation, targeted for 1Q 03, would not increase e m issio n s and h a s the potential to reduce em issions. I indicated that on this b asis, we were prepared to approve the change a s an internal permit determ ination o f n o permit required, and that if successful, we w ould d o testing to quantify the reduction, and if not, w e would revert back to the present installation. I indicated that we had m odeled the im pact of the p rop ose d change by ch an gin g the stack location to 5 m eters east of present location a n d reducing the sta ck flow from 1000 ft3/min to 8 5 0 ft3/min, to allow for sp a ce to install the equipm ent and for the anticipated effect on flow, and that the results w ere no change in the location of the receptor with m ax concentration, a n d that concentration ch an ge s insignificantly.... at the third digit, going from .637 to .638 ug/m3. (The m odeling w as d one a ssu m in g no change in em issions to b e conservative.) M r. Benedict a sked how so o n we would like a response. I indicated that a week would be fine. H e indicated that D A Q stilj ow e s u s a resp onse a s to w hether they find that w e are in com pliance with the scre en ing level and are still w orking on that. H e a ske d whether one re sp o n se could com bine the two issu e s, and I replied that I w ould like to keep this request separate and m oving sin ce it is aim ed at reduping em issions and h a s no significant effect on the question of com pliance with a screening level. H e indicated he would review the proposal with h is staff and get back to m e in a week. CAB000278 EID630895