Document kamaEyRpnpk6ZO2z15x5djzBn

KEVIN J . HO PPERG B O B ttE HOf>Pft (BCTWWO> a l s o a d m it t e d in k e n t u c k v K e v in J . H o p p e r C o., L P A ATTORNEY AT LAW S outhampton S quare 7 4 3 4 J agen C ourt Cincinnati Ohio 45230 TEL. (513) 2 32-7878 PAX: (SIS) 232-7804 EMAIL: ho p p erlaw ^ p o K co m AR226-2605 CINCINNATI F P iC g 2100CBLDCENTER 3 6 EAST SEVENTH STREET CINCINNATI, O H IO 4S20Z TEL. (613) 2 4 1 -4 7 2 2 FAX: (513) 2 4 1 - 0 7 7 5 February 21,2002 Mr. Michael Baker Chiefo f Drinking and Ground Waters Section Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P .O .B ox 1049 Columbus, OH 43216-1049 Re: The Little Hocking Water Association, Inc, Washington County ' Dear Mr. Baker: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that I have been retained as environmental counsel by * The Little Hocking Water Association, Inc. to represent them in matters associated with the potential contamination o f their wells by a certain organic chemical, ammonium perfluorooctanoate, (hereinafter "C-8") (CAS No. 3825-25-1) utilized by D uP ont It is my understanding that you hosted a meeting at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("OEPA") in January, 2002, to discuss this issue with representatives DuPont and their counsel. You also invited The Little Hocking Water Association, Inc. to attend this meeting. Since that meeting, DuPont did perform additional sampling o f not only the production wells q f The Little Hocking Water Association, hie., but also die test wells located w ithin the wellfield property, and within the distribution system. I am enclosing a copy of those results for your reference and use. Please note that the distribution system samples were between 1 and 2 ppb, but the test wells and production wells w a x significantly higher. I noted from the attendance sheet for the meeting at the OEPA that a representative of the West Virginia Department o f Environmental Protection ("WVDEP") was not present. I am, therefore enclosing a copyof the Consent Order which was entered into by and between WVDEP and DuPont on November 14,2001. ASHG28127 EID7B1407 EID7814Q7 ) Page 2 Requested Next Steps for QBPA. 1. Enter Into Administrative Order on Consent, or in the Alternative Issue a Unilateral Order, I would like to request that the OEPA proceed to a similar Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC"), or in the alternative a unilateral O rder against DuPont for the purpose o f establishing the nature and scope of the contamination o f the "waters o f the State" by C-8 in the vicinity o f not only T h e Little Hocking Water Association, Inc. wellfield, but also potentially impacted aquifers in Ohio. 2. Participate in WVDEP Committees as an Ex Officio Member, There are two "teams" that are established under the WVDEP Order. The first is a ground w ater investigation steering team ("GIST1), which is discussed in Article VH on p a g e 6 of the Order. This team includes tire United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), WVDEP and DuPont representatives. The purpose of th is team is to "...issue reports setting forth findings o f fact and conclusions regarding background data, ground water monitoring,.and plume identification...". This should be expand! to include plume migration into the State o f Ohio. The second team established pursuant to the WVDEP Order is the "C-8 assessment and toxicity team".("CAT") , which is established in Article VH(C)(2) . on page 8 ofthe Order, The purpose of-this team is to ."...issue a final report setting forth findings of fact and conclusions as to what extent there may be health risks associated with C-8 at the Facilities.". The task as described on page C -4 of this team is the "development o f screening levels based on protection of hum an health". This would allow the OEPA to development human health risk base screening levels for C-8 in air, water and soil Also, a determination ofthe potential carcinogenicity o f C-8 should be included. Participation by the O EPA in this team so as to properly advise The Little Hocking Water Association, Inc. and other water districts on the toxicity o f C-8 would be logical It is requested that the OEPA participate in these activities with DuPont and WVDEP so that the OEPA may establish guidelines for the maximum contaminant levels ("MCLs") o f C-8 as safe levels for The Little Hocking W ater Association, Inc. drinking water. In order to provide background information to you on discharges o f C-8 from th e DuPont facility ta Parkersburg, West Virginia (Wood County), I am enclosing a copy o f correspondence dated March 6,2001, prepared by Robert A, Bilott, Esq. at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in Cincinnati, Ohio, acting as counsel for several adjacent property owners to the DuPont facility. I do n o t ASHQ28128 EID781408 EID781408 ! Page 3 have the Exhibits which are referenced in Mr. Bilott's correspondence, however I shall be pleased to request them through the offices of Mr. Bilott. Afterreviewing Mr. Bilott's cpiTesDondence y o u will note thatthe regulation of C-8 has passed "under the radar screen' o f the USBPA, as su c h it is not a regulated substance. Mr. Bilott has in excess o f 110,000 pages of documents produced by DuPont on the subject of C-8. After reviewing th e above and die enclosures, I request that you contact me so that we may t o the next steps o f the OEPA in this matter. Very truly yours, 'J. HQPPBR C O , LPA ,evin J. Hopper KJH/th Enclosures CC: The Little Hocking Water Association, Inc. Christooher Jones, Esq., Director/OEPA Sarah Waltace/QEPA Southeast District Office, Division o f Dnnkmg & Ground W aters Ja n e t Welch, Esq/General Counsel for Little Hocking Water Association, Inc. K im Mays/Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission ASH028X29 EID781409 EID781409