Document VJKr7p1mp5k45kpK4p7zye19Z

From: Andrew_Jaques@americanchemistry.com Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 8:14 AM To: duttondr@bp.com; jseastridge@she11us.com; rudy breg1ia@sunoi1.com; cmparker@map11c.com; mark_wine@dc.kirk1and.com; rginge11@she11us.com; kominc@kochind.com; Karen.Jones@atofina.com; MICHAEL_J_WAGNER@sunoi1.com; tortmj@cpchem.com; mhu1se@she11us.com; pau1.j.reed@exxonmobi1.com; dkos@ster1ingchemica1s.com; George.J.Patterson@USA.dupont.com; mike.kap1an@usa.dupont.com; szcagen@she11us.com; DGHUNT@DOW.COM; Kath1een.e.1anshe@usa.dupont.com; c1aude.white@equistarchem.com; pmc1egg@she11.com; ghbu@chevron.com; sapersm1@bp.com Cc: barrettg@api.org; ollisonw@api.org Subject: BTX VCCEP - Exposure Issues Dear BTX VCCEP Consortium: One of the items on our agenda for the BTX meeting this Thursday is exposure issues and how the Consortium should move forward with developing exposure assessments for BTX. On our last conference call, David Hunt of Dow agreed to lead the discussion on exposure. To help focus the discussion, David, Mark Wine and I have developed the attached draft RFP for an exposure contractor. We will go through this document at the meeting. Also attached are some comments that David submitted to ACC regarding the ACC example exposure assessment. I think David does a good job of characterizing the complexity (and the futility) of doing facility-based exposure assessments on aromatic hydrocarbons. See you Thursday, Andrew (See attached file: BTX Exposure RFP - Draft 2.doc) ----- Forwarded by Andrew Jaques/HQ/CMA on 10/29/01 09:05 AM ----- "Hunt, David (DG)" To: "'Lee_Sa1amone@americanchemistry.com'" <DGHUNT@dow.c <Lee Sa1amone@americanchemistry.com>, "Barrow, om> Craig (CS)" <cbarrow@dow.com> cc: "'Messenger, Patricia A. (Trish) , " 10/26/01 <trish_messenger@americanchemistry.com>, 06:05 PM "'Jaques, Andrew'" <andrew_jaques@americanchemistry.com> "'Schmidt, Karyn'" <Karyn_Schmidt@americanchemistry.com> Subject: RE: Oct. 18 Conference Call Materials In general, the case study covers the framework approach well, although the approach is an extremely simplified example compared to the real world for many of the VCCEP chemicals. I think it needs to be stressed that this is a simplified example. In contrast to the SGA example (5 production plants -- 4,400,000 1b, 11+ using plants, and 4 use applications) consider the following: * Benzene -- 996 facilities reporting TRI emissions in 1998, over 12 SH ELL-MCCLU RG-06S7S8