Document g2XkO2rk5RXgkemLYbL6zK49

NORTHERN KENTUCKY OFFICE SUITE 340 1717 DIXIE HIGHWAY COVINGTON. KENTUCKY 41011-4704 506-331-2838 SI 3-361-2838 FAX. 513-381-6613 Afi, AS. 6 - n z r TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1800 CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3957 513-381-2838 FAX' 513-381-0205 www.tafllaw.com CLEVELANO OHIO OFFICE 3500 8P TOV1R 200 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELANO OHIO 44114-2302 216-241-2838 FAX 2' 6-241-3707 COLUMBUS. OHIO OFFICE 21 e a s t s t a t e s t r e e t Co l u m b u s . Ohio 432' S-422' 514-221-2838 FAX 814-221-2007 R o b e r t a . B ilo t t (513) 357-9638 bilott@taftlaw com TELECOPY Perry D. McDaniel, Esq. West Virginia Department o f Environmental Protection Office o f Legal Services 1356 Hansford Street Charleston, WV 25301 August 19, 2002 f'O c--x-V* o -O ri cn ---v ;or n 73* O p-j CTN Re: WVDEP Document Production Issues Dear Perry: This letter responds to your letter o f August 12, 2002, requesting that we identify "any particular documents or category o f documents that have not been produced to date" in response to "outstanding document requests and the issues raised in the order by Judge Hill." As the party requesting the documents from WVDEP, we obviously are not in a position to know whether WVDEP has. in fact, produced all o f the documents it is required to produce and must rely upon WVDEP's representations in that regard. As the party possessing the documents at issue, WVDEP has the burden to demonstrate compliance with its document production obligations and cannot shift that burden to the party requesting the documents. We, therefore, request that WVDEP confirm, in writing, that it has produced all o f the documents at issue or identify, in writing, what has not yet been produced. Upon review o f documents that have been produced to date by WVDEP, it appears that there may be certain recently-generated documents that have not yet been produced. As explained below, it appears that there must have been recent modifications to the Consent Order between DuPont and WVDEP that allows WVDEP to prepare the final CAT Team reports, as opposed to allowing W VDEP's contractor - TERA - to do that work. If such modifications to the CAT Team procedures have occurred, we have not yet received those documents. Ni 00014 f Perry D. McDaniel, Esq. August 19, 2002 Page 2 Upon review o f the documents produced to date by WVDEP, we understand that TERA prepared a draft document allegedly summarizing the results o f the meeting o f the CAT Team in Cincinnati on May 6 and 7, 2002, and that TERA made that document available to the various CAT Team members for review and comment. We understand that TERA also prepared a draft document reflecting the CAT Team's selection o f a "screening level" for C-8 in air, and that TERA also made that document available to the CAT Team members for review and comment. Among other things, that particular draft document from TERA set forth a proposed air screening level range for C-8 as low as 0.3 ug/m.3 We further understand that, rather than forward to TERA each o f the CAT Team members' comments on TERA's draft screening level documents so that TERA could incorporate the comments into its final report, W VDEP's employee, Dr. Staats, unilaterally assumed the task o f deciding which o f the CAT Team members' comments to incorporate, and how those comments would be incorporated into the final TERA reports. More specifically, we understand that Dr. Staats reviewed each o f the comments submitted by the CAT Team members, and prepared a color-coded revised version o f TERA's draft report setting forth, her views as to which o f the comments should be incorporated and how best to incorporate those comments into the final version o f the TERA report. At this point and time, it is not clear to us why TERA was not permitted to perform this task, as contemplated under the Consent Order that set up the CAT Team, or why TERA - the contractor retained by WVDEP to prepare the CAT Team reports - was not permitted to decide which comments to incorporate into the final report or whether the comments were, in fact, consistent with what was actually discussed or determined during the actual CAT Team meeting. This raises the question as to whether the Consent Decree between DuPont and WVDEP was modified somehow to allow W VDEP's employee to unilaterally take over these tasks. In addition, it is not clear why a non-CAT Team member, John Butenhoff o f 3M, is now being permitted wide latitude to suggest numerous substantive revisions to the conclusions in TERA's draft report or why WVDEP now has the power to unilaterally decide which comments from which CAT Team members/observers will be incorporated into the final CAT Team report, and which will not. In particular, we note that TERA's original drafts suggested a "screening level" range for C-8 in air as low as 0.3 ug/m3. In fact, Joan Dollarhide o f TERA, specifically stated in response to TERA's draft report that the 0.3 ug/m3 lowest level o f the "screening level" range for C-8 in air should be selected as the final screening level "because this is the more public health protective choice." (See Attachment A.) Although WVDEP apparently received and reviewed TERA's recommendation in this regard, it appears from the documents recently produced by WVDEP that Dr. Staats is suggesting to revise TERA's report to select 1 ug/m3 as the "screening level" for air, as opposed to the lower 0.3 ug/m3 "screening level" recommended and reconfirmed as the appropriate screening level by TERA. It is not clear to us how WVDEP has the authority to reject the CAT Team contractor's recommendation in this regard and unilaterally change the air screening level under the procedures set up under the original Consent Order between DuPont and WVDEP. Particularly troubling in this regard is the fact that WVDEP and Dr. Staats are well-aware that DuPont's own air modeling data confirms that 000147 r Perry D. McDaniel, Esq. August 19, 2002 Page 3 : DuPont's air emissions would exceed a 0.3 "screening level" for C-8 in the surrounding community. Again, it seems that the Consent Order must have been modified somehow to give WVDEP new power to unilaterally alter the CAT Team's recommended "screening levels.". Based on the foregoing, it is not clear at this time whether WVDEP has produced ail o f the documents it is required to produce relating to the CAT Team activities. Recent actions by WVDEP to change the final CAT Team reports seems to suggest that there must have been some recent modification o f some sort to the Consent Order between DuPont and WVDEP that set up the CAT Team procedures. If that is the case, we have not yet received those documents. We request, therefore, that WVDEP confirm, in writing, whether there are any additional responsive documents to be produced and when WVDEP plans to produce them. Thank you. RAB/mdm Attachment cc: R. Edison Hill, Esq. Larry A. Winter, Esq. 000148 r From "Joan Dollsrhide" <dollarhidetera.arg> T o "Andy Kaier" <maiertera.org>, "Michael Dourson" <doursontera.org> Data 7/12/02 3:41PM Subject C8 RfC Hi, Just read this, nice work Andy! My only comment - I was the only holdout for a UFs of 10 for both potential critical effects. Even though r still believe a total UF of 3,000 is appropriate for the RfD, I can live with the use of 1,000. I like the way you presented the range of the RfC. But I would recommend making the final pRfC choice and resulting air screening level the lower value in the range, rather than a median value, because this is the more public health protective choice. Given the existing uncertainties and the uproar at this site, it makes sense to be as conservative as is reasonable. Joan ---- Original Message ---From: "DEE ANN STAATS" <dstaatsmail.dep.state.w v .us> To: <whysneraol.com>; <jzwlcdc.gov>; <cicmanec.johnepa.gov>; rotenberg.samuelSepa.gov>; seed.jenniferepa.gov>, <jim.sferraepa .state .oh. us>; <jlbutenhof fmmm.c o m > < :maiertera.org>; <dollarhidetera.org>; <doursontera.org>; <:g e r a l d .1.k e n n e d y u s a .d u p o n t .com> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:46 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: C8 pRfC Hello again everyone, I am forwarding to you an email from Andy Maier that explains the post-meeting action items that he has completed - essentially development of the pRfC and air screening level. The supporting calculations etc are attached as well. Please reveiw these to make sure they accurately reflect the meeting and it's directions for the post meeting actions to be taken, just as you are doing on the meeting notes. Please send me and Mike Dourson you comments (or a no comment statement) by close of business on July 17. Thank you again for your time and assistance, das Dee Ann Staats, Ph.D. Science Advisor WVDEP Executive Office 1356 Hansford Street Charleston, WV 25301-1401 phone: 304-558-2508 ext 309 fax: 304-558-3998 000149 :rrrnrn rinno Page 1 of 1 DAVE WATKINS DAQ/DuPont Meeting on 4 /2 4 /0 2 From: "M. Ann Bradley" <abrad!ey@spi!manlaw.com> To: "John Benedict (E-mailT <JBENEDICT@mail.dep.state.wv.us> Date: 4 /1 9 /0 2 3:10 PM Subject: DAQ/DuPont Meeting on 4 /2 4 /0 2 CC: "Robert L. Ritchey (E mail)" <Robert.L.Ritchey-l@USA.dupont.com>, "Bernard J. Reilly Esquire (E-mail)' <Bernard.J.Reilly@usa.dupont.com> John, As we discussed by phone, here is a suggested agenda lor the meeting to be held next week. Also attached is a report ot the modeling work prepared by DuPont with respect to C8 emissions from the Washington Works. If you have questions concerning either o( these, please let me know. We look forward to meeting with you and other DAQ representatives next week. Ann Proposed Agenda for Meeting 8etween DAQ and DuPont. 4 /2 4 /0 2 1:00- 1:10 Introductions and agenda review 1:10- 1:30 DuPont Modeling Methodology and input data 1:30-2:00 DuPont Modeling Results 2:00-2:30 DAQ Modeling approach and plans 2:30-3:00 Discussion and path forward 3:00 Adjourn <<Air Modeling Report 4-17 02.doc>> file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GWj00002.HTM WVDEPI1678 4/23/02 00015 i 4/ 17/02 ISC Modeling Methodology and Results Emission Source Information The ISC3 model was used to calculate ambient ground-level vapor concentrations and deposition rates for year 2000 actual C8 emissions from the Washington Works site. Table 1 shows the stack parameters used in the model for each emission point. Table 2 shows the emission rates used. The stack parameters and emission rates used are those that were available as of 12/17/01, and are identical to those submitted pursuant to Consent Order GWR-200I-019. Since the C8 emissions are partitioned between the vapor and particle phases, deposition runs were completed by modeling each phase separately. (Modeling runs to determine ground-level concentrations were based on the total emissions.) Deposition modeling requires particle size distribution information and scavenging coefficients for each phase of emissions (vapor and particle). The size distribution information used in the modeling for the particle phase was obtained from testing at the Washington Works site. The scavenging coefficients used for the particle phase were obtained from Figure 1-11 of the EPA ISC3 User's Guide. The vapor phase scavenging coefficients used were based on calculations by DuPont which were submitted under the Consent Order. This data shows the calculated vapor scavenging coefficient based on rain intensity. Since only one value of the scavenging coefficient can be entered into the ISC3 model, the largest scavenging coefficient was chosen to ensure that the model predictions were conservative. Table 3 shows the gas and particle data used in the model and, additionally, shows the basis for the vapor scavenging coefficient used in the model. Modeling Methodology Dispersion and deposition modeling was performed using the Industrial Source Complex 3 Model (ISC3), version QO101, provided by Lakes Environmental. All modeling was done in accordance with the procedures in EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W). The EPA regulatory default options and rural dispersion coefficients were used in the model. The C8 emission sources were evaluated for downwash effects from surrounding buildings. The Lakes Environmental BPIP View model was used to provide wind direction specific building parameters. All buildings on the site were evaluated to determine if they could potentially impact the stack by causing building downwash effects. A plot plan showing the location of buildings included in the model is shown in Figure 1. (The buildings included in the model are identical to the list submitted under Consent Order GWR-2001-019). A 100-meter grid extending out 4,000 meters from the source was used. In addition, discrete receptors with 100-meter spacing were placed on the plant property line. Terrain elevations were imported from electronic files obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey. An additional receptor grid was used to determine deposition to the watershed for the Little Hocking Water Association well field. A USGS topographical map was used to identify the WVDEP 11679 000151 i rro: general area of the vatershed (Figure 2), and a receptor grid with 100 meter spacing was placed within this watershed (Figure 3). One year of on-site meteorological data (1996) was analyzed. The data was processed by Trinitvconsultants, using Wilmington, Ohio for the upper air data. Missing data and measured wind speeds of less than 1 m/s were treated consistent with the recommendations made in EPA's On site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling. An anemometer height of 10 meters was used for the modeling. Modeling Results An averaging time of one year was used to determine the annual average vapor concentrations and annual deposition rates over the entire receptor grid. A contour plot of the annual average vapor concentrations is shown in Figure 4. Contour plots of the total deposition rates for the particle and vapor phases are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The maximum off-site values predicted by the model were: Maximum Annual Average Ground-Level Concentration = 2.806 pg/m3 Particle Phase: Maximum Dry Deposition Rate = 0.1345 g/m2/yr Maximum Wet Deposition Rate = 0.0479 g/m2/yr Maximum Total Deposition Rate = 0.1824 g/m2/yr Vapor Phase: Maximum Wet Deposition Rate = 0.0085 g/m2/yr The maximum ground-level concentration and all of the maximum deposition rates were predicted to occur at the same receptor (442135.47E, 4346899N), which is located on the plant fenceline north of the plant. The maximum annual ground-level concentration predicted to occur in areas where people may reside in the community is approximately 0.8 pg/m3. Additionally, a smaller receptor grid was used to determine the annual deposition rate to the Little Hocking well watershed. The model was run to calculate vapor and particle phase deposition rates for each receptor, which rates were then imported into a spreadsheet. An average deposition rate was calculated for all of the receptors and multiplied by the receptor grid area (2.57 km2) to get a total deposition per year over the entire watershed. The deposition amounts calculated were: Particle Phase: Total Dry Deposition = 6,966 g/yr Total Wet Deposition = 12,484 g/yr Total Deposition = 19,450 g/yr Vapor Phase: Total Wet Deposition = 1642 g/yr WVDEP 11680 000152 I -1/17/02 Tabic 1 Stack Parameters Permit Number Permit Vent ID Reg 29 Zone 17 Vent ID UTM-E UTM-N Stack Height (ft) Stack Stack Stack Stack Diameter Flow Velocity Temperature (ft) (ftVmin) (ft/s) . 1823A 815D 815D 1353A Pre-Existing 6I4A 6I4A 781 1953 2365A Semiworks Application Semiworks Application Semiworks Application Semiworks Application T7IME T6IFCE T61ZCE 164-5E 164-2E I63-E-26 I63-E-I1 I63-E-33 242 Cl FSE R022EEF6 R022EEF86 R022EEF87 RQ22EEE89 662 644 699 652 658 231 232 216 242 274 442025 442084 442091 441920 441923 441952 441953 441960 441954 441787 442086 442069 442058 442063 4346847 4346835 4346836 4346767 4346756 4346776 4346766 4346788 4346741 4346744 4346624 4346627 4346634 4346635 150 59 63 70 68 93 81 60 114.5 110 47 49 49 49 1.33 1.5 18-1 ft 1.96 1.63 0.67 0.67 1.3 0.5 0.69 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 3,349 18,000 18000" 9,800 2,800 500 600 2,750 1,250 1,000 8836 7540 1885 3770 40.2 169.8 2l.2b 54.1 22.4 23.6 28.4 34.5 106.1 44.6 30.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 172 111 111 200 300 130 130 158 200 255 80 80 80 80 "Vent ID T6IZCE consists of 18 one-foot diameter vents. The How rate given is the total for all 18 vents. bThe velocity listed is the velocity calculated for one individual vent. WVDEP 1168t 000153 1/17/02 Tabic 2 Emission Information Permit Vent ID Reg 29 Vent ID Particle Vapor Mass Mass Fraction . Fraction Year 2000 Actual C8 Emissions (Ib/yr) Year 2000 Actual C8 Emissions 2000 Actual Particle Phase Emission Rate (g/s> 2000 Actual Vapor Phase Emission Rate T71ME 662 1 T61FCE 644 0.54 0.46 T61ZCE 699 0.9 0.1 164-5E 652 0.9 0.1 I64-2E 658 0.9 0.1 163-E-26 231 0.11 0.89 163-E-l1 232 0.09 0.91 163-12-33 216 0 1 242 242 0.9 0.1 Cl FSE 274 0.03 0.97 R022EEF6 10 R022EEF86 10 R022EEF87 10 R022EEF89 10 0 13,977 0 33 79 3,541 4,680 0 3,510 5,414 12 0.3 3 0.6 0 0.2010 0 0.0005 0.0011 0.0509 0.0673 0 0.0505 0.0779 I.73E-04 4.32E-06 4.32E-05 8.63E-06 0 0.1086 0 4.27E-04 0.00102 0.00560 0.00606 0 0.0454 0.00234 1.73E-04 4.32E-06 4.32E-05 8.63E-06 0 0.0925 0 4.75E-05 1.14E-04 0.0453 0.0613 0 0.00505 0.0755 0 0 0 0 WVDEP 11682 000154 x r.o: Table 3 Gas & Particle Data Particle Phase: Particle Diameter (microns) 0.2 0.4 0.75 2.0 4.0 Mass Fraction 0.538 0.267 0.035 0.127 0.033 Particle Density (g/cm*) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Scavenging Coefficients Liquid Frozen Precipitation Precipitation (s'/m m -h1) (s'Vmm-h1) 1.2x10 dT 4xl0'J 1.67x10'* 4xT0^ 1.33x10* 1.3x10"* 4.33x10'* 2.8x10"* 9.33x10'* Vapor Phase: Liquid Scavenging Coefficient (s'Vmm-h'1) = 6.4xl0`6 Frozen Scavenging Coefficient (s'Vmm-h'1) = 6.4xl0'6 Calculations of Vapor Scavenging Coefficient: - vapor scavenging coefficients are presented in the consent order submittal as a list of values for different rainfall intensities - the vapor scavenging coefficient that is entered into the ISC model is in units of s''/m m -h'1. therefore the scavenging coefficients shown in the consent order must be adjusted to the proper units and then divided by the rainfall intensity - to ensure that model predictions would be conservative, the scavenging coefficient based on a 1 mm/hr rain intensity was used, as this g\ ives the largest value for input into the model 231 1jcI0 '! --i t -- 6.4x10~& = 6.4x1 O'6 -- i-!--- hr 3600s lmm 5 mm mm hr WVDEP 11683 000155 i WVDHP 11684 */// ?/()2 4J46900 ! 4346600 4346700 4346600 4346500 441600 North 1\ no 195, ' ,\ ,125a 209 \ 210 441700 110 108 \ 1 \' \ `W u 180 215a 1 169-- I \ I 6 9 ' l 167 Waler Tank 168 I67a.h.c ^ I217 204, \\ 1,212 I 205 \ \ 'i I 208 \ / 208a 215 2 15a 215h 605 162/163 (.codotatici! drawing) \, 187 Tank I arm 1 45 \\ 22 \ I 104 109 I \ 12 I \ \ 162 15 '\ 3 442200 Figure I - Building Plot Plan 00015 t, ':T* '* S !;:? p %s ' S w 5% Figure 2 4/ 17/02 ovnoo i. , 000157 WVDEP 11686 J / 1 7/02 4348500 4348000 4347500 li Iilli l i i Il iiiIi 4347000 4346500 i^ 1 ; *+' -( -II- I I- H-l -I | -H- M I t 1 -I ^ i' 1 4- l > ' 4 `H i < 4346000 441000 441500 442000 442500 443000 443500 444000 Figure 3 Little Hocking Well Watershed Receptors Modeled 444500 445000 000158 WVDEP 11687 4348500 4348000 4347500 C8 2000 Actual Emissions Annual Average Vapor Concentrations (ug/m3) //1 7/1)2 / ( / i 4347000 \ 4346500 \ 4346000 440000 440500 441000 441500 442000 442500 443000 443500 Figure 4 Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations 444000 i 444500 0O O 19 ; *.' 4*m i C i 7000 A ctual f m taaion Pa#S colale Ptiaa 1) f n ta l t>opoW on 3,-t 1 i i 4.rJTM .14 I 4jm/i14 Figure 5 - Particle Phase Total Deposition Rates 4 ' mW 00 oo VO CUU !O i \* >. 1. C 0N C .C X P05 O O fP w m i niini. u rv . fauu. w i U*l. t 4* 79 DC PO S i w t i n * ' WVDEP 11689 **'!r i *lAVt C ?000 Actual E m ittle n Vapor Pha* W et D e p o s itio n (g/rr>2/yr) 4/17/02 Figure 6 - Vapor Phase Wet Deposition Rates 000161