Document MGv8a9DxZbX330QYrwjLvyL8y

AR226-2568 1 Privileged andDCraofnt f5id/1e8n/t0ia1l Attorney Work Product Preparedin Anticipation o flitigation W VDEP/DuPont Meeting June 13,2001 For DuPont: For WVDHP: Andrew Hartten (C RG ) Bob Ritchey (W ash, Wrks.) Gerry Kennedy (Haskell Labs.) Ann Bradley (Spilm an Thom as & Battle) Arm ando Benlncasa (Legal Services) George Dasher (Water Resources) Cindy M ussar (Envtl. Enforcement) Jerry Ray (Water Resources) Mike Dorsey (W aste Management) John Benedict (Air Quality) Je sse Hanshaw (Air Quality) Dee Ann Staats (W VDEP-Toxicologlst) Don Martin (Envtl. Remediation) Narpsh Shah (Water Resources) For WVDHHR: Barbara Taylor (Director, Office of Environmental Sciences) Bill Toom ey Jon Blevins (Office of W V Atty. Gen. - Representing DH H R) Sum m ary; 1. Som e D E P representatives have the following concern: (1) The 1999 M onkey study showed that monkeys who were administered 8 died due to less of appetite (for a reason not determined) and (2) the "Cattle Study" demonstrated that Tennant's cattle were nutritionally starved; therefore, there Is possibly a link between C 8 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 U 3 E P A that an evaluation of C 8 "is not high on Its priority list." Therefore, the D H H R Is prepared to request tie Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A T SD R ) to evaluate the available Information to determine whether there exists a risk to public health a s a result of the contamination of the Lubeck P S D water supply from C8. The D H H R has requested that we provide them with a contact from within DuPont that they can in turn provide to A T S D R so that available exposure information relative to C 8 can be evaluated by that agency. ASH014657 EID192527 Privileged andDCmonnfidmenmtial ' Attorney Work Product Preparedin Anticipation cfLitigation The meeting began with a presentation by Gerry Kennedy regarding toxicological information relative to C8. A copy of the overheads used by Kennedy in his presentation are attached. Following his presentation, Kennedy w as questioned for approximately 4 0 minutes by Dr. Staats regarding various Issues. Her questions focused on tie following major areas: (1) W hether there w as a link between the poor nutritional status of the Tennant catle and the loss of appetite by the m onkeys in tie Monkey Study. (2) W hether the Cattle Team had properly considered the potential impact of C 8 on the cattle in performing the study. (3) W hether the foam described a s being in Dry Run w as a source of toxins that might impact the cattle. (4) W hether the A E L for C 8 was developed on the basis of the inhalation of C 8 in the sam e physical form a s it w as being released to the atm osphere at the W ashington W orks, l.e. dry particulate vs. aerosol. Andrew Hartten provided an overview of data on C 8 concentrations in surface and groundwater at the four DuPont facilities in W est Virginia where C 8 h a s been used or disposed of, namely, W ashington W orks, Local Landfill, Dry Run Landfill, and Letart Landfill. During his presentation there were questions from agency staff, particularly tiie D H H R representatives and Cindy Musser, regarding C 8 concentrations in wells that served a s drinking water sources. There w as interest in obtaining sediment sam ples from the Ohio River to determine whether C 8 would attach to sediment particles and therefore continue to recharge river concentrations even after outfall discharges at W ashington W orks had significantly been reduced. Bob Ritchie responded to several questions concerning reduced concentrations in the W ashington W orks effluent and the carbon bed treatment system, The point w as made several times by DuPont representatives that while carbon filtration w as proving effective in achieving 75 percent reduction in G8 concentrations (expected to approach 90 percent when the system w as completely installed) in wastestreams with C 8 concentrations above 100 ppb, this sam e performance would not occur in waste stream s at levels of 10 ppb or lower. Cindy M usser noted pointedly that given the fact that Lubeck P S D and DuPont had sent a notice to Lubeck P S D customers indicating that concentrations in the water supply were safe because they did not exceed the C E G of one (1) ppb, what did DuPont intend to tell these custom ers if and when sampling showed results greater than one (1) ppb? 2 ASH014658 EID192528 Privileged andDCraofnt6fid/1eBn/tOiatl Attorney Work Product PreparedIn Anticipation oflitigation In the discussion of Letart Landfill Hartten volunteered that an analysis had been m ade of water from a well on the property of Barbara Geriach which reflected C 8 concentrations of .42 ppb, lead at 900 ppb, and methylene chloride at 22 ppm. In the ensuing discussion, it w as clarified that no one w as currently using this well a s a drinking water source and that the lead w as believed to not be associated with landfill operations. It w as noted that methylene chloride may be attributable to landfill operations, but it w as also possible that it may be associated with former non residential u se s of the Geriach property. Hartten also addressed sam pling performed at the Belva Jordan well (.2 ppb C8) and mentioned that sam pling had been performed on a well at the Saye r property. Hartten committed to provide the results of this sampling to D E P once they had been given to tire Sayeris. A s a follow up to the discussion regarding reductions in C 8 concentrations in the outfall at W ashington Works, John Benedict from the Office of Air Quality pointed out that during the last few years O A Q has issued air permits to the W ashington W orks to allow increases in air em issions of C8. He Indicated that the company w as currently seeking to raise its C 8 em issions 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 w as uncertain what he would say in response to an inquiry from the public or media a s to whether Q A Q had properly considered potential health Impacts in allowing these new permits. At the conclusion of the meeting, Arm ando Benincasa thanked the DuPont representatives for meeting with W V D E P , and in particular, for the amount of time that had been spent in preparing the presentations for 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. A ctio n Items : The following action items were identified in the course of the meeting. The person with responsibility for preparing a response is indicated in brackets. Ann Bradley will coordinate the dissem ination of this information to W V D E P . 1. Provide the final report on the monkey study to Dr, Dee Ann Staats at the W V D E P . [G. Kennedy] 2, Provide copies of epidemiologic studies performed by G. O lsen of 3M to Dr. Staats. [G. Kennedy] 3 ASH014I EID192529 PriviAletgtoerdneayndWDCoratrmkftPBttrdofmdmutieattl Preparedin Anticipation o flitigation 3. Provide information to Dr. Staats on the toxicity of the acrylic resins identified in the memorandum from John F. Doughty of 4 Novem ber 1998. [B. Ritchey] 4. Provide data on the well sa m p le s to W VDEP after it h a s bee n provided to the Saye rs. (A. Hartten] [A.5. Determ ine w hether there is a n y C 8 data in storm w ater outfalls at Local Landfill o r In P a g e 's Run, H artten] 6. Provide inform ation on the toxicity of Triton to Dr. Sta ats, S h e w ould like to [B.have m ore inform ation than the M SD S shee ts, If it Is available. R itchey] 7. Identify w hether the analytical m ethods u se d for testing in the m onkey stu d y h a s the sam e q u estio ns related to m ethod perform ance that is currently under review for the m ethod u se d in w astew ater an alysis. fA ?+ fa rtte n 3 -? flfc . 8. Provide a contact for Dr, Sta ats with regard to the cattle study. [J. B ow m an ] 9. A d d re ss the issu e of w hether C 8 could c a u se a surficial change In the m ucosal lin ings of the intestines and b ecom e a barrier for nutrient passage. [6. Kennedy] 10. Determ ine w hether the inhalation w ork perform ed for the developm ent of the A E L considered C 8 in the sam e form that it is emitted at the W a sh in gton W orks, i.e., w a s A E L perform ed o n D ry C 8 du st w hereas W a sh in gton W o rks e m issio n s are in the form of a n a e ro so l? [G. Kennedy] 11. M eet with representatives of the Office of A ir Q uality to d isc u ss C 8 e m issio n s under perm its issu e d by O A Q . [B . R itc h e y ] Doc No. 166879 4 ASH014660 EID192530