Document rpV0avXL0ay221DKxKa2GqQGE

m PATTON BOGGS, ATTORNEYS *T U W VIr**.M.'i I I * U 0 : ^ 2 2550 M Street, N W W ashington, OC 20037-1350 202-457-6000 Facsimile 202-457-5315 * * patron boggs.com January 10, 2005 ' Peter D. Robertson (202) 457-6320 probercson(!pat:onboggs.com Mr. Charles M. Auer Director Office o f Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA East 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D C 20460 ft 2. 2^1o C O M P A N Y SANITIZED Re: Further DuPont Voluntary Response to EPA 's November 4, 2004 Request Submission to AR-226 and TSCA 8(e) Office Miscellaneous: Analytical Methods and Environmental Monitoring/Fate Dear Charlie: oCcr*Tno5 *-- 1 GO The attached document production and information submitted with this letter represents DuPont's continued good faith effort to respond to EPA's November 4, 2004 request for voluntary submission o f certain material. CO o Submission for January 10, 2005 The documents submitted with this letter are documents that DuPont located during this continued document review and that relate to categories for which DuPont has already made document submissions - namely, environmental monitoring, biodegradation, environmental fate, and water analytical methods. A summary o f the steps taken to collect the information requested by EPA for this submission, along with the guidelines used to assess responsiveness to the EPA request, is provided on the Attachment 1 to this letter. A summary o f the contents o f this submission is provided in Attachment 2 to this letter. There is confidential business information contained in this submission. In addition to a cumulative index for this submission, each individual binder also contains an index for the contents o f the binder. W a s n i n g t o n DC I Northern Virginia 63050000017/S 63050000 0 Dallas I Denver Anchorage 7/a Doha, Qatar I  PATTON BOGGS M i n i m m uv Mr. Charles M. Auer January 10, 2005 Page 2 TSCA 8(e) Office Submission DuPont does not beEeve that the information submitted with this letter triggers reporting obligations under TSCA section 8(e). However, in the course o f discussions with OPPT and the Office of Regulatory Enforcement (ORE), it has become clear to DuPont that those two offices are applying standards of reporting under TSCA section 8(e) that DuPont cannot andcipate. Accordingly, DuPont initially informed EPA that DuPont intended to submit all productions to both the AR-226 docket and the TSCA 8(e) office, as was done with the submission of November 15, 2004. EPA has, however, informed counsel for DuPont that it is not necessary to make a duplicate, formal submission to the 8(e) office in order to discharge any reporting obligations that EPA might otherwise assert. Instead, EPA has asked that DuPont make only a single submission and advised that DuPont should indicate in this cover letter that the submission is intended for both the AR-226 docket and the TSCA 8(e) office. As such, DuPont states that the enclosed documents are intended to be a submission to both the AR-226 docket and, as a precaution, to the TSCA 8(e) office, notwithstanding DuPont's firm belief that the information does not trigger reporting obligations under that section o f TSCA. This submission should not be construed as a direct or indirect admission that DuPont believes that any of the enclosed information triggers such reporting obligations. We understand that O R E has agreed that DuPont's submission shall not prevent DuPont from asserting, in any proceeding, that section 8(e) did not require submission of this information. Continued Activity After EPA has had the opportunity to review this letter and the documents, we are available at your convenience to discuss the documents in further detail to assist in your understanding. In the meantime, we will continue to review and produce any additional documents that are located and are relevant to the topics that are the subject o f this submission, or prior submissions, and create the electronic files you requested. Please contact me direcdy if you have any questions or need further clarification with respect to this submission. Sincerely, 'eter D. Robertson  POTION BOGGS. uitm n u ui Mr. Charles M. Auer January 10, 2005 Page 3 Attachments Attachment 1 Attachment 2 - Summary of submission (3 volumes - 2 public, 1 CBI) J r PATTON BOGGS Uf nijuiis m u* Mr. Charles M. Auer January 10, 2005 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 The sections below provide a summary of the steps taken to collect and produce the information provided in this submission. DuPont had previously provided EPA with documents pertaining to Environmental Monitoring, Environmental Fate, and Biodegradation. For each category, please note that DuPont does not maintain a comprehensive file o f all such information for the entire Company. In making the initial submissions for these categories and other categories, documents were collected either from the over one million pages of documents collected for a class action lawsuit in West Virginia or from files of individuals most likely to have documents responsive to EPA's request. Note that the documents collected for purposes o f the West Virginia litigation are primarily related to PFOA. After the initial submissions were made, review continued o f collected documents pertaining to the subject matter o f this letter and the documents submitted with this letter are the result of that review. For purposes of this document production, and in the interest o f attempting to make this production useful and purposeful to the Agency and to avoid redundancy, DuPont followed the guidelines provided below. Please note, however, that if the Agency wants DuPont to submit the type o f information that is indicated below as not being submitted herewith, please notify us and we will provide the requested information. It is noted, in particular, that DuPont requested specific guidance on whether the Agency wanted DuPont to provide all underlying raw data and other underlying information for environmental data. The Agency stated that, at this time, it is not necessary to provide those documents. DuPont will provide such information upon request from the Agency, although the documentation is expected to be voluminous and as such, we will need sufficient time to gather it. General Guidelines for January 10thSubmission In reviewing documents for this submission, and following discussion with EPA concerning the content of the prior submissions, DuPont focused on submitting final reports, draft reports where no final report is known to exist, and documents that contain data. This submission does not include the following types o f documents: Draft documents where it is known that a final version exists  PATTON BOGGS UHffS 11 lit Mr. Charles M. Auer January 10,2005 Page 5 Documents known to be in the possession o f EPA (either at headquarters or an EPA Regional Office) Non-DuPont documents (includes documents from other companies, plaintiffs' counsel, etc.) Presentations and other documents that reference data that is in a report submitted to EPA Documents known to be publicly available Documents that are subject to attorney-client privilege Documents concerning work-in-progress Supporting reports/documents for data (e.g., lab analysis, lab notebooks, field logs, waste characterization sheets, model inputs, etc.) Air permits, underlying documents for the air permits, and analysis to show permit compliance Documents on emissions reduction, treatment, recycle, process improvements y AT T aR H S U L A W Mr. Charles M. Auer January 10, 2005 Page 6 2550 M Sree!, NW Washington, OC 20037-1350 702-457-5000 Facsimile 202 457-5315 www pattcnbQQqs.com Summary of Collection Process for Specific Categories of Requested Information The documents for this submission were collected from review of the documents produced in the class action litigation, along with collection o f documents from individuals in the Company most likely to possess such information. W a s h i n g t o n OC I Northern Virginia I Dallas | Denver | Anchorage | Doha, Qatar 6 ATT* a N EY S A lA W Mr. Charles M. Auer January 10, 2005 Page 7 2550 M Street, NW W ashington, OC 20C37-1350 202-457-6000 Facsimile 202-457-6315 www.pattonboggs com ATTACHMENT2 Summary of January 10, 2005 Submission Public Version Box no. 1 1 1 Volume - 39 40 Part no. - - Topic Cumulative index for Vols. 39 and 40 PFOA in Water - Past Analytical Procedures Environmental Fate/Monitoring Confidential Business Information Version Box no. 1 Volume 40 Part no. - Topic Environmental Fate/Monitoring W a s h i n g t o n DC ! N o r t h e r n V i r g i n i a | Dallas Denver I Anchorage Doha, Qa t 7 DuPont Company VOL 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 TAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DATE 8/30/04 1/20/03 5/22/00 5/1/00 9/26/97 3/11/97 11/26/91 DESCRIPTION Study - Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test of Zonyl DuPont Glasgow Labs APFO Containment at Washington Works; Part II - Process Water Modeling Releases of Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate into the Ohio River; William R. Berti DuPont Glasgow Labs Adsorption-Desorption Screening Studies of Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate; William R. Berti DuPont Glasgow Labs Closing Report; Addendum #1 - Product Area: DuPont Fine Powder/Dispersion Evaluation of the Biodegradability of C-8 Using the Modified Sturm Test (OECD 301 B) DuPont Glasgow Labs Summary - Evaluation of Surfactant C-8 Relative to Chambers Works CATEGORY Telomer: Testing of Zonyl for toxicity towards activated sludge Environmental Emissions Environmental Modeling Environmental Fate: AdsorptionDesorption Environmental: Waste Disposal Environmental Fate: Biodegradability of C8 Environmental Fate: Fate of C8 in waste water treatment system Vol. 40 Index Submission January 10,2005 Page 1 of 1 COMPANY SANITIZED. DOES NOT CONTAIN TSCA CBI