Document KJpE816LXQ7vgDB5dqrk6J87Q

AR226-2568 DraftW8/oi Privileged and Ccinlldenliat AttorneyWolk Product PtVpared h Anticipation ef Litigation WVDEP/DuPont Meeting June 13,2001 For DuPont: Andrew Hartten (CRG) Bob Ritchey (Wash. Wrks.) Gerry Kennedy (Haskell Labs.) Ann Bradley (Spilman Thomas & Battle) For WVDEP; Armando Benlncasa (Legal Services) George Dasher (Water Resources) Cindy Musser (EnvtL Enforcement) Jerry Ray (Water Resources) Mike Dorsey (Waste Management) John Benedict (Air Quality) Jesse Hanshaw (Air Quality) Dee Ann Staats (WVDEP-Toxicologlst) Don Martin (EnvtL Remedlation) Naresh Shah (Water Resources) PorWVDHHR: Barbara Taylor (Director, Office of Environmental Sciences) Bill Toomey Jon Blevlns (Office of WV Atty. Gen. Representing DHHR) Summary: 1. Some DEP representatives have the following concern: (1) The 1999 Monkey study showed that monkeys who were administered C8 died due to loss of appetite (for a reason not determined) and (2) the "Cattle Study" demonstrated that Tennanfs cattle were nutritionally starved; therefore. there Is possibly a link between C8 consumption and the problems found in the Tennants' cattle herd. 2. The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) feels It does not have sufficient information to respond to anticipated public inquiries and has been told by USEPA that an evaluation of C8 "is not high on its prioritylist.1' Therefore, the DHHR (s prepared to request tte Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to evaluate the available information to determine whether there exists a risk to public health as a result of the contamination of the Lubeck PSD water supply from C8. The DHHR has requested that we provide them with a contact from within DuPont that they can in turn provide to ATSDR so that available exposure information relative to CB can be evaluated by that agency, ASH014657 EID192527 DlBttBfia/01 Privileged and Confidential Attorney WOrtcProduct Prepitttdiii AnticipationcfLitiyillon Minutes: The meeting began with a presentation by Gerry Kennedy regarding toxicologtoal information relative to C8. A copy of the overheads used by Kennedy in his presentation are attached. Following his presentation, Kennedy was quesboned for approximately 40 minutes by Dr. Staats regarding various Issues. Her questions focused on the following major areas: (1) Whether there was a link between the poor nutritional status of the Tennant catle and the loss of appetite by the monkeys in ttie Monkey Study. (2) Whether the Cattle Team had properly considered the potential impact of C8 on the cattle in performing the study, (3) Whether the foam desoribed as being in Dry Run was a source of toxins that mightimpact the cattle. (4) Whether the AEL for C8 was developed on the basis of the inhalation of C8 in the same physical form as It was being released to the atmostphere at the Washington Works, I.e. dry paniculate vs. aerosol, Andrew Hartten provided an overview of data on C8 concentrations in surface and groundwater at the four DuPont facilities in West Virginia where C8 has been used or disposed of, namely, Washington Works, Local Landfill, Dry Run Landfill, and Letart Landfill. During his presentation there were questions from agency staff, particularly the DHHR representatives and Cindy Musser, regal-ding C8 concentrations in wells that served as drinking water sources. There was Interest in obtaining sediment samples from the Ohio River to determine whether C8 would attach to sediment particles and therefore continue to recharge river concentrations even after outfall discharges at Washington Works had significantly been reduced. Bob Ritehie responded to several questions concerning reduced concentrations in the Washington Works effluent and the carbon bed treatment system. The point was made several times by DuPont representatives that while carbon filtration was proving effective in achieving 75 percent reduction in C8 concentrations (expected to approach 90 percent when the system was completely installed) in wastestreams with C8 concentrations above 100 ppb, this same performance would not occur in waste streams at levels of 10 ppb or lower. Cindy Musser noted pointedly that given the fact that Lubeck PSD and DuPont had sent a notice to Lubeck PSD customers indicating that concentrations in the water supply were safe because they did not exceed the CEQ of one (1) ppb, what did DuPont intend to tell these customers if and when sampling showed results greater than one (1) ppb? ASH014658 EID192528 Draft 6/tB/OI Privilegedand CortMsmia; AtlomayWork Product Prepared In AMictpaiian sf.Litigation In the discussion of Letart Landfill Hartten volunteered that an analysis had been made of water from a well on the property of Barbara Geriach which reflected C8 concentrations of .42 ppb, lead at 900 ppb, and methylene chloride at 22 ppm. In the ensuing discussion, it was clarified that no one was currently using this well as a drinking water source and that the lead was believed to not be associated with landfill operations. It was noted that methylene chloride may be attributable to landfill operations, but it was also possible that It may be associated with former nonresidential uses of the Qerlach property. Hartten also addressed sampling performed at the Belva Jordan well (.2 ppb C8) and mentioned that sampling had been performed on a well at the Sayer property. Hartten committed to provide the results of this sampling to DEP once they had been given to the Sayer's. As a follow up to the discussion regarding reductions in C8 concentrations in the outfall at Washington Works, John Benedict from the Office of Air Quality pointed out that during the last few years OAQ has Issued air permits to the Washington Works to allow Increases in air emissions of C8. He Indicated that the company was currently seeking to raise Its C8 emissions by the amount of 25 tons per year in one permit and that two other pending permit modifications could result In Increases of up to 19 tons per year, Mr. Benedict stated he was uncertain what he would say in response to an inquiry from the public or media as to whether OAQ had properly considered potential health impacts in allowing these new permits. At the conclusion of the meeting, Armando Benincasa thanked the DuPont representatives for meeting wifli WVDEP, and in particular, for the amount of time -that had been spent in preparing the presentations tor the meeting. He stated that he thought that the exchange that had occurred had been very informative for them, that the agency intended to continue its dialogue with DuPont on this issue. He assured the DuPont representatives that no action would be taken by the agency on this matter without informing DuPont their plans. Action Items: The following action items were identified in the course of the meeting. The person with responsibilityfor preparing a response is indicated in brackets. Ann Bradley will coordinate the dissseminatton of this information to WVDEP. 1. Provide the final report on the monkey study to Dr. Dee Ann Staats at the WVDEP. [. Kennedy] 2. Provide copies of epidemioiogic studies performed by Q. Olsen of 3M to Dr. Staats. [G.Kennedy] ASB014659 EID192529 Draft SflflCT Privsegedwd CmMmVsl AttorneyW6rtc Product PmparediH Anticipationof Litigation 3. Provide information to Dr. Staats on the toxicity of the acrylic resins identified in the memorandum from John F. Doughty of 4 November 1998. [B. Ritehey] 4. Provide data on the well samples to WVDEP after it has been provided to theSayers. (A.Hartten] 5. Determine whether there is any C8 data in stormwater outfalls at Local Landfill or In Page's Run, [A. Hartten] 6. Provide information on the toxicity of Triton to Dr. Staats. She would like to have more Information than the MSD8 sheets, if It is available. [B. Ritehey] 7. identify whether the analytical methods used for testing in the monkey study has the same questions related to method performance that is currently under review for the method used In wastewater analysis. fA-HartteB3-? Q-. K^n4u 8. Provide a contact for Dr. Staats with regard to the cattle study. [J. Bowman] 9. Address the issue of whether C8 could cause a surficial change In the mucosal linings of the intestines and become a barrier for nutrient passage. [Q. Kennedy] 10. Determine whether the inhalation work performed for the development of the AEL considered C8 in the same form that it Is emitted at the Washington Works, i.e., was AEL performed on Dry C8 dust whereas Washington Works emissions are in the form of an aerosol? [G. Kennedy] 11. Meet with representatives of the Office of Air Quality to discuss C8 emissions under permits issued by OAQ. [B. Ritehey] Doc No. 166879 ASH014660 EID1&2530