Document VK2m4p0XMVR6Y5nvz861qEJn4

NORTHERN KENTUCKY OFFICE SUITE 340 1717 DIXIE HIGHWAY COVINGTON, KENTUCKY 41011-4704 606-331-2936 513-331-2839 FAX 513-381-6613 ROBERTA. BlLOTT (513) 357-9638 bilott@taftlaw.com i.trT , STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER L_. 1800 FIRSTAR TOWER 425 WALNUT STREET CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3957 513-381-2838 FAX: 513-381-0205 www.tafttaw.com November 1,2001 CLEVELAND OHIO OFFICE 3500 BP TOWER 200 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-2302 216-241-2838 FAX: 216-241-3707 COLUMBUS. OHIO OFFICE 21 EAST STATE STREET COLUMBUS. OHIO 43215-4221 614-221-2838 FAX:614-221-2007 2 G - M 70 TELECOPY AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL Armando Benincasa, Esq. West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection Office O f Legal Services 1356 Hansford Street Charleston, WV 25301 Dee Ann Staats West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 1356 Hansford Street Charleston, WV 25301 Janet E. Sharkey, Esq. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Office Of Enforcement, Compliance and Environment Justice (Mail Code 3EC00) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Dr. John Wheeler (E-29) ATSDR 1600 Clifton Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30333 Sam Rottenburg (3W C11) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 ^ ceraa t X sc ~Ori cn --h fT'i CO Re: Leach, et al. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company et al. (Circuit Court o f Kanawha Cty, WV, Civil Action No. Ol-C-2518) Public Health Concern Involving Drinking Water in Wood County. West Virginia Ladies and Gentlemen: Our law firm is currently working with two other law firms in West Virginia in the representation of numerous individuals who have brought a class action lawsuit against E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and the Lubeck Public Service District o f Wood OnKiTAift- MO OR? 000004 November 1, 2001 Page 2 County, West Virginia ("LPSD") in connection with the contamination of human drinking water supplies with hazardous materials, including ammonium perfluorooctanoate (a/k/a APFO/FC143), originating from DuPont's Washington Works in Wood County, West Virginia. (An extra copy o f the complaint is attached.) As indicated in the Complaint, our clients are concerned that there is a current, imminent and substantial threat to their health based upon the past and current presence o f excessive levels of, among other materials, APFO in local drinking water supplies. We have asked the Circuit Court in Kanawha County, West Virginia to order, among other things, appropriate medical monitoring to thoroughly assess, evaluate and quantify this threat to human health. It has recently come to our attention that your agencies may be working with representatives of DuPont and/or the LPSD to evaluate the nature and extent of the current threat to human health arising from the APFO contamination, and that your agencies may be in the process o f trying to agree with DuPont and/or the LPSD on the selection of a "safe" level for APFO in human drinking water supplies. As indicated in the attached summary chart, exhaustive, detailed analysis o f the health studies conducted to date with respect to APFO using standard USEPA risk assessment methodology and DuPont's own data confirm that no "acceptable" level o f APFO in human drinking water can be scientifically or realistically justified at any level any higher than 0.2 parts per billion (ppb) o f APFO. As indicated in the attached chart, the factors used in deriving this 0.2 ppb level are based upon the exact same data and analysis that has been used by DuPont and the 3M Company in previous, similar attempts to determine a "safe" level for APFO and PFOS in drinking water. As you most-likely are already aware, APFO levels have consistently and continuously exceeded 0.2 ppb in the LPSD drinking water supply since at least 1984, with DuPont's own lab confirming APFO levels as high as 3.9 ppb in the early 1990s. Given the continuing presence of APFO in human drinking water supplies in Wood County, West Virginia at levels exceeding 0.2 ppb, we request that your agencies confirm as soon as possible what steps are being taken to address this imminent health threat. In that regard please let us know if any o f your agencies are considering the selection o f any APFO drinking water standard or goal any higher than 0.2 ppb so that we can discuss the basis upon which you believe any such alternative number can be justified under existing data and risk guidance, and the extent to which you can assure our clients that there is no threat to human health at any such higher level. Please also let us know if you have any questions on any aspect of any of the information set forth in the attached chart. 000005 November 1,2001 Page 3 We look forward to receiving any information any o f your agencies can share with us regarding your agencies' position in this matter. Thank you. RAB/mdm Attachments cc: R. Edison Hill, Esq. Larry A. Winter, Esq. Gerald J. Rapien, Esq. 000006 Drinking Water Health Advisory determination for Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO) The calculations below are based on a 26-week capsule toxicity study with APFO in Cynomolgus Monkeys (Unaudited Draft Report by Covance Labs, 10/7/99) conducted for DuPont and 3M. There were 22 organisms in' 4 dose groups (including a control group receiving gelatin capsules). The list below details the number of study animals in each group. Note that 1 monkey from the low dose and 1 from the high dose groups were sacrificed prematurely due to their "moribund condition". Also, 3 more of the high-dose monkeys were removed from the study due to similar signs of toxicity as experienced by the monkey that was sacrificed from this group (so only 2 high-dose monkeys were carried through to the end of the study). Seventeen (17) monkeys total were carried through to the duration of the study. Group 1 (control) 2 (low-3mg/kg/day) 3 (Mid - 10 mg/kg/day) 4 (High - 20/30 mg/kg/day) No. Animals 6 4 6 6 RfD Calculation RfD = NOAEL/UF LOAEL (mg/kg/day) 3 MF 10 UF 100,000 RfD (ug/kg-day) 0.03 LOAEL comment: At both 3 and 10 mg/kg/day, test material-related organ weight changes were observed. Also, a test animal was near death (not eating, paralysis in hind limbs) at the 3 mg/kg/day dose level and was sacrificed prematurely. In light of this observation, the 3 mg/kg/day is considered the LOAEL. UF Note: UF determined as 10 (interhuman) x 10 (primate to human) x 10 (chronicity) x 10 (incomplete database) x MF. MF is 10 (because of limited data issues). DWEL Calculations DWEL = RfD * 70kg/2L/day RfD (mg/kg/day) 0.03 BW (kg) 70 H 20IR (L/day) 2 Lifetime DWHA Calculation DWHA = DWEL * RSC (i.e., Relative Source Contribution/EPA default = 0.2) DWEL (ug/L) 1.1 LOAEL (mg/kg/day) 3 DWEL (ug/L) 1.1 RSC 0.2 `.ONTAJK DWHA (ug/L) 0.2 000007