Exhibits D, G & H have been denied on the basis that the information is confidential, being trade secrets and/or proprietary commercial/financial pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Fox up ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mail: P. O. Box 5231. Princeton. NJ 08543?5231 Gerard P. Norton Princeton Pike Corporate Center Office Managing Pannier 997' Lenox Drive Lawrenceville. NJ 08648-2311 Tel [609) 896-3600 Fax (609} 896-1469 CHRISTOPHER M. ROE Direcl No: 610.458.4987 Email: Public Inspection Copy April 17, 2019 VIA FED-EX DELIVERY Mr. Shawn LaTourette Deputy Commissioner, Legal and Regulatory Affairs New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 401 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08625 Re: Statewide PFAS Directive. Information Request and Notice to Insurers Dear Mr. LaTourette: On behalf of Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC (successor by merger to Solvay Solexis, Inc. and hereinafter ?Solvay?), we write in response to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection?s Statewide PFAS Directive, Information Request and Notice to Insurers, dated March 25, 2019 (the ??Directive?) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 722609.110).l The Directive seeks to require Solvay and a few other companies to investigate and remediate all per- and poly?uoroalky] substances throughout New Jersey. There is no credible basis for DEP to assert that Solvay, which has operated a single manufacturing facilig) located at 10 Leonard Lane in West Deptford, Gloucester County (the ?West Deptford Facility?) and that has never manufactured PFAS, is responsible for Statewide PFAS contamination. While the Directive does not acknowledge the extensive work Solvay already has undertaken and what has been learned as a result of this work, Solvay intends to continue on the path toward completing its investigation and remediation in accordance with applicable law. Solvay, of course, has been investigating and remediating PFAS impacts potentially attributable to its West Deptford Facility since 2013 at a cost of more than $25 million to date. In submitting this letter, Solvay does not admit any fact or liability, and expressly preserves any and all rights and defenses it may have at law or in equity. Fox up ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 2 Public Inspection Copy As a matter of law, however, Solvay is not responsible for the PFAS impacts caused by other parties. Accordingly, Solvay has several objectively reasonable bases, as well as good cause under the law, not to comply with the Directive, including the following: Solvay is not liable under the Spill Act for PFAS impacts not caused by its West Deptford Facility operations, (ii) decision to try to shift the cost of investigating and remediating all PFAS impacts in New Jersey to Solvay and a few other parties is unreasonable, especially given knowledge of multiple other PF AS sources to New Jersey?s environment2 and unwillingness thus far to engage in any meaningful conversation regarding other sources, despite Solvay?s repeated requests, and past cost claim is, at this time, lacking any support from which Solvay could evaluate the causal nexus and reasonableness of the costs incurred.3 Nevertheless, despite?and without waiver of??its good cause defenses, Solvay is complying with certain elements of the Directive now and is willing to comply with other elements of the Directive, as set forth in pages 13 through 15 of this response. Solvay looks forward to engaging in the near term in what we hope will be a more constructive dialogue with DEP. RELEVANT BACKGROUND The Directive is at odds with the facts of Solvay?s actions and investigations over many years. Solvay has been actively addressing environmental impacts attributable to it in the area of its manufacturing facility, and it has been cooperating with DEP. Solvay?s commitment to address the West Deptford Facility impacts has never wavered, and is fully consistent with Solvay?s corporate principles. As explained in the sections below, Solvay?s New Jersey manufacturing Operations are limited to the West Deptford Facility, Solvay has never manufactured PFAS at the West Deptford Facility, Solvay voluntarily reduced its use of products containing per?uorononanoic acid and per?uorooctanoic acid starting as early as 2003, and Solvay already has undertaken and 2 As recently as April 8, 2019, in its letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency DEP expressly acknowledged that other sites are likely sources of PFNA and other PFAS to New Jersey's environment. [Ltr. ??om M. J. Pedersen, Assistant Commissioner Site Remediation and Waste Management Program DEP to J. Prince, Acting Dir., Emergency and Remedial Response Division, USEPA, at 2 (Apr. 8, 2019).] 3 For instance, at least with respect to Solvay, DEP fails to comply with the necessary Directive elements found at N.J.A.C. 72609.1 including necessary causal nexus, necessary substantiation and necessary scope-related details. Fox up ATTOR NEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 3 Public Inspection Copy will continue to undertake extensive efforts to address impacts attributable to the West Deptford Facility in COOperation with DEP. Ownership and Operation of the West Deptford acilitv With respect to Solvay, the Directive focuses on a single facility the West Deptford Facility. [Directive 1] 24.] The West Deptford Facility was undeveloped land until approximately 1961, when it was developed by National Steel Company. Site Evaluation Submittal (Fred C. Hart Assoc.) (Sept. 1989).] In 1970, Pennwalt Ltd., (?Pennwalt?) acquired the West Deptford Facility. [Remedial Investigation Report (May 6, 2014).] In 1985, Pennwalt Corporation began manufacturing polyvinylidene ?uoride a type of ?uoropolymer, at the West Deptford Facility. [Work Plan Per?uoroalkyl Compounds at 1-2 . (Sept. 22, Pennwalt Corporation became Atochem North America, Inc. (?Atochem?), in 1989. We understand that Arkema Inc. is a successor to liabilities of Pennwalt/Atochem related to the West Deptford Facility.5 On October 31, 1990, Atochem sold the West Deptford Facility to Ausimont USA, Inc. [Id] Solvay acquired Ausimont USA, Inc. in 2002. Ausimont USA, Inc. changed its name to Solvay Solexis in 2003 and in 2012, Solvay Solexis was merged into Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC. Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC has operated the plant since 2012. To manufacture PVDF, a surfactant a processing aid used to create an emulsion process is needed. From 1985 until 2010, Sur?on? was the primary surfactant used at the West Deptford Facility, ?rst by Pennwalt (Arkema) and later by Ausimont (Solvay). Sur?on? predominantly contains ammonium per?uorononanoate (hereinafter referred to as Importantly, Solvay did not manufacture Sm?on? at the West Deptford Facility; instead, Solvay purchased it from a supplier. During the full years when Solvay was primarily using Sur?on? as a processing aid (from 1991 through 2009), Solvay used approximately 6,500 kilograms of Sur?on? on average per year at the West Deptford Facility. [Ltr. from T. Buggey (Roux Associates) to E. Bergman (DEP) (Nov. 15, 2013).] In addition, from 1995 through 2003, Solvay used a small amount (1,300 kilograms on average per year) of a different surfactant, sodium per?uorooctanoate which appears as PFOA in the environment. [Work Plan Per?uoroalkyl Compounds at As with Sur?on?, Solvay did not manufacture at the West Deptford Facility; rather, that surfactant was purchased from a supplier. [Directive 1] 25.] 4 DEP already has copies of all the documents cited in this letter. 5 Pennwalt, Atochem, and Arkema are unrelated to Solvay. 8 Fox up ATTOR NEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 4 Public Inspection Capy The ?nished PVDF is sold to Solvay?s customers, which use the PVDF as a component in other products and applications, such as coatings and lithium batteries. Solvav Voluntarily Eliminated PFNA and PFOA Use in the 20005 In 2006, USEPA asked Solvay (and other companies) to participate in its Stewardship Program.? [Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PF 0A Stewardship Program?] Solvay agreed to participate. [Id] The PFOA Stewardship Program encouraged participants, including Solvay, to achieve two goals: a 95% reduction, measured from a year 2000 baseline, ?in both facility emissions to all media of [perfluorooctanoic acid precursor chemicals that can break down to PF 0A, and related higher homologue chemicals, and product content levels of these chemicals,? and (ii) ?the elimination of these chemicals from emissions and products by 2015." [1d] Solvay ceased its use of 0 in 2003 (before the PFOA Stewardship Program even began) and met the PFOA Stewardship Program goals at the West Deptford Facility by ceasing its use of Sur?on? in 2010. [Id] Documentation of Solvay?s reductions in PFAS use and emissions was provided to USEPA in the form of annual progress reports from 2007 through 2015, which are publicly available on website.if Solvav Self-Initiated and Agreed to Investigate and Remediate Impacts Attributable to the West Dentford acilitv in 2013 Before Any Regulatory Standards Existed for PFAS Compounds In 2009, unbeknownst to Solvay, sampling was conducted by the Delaware River Basin Commission and DEP in the Delaware River and in a public water supply in the Borough of Paulsboro. That sampling detected PF NA, PF 0A, and per?uorooctanesulfonic acid another PFAS compound. PF OS is not a component of any of the products used by the West Deptford Facility. For the next four years, DEP did not communicate those sampling results to the public, including Solvay, nor did DEP request that Solvay take any action with respect to PFAS impacts potentially attributable to the West Deptford Facility. Finally, in late summer 2013, in response to Open Public Records Act requests by a third party, DEP publically 6 Available at stewardship-programiilaunch. 7 Available at 020 S-ofoa-stewardship- program-20 l. FOX LLP ATTORN EYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 5 Public Inspection Copy released the 2009 sampling data, but still did not notify Solvay directly. Solvay learned of the existence of the sampling results instead through the media in August 2013. Immediately thereafter, Solvay self-initiated contact with DEP and offered to voluntarily investigate possible PFAS drinking water impacts in the West Deptford area, regardless of the potential source. Speci?cally, in September 2013, at Solvay?s request, Solvay met with DEP and USEPA to discuss the now-public 2009 sampling results and Solvay?s initial plan to investigate possible PFAS drinking water impacts in a broad area as well as any site-related PFAS environmental impacts at the West Deptford Facility. That same month, Solvay retained a Licensed Site Remediation Professional Thomas R. Buggey of Roux Associates, who is charged with ensuring compliance with New Jersey environmental statutes and regulations, and began preparing a remedial investigation work plan. Solvay?s initial work, which spanned from November 2013 until March 2015, included the following: I Expedited sampling of municipal water from seven different townships surrounding the West Deptford Facility to assess possible PFAS drinking water impacts, regardless of source and in advance of any site?related environmental investigation [Work Plan Per?uoroalkyl Compounds at 0 Expedited well search and sampling of private drinking water supply wells to assess possible PFAS drinking water impacts, regardless of source and in advance of any site-related environmental investigation I Groundwater sampling of Solvay?s monitoring wells, both at the West Deptford Facility and from off-site areas I Groundwater sampling of temporary well points between the West Deptford Facility and Woodbury Creek to the east 0 Surface water, sediment, and pore water sampling from the Delaware River, including sampling along 80 miles of the Delaware River [id at 0 Air dispersion modeling of potential and estimated historic PFNA and PFOA emissions from the West Deptford Facility based on extensive and well documented DEP and USEPA technical input and feedback concerning the appropriate means and methods to be used for such air dispersion modeling Fox ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 6 Public Inspection Copy See Exhibit (Table 1: Key Agency Communications on Air Modeling for the PFAS Investigation at West Deptford, NJ, 2013 to 2015) and Exhibit .1 (Copies of Key Air Modeling Comm unications); and 0 Solvay voluntarily installed a carbon treatment component to address PFAS to the groundwater remediation system already present at the West Deptford Facility, which was installed years earlier to address volatile organic compound impacts. Signi?cantly, Solvay undertook all of this initial environmental work years before DEP promulgated any proposed or ?nal standards for PFNA or PF 0A. [Directive 1l 9 Drinking Water Quality Institute recommended a Maximum Contaminant Level for PFNA in July 2015); id. 1 10 (DWQI recommended MCL for PFOA in March 2017); id. 11 11 (DWQI recommended MCL for PF OS in November 2017); id. ?ll 12 (DEP adopted a groundwater quality standard for PF NA in January 2018); id. 1] 13 (DEP adopted MCL for PFNA in September 2018); id. 1] 15 (DEP established interim groundwater quality criteria for PF OA and PFOS in March 2019).] In January 2014, DEP issued a PFAS drinking water health advisory for infants up to one year of age in Paulsboro. [Ltr. from K. Fell (DEP) to L. Ruggieri (Borough of Paulsboro) (Jan. 17, 2014), attaching January 2014 DEP Fact Sheet: PFNA in Paulsboro Water Well No. Even though Solvay?s environmental investigation was in its earliest stages and had not established any nexus to Paulsboro drinking water, Solvay again voluntarily agreed to provide bottled water to Paulsboro residents. In December 2014, Solvay, as part of a settlement and without admission of any fact or liability, also agreed to design and install a PFAS treatment I system on ?Well N0. 7? in Paulsboro, without awaiting any determination that the PFAS impacts in Paulsboro were attributable, in whole or in part, to the West Deptford Facility.8 This treatment system has been in place and operational since June 2016. After completing its initial investigation, Solvay met with DEP in June 2015 to discuss the results and next steps. [Work Plan Per?uoroalkyl Compounds at In July 2015, DEP provided its comments on the work performed to date, which Solvay incorporated in a remedial 8 Additional data since 2014 shows that there are multiple likely PFAS sources affecting Paulsboro drinking water completely unrelated to the West Deptford Facility. To date, these obvious likely sources remain both unacknowledged and uninvesti gated by DEP. Fox tip I ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 7 Public Inspection Copy investigation work plan that was submitted to DEP in September 2015. [Id] The September 2015 work plan proposed the collection of groundwater samples from both onsite and offsite monitoring wells, (ii) soil samples from the West Deptford Facility, and surface water and sediment samples from creeks adjacent to the West Deptford Facility. [[01 at The September 2015 work plan also proposed to evaluate the ?distribution of [per?uorochelnicals] and their fate in the environment in the vicinity of? the West Deptford Facility. [Id] After receiving LSRP and DEP input and approval on the September 2015 work plan, Solvay undertook this second phase of investigative work. The results were reported to DEP by the LSRP in June 2017. [Per?uoroalkyl Compound Investigation Report for the West Deptford Facility (June 30, 2017).] Solvay then prepared a third work plan approved by the LSRP in May 2018, which was also submitted to and reviewed by DEP. [Technical Memorandum - Integral to NJDEP (May 17, 2018).] After input by DEP, Solvay installed additional offsite groundwater monitoring wells and collected more groundwater samples from offsite locations. In addition, in January 2019, Solvay self-initiated and implemented (again with notice to DEP) an engineered cap/surface barrier at the West Deptford Facility as an interim remedial measure. All of Solvay?s work plans were developed in conjunction with the LSRP and submitted to DEP beforehand for its review and input. All of the results of Solvay?s investigation through early 2017 have been provided to DEP. Exhibit A for Table 1, PFAS Work Plans and Reports, which Solvay has already provided to DEP and which are incorporated herein by reference]. Results from 2018 are being compiled in a report that will be provided to DEP in the coming months. Among the work performed by Solvay was an air dispersion model a model developed with extensive technical input and advice from both DEP and USEPA9 that concluded that no signi?cant amount of PFNA or PFOA emitted from Solvay operations would have been deposited beyond the West Deptford Facility property boundary and that depositions decreased signi?cantly with distance from the facility.10 On July 31, 2015, Solvay received some initial feedback from DEP on the results of this air modeling. Solvay responded to that feedback on September 22, 2015. DEP has provided no technical or specific feedback on the model since 9 See Exhibit (Table 1). Key Agency Communications on Air Modeling for the PFAS Investigation at West Deptford, NJ, 2013 to 2015. 1? Air Modeling Report for Perfluoroalkyl Compounds, Integral Consulting, Inc, March 3, 2015. FOX id LLP ATTORN EYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 8 Public Inspection Copy 2015, but Solvay has unof?cially heard from DEP managers that DEP may still not be satis?ed with the air modeling results, despite signi?cant input to the model used. Among the key ?ndings of Solvay?s investigation to date is substantial evidence that there are multiple sources of PFNA and PF 0A (as well as PF OS, which Solvay never used) in West Deptford and in Gloucester County that are unconnected to the West Deptford Facility and have not yet been identi?ed. Solvay has repeatedly provided that information to DEP.11 So far, to Solvay?s knowledge, DEP has not investigated other potential sources in the area. In addition, Solvay has provided DEP with a technically valid, isomer chemistry basis (and supporting data) to explain why branched PF NA found in the investigation area is not linked to the West Deptford Facility. [Per?uoroalkyl Compound Investigation Report (June 30, 2017).] The Surflon? used at the West Deptford Facility only contained linear PFNA. Since branched PFNA has been found, it demonstrates that there is another source(s) of PFNA in the investigation area. In sum, since 2013, Solvay has aggressively investigated and remediated PF AS impacts potentially attributable to the West Deptford Facility both onsite and offsite. Solvay has collected more than 1,000 environmental PFAS samples12 and has spent more than $25 million to investigate PFAS. Solvay performed all ofthr's work with LSRP am! DEP oversight. Although additional work remains, Solvay is fully committed to completing the investigation and remediation of any PFAS impacts attributable to the West Deptford Facility. DEP Decides to Issue Solvay the Directive On March 25, 2019, a decade after DEP obtained PF AS data potentially attributable, at least in part, to the West Deptford Facility, DEP issued Solvay and a few other companies the Directive. The Directive asserts that is now ubiquitous in New Jersey? [Directive at and that Solvay and the other respondents ?are responsible for PFAS including PFNA, PFOA, PFOS and their replacement PFAS compounds that have been discharged or released into New 1' See Exhibit B, Summary Report on Potential Sources of PFAS, Gloucester County New Jersey, May 2018, including the enumeration of these submissions in footnote 1 thereof; see also Oct. 22, 2015 Letter from C. Jones to M. Pedersen and D. Kennedy, attaching 10/20/2015 Integral Memo entitled ?Likely Third Party Sources of PFNA in the Delaware River Watershed and the Environment in and near Gloucester County, New Jersey?. '2 Exhibit A, Table 2. Summary of Environmental Samples Collected by Solvay as Part of the PFAS Investigation at West Deptford, NJ between 2013 and 2019. 5: FOX LLP ATTORN EYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 9 Public Inspection Copy Jersey?s air, water, and other natural [Id at Said differently, despite recognizing that PFAS compounds have existed since the 19403 [id 1] that there are ?literally thousands of PF AS compounds? and that Solvay did not begin operating at the West Deptford Facility until 1990 [id 1] 24], DEP nevertheless asserts that Solvay is ?responsible for the signi?cant PFAS contamination across New Jersey and the costs the Department has incurred, and will incur,? in addressing PFAS on a Statewide basis [id 1] 22] which DEP projects will cost ?hundreds of millions of [Id 1] 49.] The Directive does not consider the work that Solvay has done, and continues to do, to characterize and address any discharge from the West Deptford Facility; the Directive is an unnecessary action by DEP as to Solvay and as to the investigation and remediation required related to the West Deptford Facility. The Directive is also unprecedented in scope and devoid of meaningful or reasonable substantiation as to Solvay, especially in light of acknowledgement that ?[t]here are literally thousands of PFAS compounds? [id 1] 1] and that PFAS contamination is ?ubiquitous in New Jersey? [id at I RESPONSE TO FINDINGS The ?ndings and other allegations throughout the Directive are unsupported and vague, including, without limitation, the allegation of ?massive amounts? of Sur?on? being discharged by Solvay. In providing this response, Solvay does not admit any of these findings or allegations. Nor does Solvay waive any right to contest them and require proof from DEP in any subsequent proceeding. SOLVAY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE Compliance Is Not Required If There Is a Good Cause Defense to the Directive Under the Spill Act (the predicate statute for the Directive), DEP ?may, in its discretion, act to clean up and remove or arrange for the cleanup and removal of discharge or may direct the discharger to clean up and remove, or arrange for the cleanup and removal of, the discharge.? [Directive 1] 58]; N.J.S.A. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that recipients of a DEP directive may refuse to comply with that directive where they have a ?good cause? (also known as a ?good faith?) basis for noncompliance. In re Kimber Petroleum Corp, 1 10 NJ. 69 (1988). ?Good cause? exists when the recipient has ?an objectively reasonable basis for believing that directive [is] either invalid or inapplicable to it,? which includes ?challenges to the reasonableness of the costs Fox ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 10 Public Inspection Copy assessed? in the directive. Id. at 83, 86. Where such a good cause defense exists, DEP is not entitled to the treble damages provided by the Spill Act. Id. at 84. In short, the touchstone for evaluating a party?s good cause defense to a directive is reasonableness: demands, as set forth in the directive, must be reasonable under the circumstances. See id at 76 (?If a challenging party has reasonable grounds for contesting the validity or applicability of an administrative order, it must be able to do so without penalty?); id. at 86 (?an aggrieved party should have the right, in an action for reimbursement to recover costs, to demonstrate that an element of the costs imposed by DEP is unreasonable. An identical contention raised on an objectively reasonable basis could constitute a ?good cause defense? to a pie-payment enforcement directive?); id. at 87 (?good?cause defenses include challenges to the reasonableness of the costs assessed?); id. (?The provisions of the DEP directive ordering the payment of removal costs are valid and enforceable subject, however, to any good-cause defense that may be raised by the [directive Solvay Has Good Cause Defenses to the Directive Solvay Is Not Liable for Statewide PFAS Impacts As an initial matter, Solvay does not dispute that it needs to investigate and remediate PFAS impacts attributable to the West Deptford Facility. Solvay has been and remains fully committed to completing that work. But Solvay?s commitment to address PFAS impacts attributable to the West Deptford Facility does not mean that Solvay is obligated under the Spill Act to investigate and remediate PFAS throughout New Jersey. Spill Act liability only exists where DEP can prove two causal elements, that there is a reasonable nexus both: between a Solvay discharge of PFAS and the PFAS contamination at issue, and (ii) between that Solvay PFAS discharge and the costs incurred by DEP. NJ. Del) ?1 0f Envll. Prof. v. Dimam, 212 NJ. 153, 177 (2012); Magic Petroleum Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 218 NJ. 390, 408 (2014) (explaining that Dimam held that ?to recover costs from responsible party, DEP must show reasonable nexus between [the] discharge, discharger and contamination at the damaged site?). In short, the Spill Act mandates, and Dimam holds, that a discharger is responsible only for its own discharge, not those of others. Dimam, 212 NJ. at 182. Here, the Directive fails to provide any basis explaining why DEP believes that Solvay is responsible for PFAS contamination in 70 different private potable wells, some of which are located more than 10 miles away from the West Deptford Facility. Nor does the Directive FOX LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 11 Public Inspection Copy explain how DEP has reached the conclusion that Solvay which has operated a single facility in Gloucester County and has never manufactured PFAS could possibly be responsible for Statewide PFAS contamination. The complete absence of any explanation of how Solvay is responsible for the breadth of contamination at issue in the Directive is more than suf?cient to establish a good cause, good faith, objective basis for Solvay not to comply with the Directive at this time. DEP ?5 Approach in the Directive Is Unreasonable Even if the Directive included some basis for why Solvay is responsible to address PFAS impacts in 70 different private potable wells or on a Statewide basis (which it does not), the overall unreasonableness of approach provides Solvay with a good cause basis not to comply with the Directive. irsr, DEP has been intimately involved with Solvay?s investigation and remediation of PFAS impacts at the West Deptford Facility since Solvay initially reached out to DEP in 2013. That DEP would weigh in, review, and approve work plans Solvay has performed at and around the West Deptford Facility for more than ?ve years, and now, without prior notice, issue a Statewide PFAS Directive against Solvay, is not reasonable. See, e. g. In re Kimber Petroleum Corp, 110 NJ. at 76', NJ. Dep ?t ofEnv?. Prof. v. Essex Chem. Corp, slip op. at 8 (July 23, 2010) (?Nothing in the Spill Act gives the authority to make unreasonable demands on responsible parties, particularly where, as here, that party has been cooperating fully with the Site Remediation affirmed 2012 NJ. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 593 (App. Div. Mar. 20, 2012). Second, decision to target Solvay for all PFAS impacts in New Jersey is patently unreasonable. As DEP is aware, not only is Solvay not responsible for Statewide PFAS impacts, Solvay is not even responsible for all PF AS impacts in the one county in which it operates. Speci?cally, Solvay most recently provided DEP with detailed information on other potential PFAS sources in Gloucester County in May 2018 for example, gasket/seal manufacturers; historic aqueous ?lm forming foam use at industrial operations, re?neries, and ?re training areas; other ?uorochemical facilities; petrochemical facilities; and land?lls. However, it does not appear that DEP has taken any action to investigate those potential sources despite Solvay?s repeated requests and provision of detailed written supporting information. [Exhibit B, Summary Report on Potential Sources of PFAS in Gloucester County at 1-1 (May 2018) (?This report provides speci?c examples of evidence that there are likely multiple sources that released PF NA and other PFAS to the environment. . . .This report supplements previous information on potential sources and data submitted to Solvay continues to urge NJ DEP to take the FOX id LLP ATTOR EYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 12 Public Inspection Copy actions necessary to identify the sources and begin to investigate As USEPA recently recognized in its Action Plan,? PFAS have been used ?in a variety of consumer products and industrial processes, including ?re?ghting foams, chemical processing, building/ construction, aerospace, electronics, semiconductor and automotive industries, stain? and water? resistant coatings g. carpets and rain repellant clothing), food packaging, and in waxes and cleaners.? PFAS Action Plan at 11 (Feb. 2019).] In fact, DEP itself expressly recognizes there are many potential sources of PFNA, PFOA, and other PFAS compounds to New Jersey?s environment: ?Information on PFNA and other per- and poly?uoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds can be found at many different sites, and EPA and Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council guidance is available to identify the various industries and sites where these compounds are likely to be found. . . . Landfills and other sites [in New Jersey] where chemical waste were disposed BROS) should be prioritized.? [Ltr. from M. J. Pedersen, Assistant Commissioner Site Remediation and Waste Management Program DEP to J. Prince, Acting Dir., Emergency and Remedial Response Division, USEPA, at 2 (Apr. 8, 2019).] Notably, the BROS site is in close proximity to at least six wells DEP seeks to hold Solvay responsible for in the Directive. It is not reasonable, under these circumstances, for DEP to seek to shift the burden of investigating and remediating PFAS on a Statewide basis to Solvay and a handful of other companies. In sum, Solvay need not comply with the Directive, which is an unreasonable attempt to saddle Solvay with liability for PFAS impacts wholly unrelated to its operations at the West Deptford Facility. DEP Has Not Provided Evidence That Its Past Costs Claim 1s Reasonable The Directive requests that Solvay pay DEP approximately $3.1 million to reimburse the agency for the costs incurred to address PFNA and PF 0A ?from the area surrounding? the West Deptford Facility. [Directive 1] 47.] Solvay agrees that DEP has incurred past costs that are reasonably reimbursable by Solvay. Solvay even offered to do so with regard to then-current past costs Solvay agreed were attributable to the West Deptford Facility in February 2016 with no DEP response to date. Solvay has been and remains willing to reimburse DEP for its reasonable costs incurred in responding to PFAS impacts attributable to the West Deptford Facility under the reasoning of Dimant. However, Solvay is unable, at this time, to ascertain the amount of those costs. Simply put, it is not clear that all of the $3.1 million incurred by DEP are costs fairly attributable to West Deptford Facility contamination, as opposed to contamination from other sources that was and is present in the ?area surrounding? the West Deptford Facility. FOX ATTORN EYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 13 Public Inspection Copy Accordingly, given its inability at this time to ascertain the reasonableness of past cost claim, Solvay has a good cause defense to this aspect of the Directive and declines at this time to reimburse DEP for the requested $3.1 million. See In re Kimber Petroleum Corp. 110 NJ. at 87 (?good cause defenses include challenges to the reasonableness of the costs assessed?). SOLVAY NEVERTHELESS WILL COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE AS SET FORTH BELOW Notwithstanding its multiple good cause defenses to the Directive discussed above, Solvay is complying with certain elements of the Directive now and is willing to comply with other elements of the Directive as set forth below, subject to: receiving the legally?required information and data DEP relies upon in substantiating various elements of the Directive, including the data and information that DEP believes support the speci?c requirements directed to Solvay in paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Directive; and (ii) meeting(s) with Solvay (which Solvay previously requested) to discuss impacts attributable to the West Deptford Facility versus those attributable to other sources. More speci?cally: a With this letter and enclosed as Exhibits and D, Solvay is providing to DEP the information requested concerning its historic use was not used at the West Deptford Facility), and its use of PFAS replacement chemicals [Directive 68-69]. Solvay previously provided much of this information to Solvay is willing to enter good faith discussions with DEP to resolve the agency?s past cost claim of $3,105,084.91, consistent with New Jersey law, and to pay legally justified and reasonable amounts pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1(f)2; - Solvay is willing to enter good faith settlement discussions with DEP concerning potential future costs and any damages attributable to West Deptford Facility PFAS impacts; '3 See Ltr. from T. Buggey (Roux Associates) to E. Bergman (DEP) (Nov. 15, 2013). Fox up ATTOR NEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 14 Public Inspection Copy Solvay is willing to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of POETs that were installed to address PFAS contamination attributable to the West Deptford Facility, as con?rmed by Solvay?s LSRP and listed on Exhibit E, assuming that DEP shares with Solvay all necessary information to effectuate this transition. At this time, Solvay is not assuming responsibility for a number of the POET systems identified in paragraph 64 in reliance on the site remediation program regulations on the scope of a responsible party?s investigation, the professional judgment of Solvay?s LSRP, and the complete lack of information or other support from DEP for connecting the relief it seeks regarding the additional POET systems over such a broad area to any discharge from the West Deptford Facility; Solvay is willing, within 90 days of receiving the Directive, to confirm that it has identi?ed and sampled all potable wells within 500 feet down gradient, 500 feet side gradient and 250 feet up gradient of each potable well listed on Exhibit [id ll Solvay is willing, within 120 days of receiving the Directive, to implement any treatment or monitoring for any additional potable wells with PFNA MCL or PFOA action level exceedances shown to be attributable to the West Deptford Facility under Dimant [id 1i and Solvay is willing to submit an updated Remediation Cost Review and Remediation Funding Source/Financial Assurance Form to include the cost of additionally required potable well sampling and implementation of treatment and monitoring, if any [fat 1] 65].14 Solvay?s willingness to undertake these actions is a reiteration of Solvay?s previous commitment to complete the investigation and remediation of PFAS impacts attributable to the West Deptford Facility. Solvay is not, in any way, deviating from that commitment. Moreover, while the DEP has not asked this of Solvay, and Solvay is not obligated by law to do so, Solvay has already initiated a project to develop and validate analytical capabilities 1" Solvay already has put its insurers on notice of the Directive. [Directive 1i 76.] 53 Fox LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 15 Public Inspection Copy to identify West Deptford replacement surfactants in the environment. Solvay would be happy to discuss this project with DEP at an upcoming meeting. CONCLUSION Based on the available information, Solvay objectively and reasonably believes that it has good cause defenses to the Directive. Nonetheless, Solvay is willing to comply with the Directive as set forth above. Moreover, Solvay looks forward to receiving the information and data relied upon by DEP in issuing the Directive and meeting with DEP to discuss impacts attributable to the West Deptford Facility, versus other sources, and a path forward that appropriately acknowledges the practical reality that Solvay is not responsible for impacts attributable to others. Solvay reserves the right to amend or supplement this response hereafter if other or further information becomes available or relevant which makes such amendment or supplementation necessary or appropriate. Sincerely, Christopher M. Roe Kegan A. Brown Fox LLP Latham Watkins LLP CMR:stj Enclosures: Exhibit A: Table 1. PFAS Investigation Work Plans and Reports Prepared by Solvay and Submitted to NJ DEP since 2013; Table 2. Summary of Environmental Samples Collected by Solvay as Part of the PFAS Investigation at West Deptford, NJ between 2013 and 2019. Exhibit B: Summary Report on Potential Sources of PFAS, Gloucester County New Jersey, May 2018 (behind May 24, 2018 Letter M. Geitz to E. Bergman). Exhibit C: Solvay?s Response to Request for Information 1] 68. Fox up ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Shawn LaTourette April 17, 2019 Page 16 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit F.l: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Solvay?s Response to Request for Information 11 69 Contains Con?dential Business Information Pursuant to N.J.A.C. the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, and Case Law. List of POETs Installed by NJ DEP to Address PFNA Potentially Attributable to the West Deptford Facility Per LSRP. Table 1. Key Agency Communications on Air Modeling for the PFAS Investigation at West Deptford, NJ 2013 to 2015. Copies of Key Air Modeling Communications. West Deptford Replacement Surfactants Spreadsheets Contains Con?dential Business Information Pursuant to N.J.A.C. the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, and Case Law. West Deptford Replacement Surfactants Safety Data Sheets Contains Con?dential Business Information Pursuant to N.J.A.C. the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, and Case Law. Mr. Shawn LaTourette 01 Exhibit A Table 1. PFAS Investigation Work Plans and Reports Prepared by Solvay and Submitted to NJDEP since 2013; Table 2. Summary of Environmental Samples Collected by Solvay as Part of the PFAS Investigation at West Deptford, NJ between 2013 and 2019 Rubh?c Inspection Copy Exhibit A Tabie 1. PFAS Investigation Work Plans and Reports Prepared by Solvay and Submitted to NJDEP since 2013. Investigation Program Submission Title Submission Date Description of Data and Reporting Work Plan 2013 Workplan Addenda to 2013 Workplan, Field Sampling Plans (FS Ps) for Pubtic Water Systems (PWSs) 2015 Work Plan Technical Memorandum: Proposed RI Activities 1111 51201 3 11i'25l2013 QI22I2015 5118l2018 initial workplan, includes QAPP, HSP, FSP, and Air Modeling Plan Sampling plans for each of 7 PWS facilities: East Greenwich, Greenwich, National Park, Paulsboro, Westvitle, and Woodbury; each includes site-specific HSP FSP Plan to continue investigation activity, includes QAPP and FSP includes proposed sample locations summarized in tabtes and maps Operational History Letter from T. Buggey (Roux Associates) to E. Bergman (DEP) Re: Perfluoroaikyl Compound Usage 11l15l2013 LSRP submission to summary table of Surflon? and estimated annual usage and emissions at the Solvay Plant in West Deptford, NJ, 1991?201 2 Onsite and Otfsite Groundwater Monitoring Weils Groundwater Monitoring Data and May 7, 2014 Presentation Material 5? 412014 LSRP submission to summary table and figure, EDD, laboratory report, and data validation report; Microsoft Power Point slides presented by Solvay at NJDEP meeting Private Potable Wells Solvay Private Potable Wei! investigation (Contains"'Confidentiat Residential information) 6i1912014 - 10f28l2018 Eight consecutive rounds of sampling by Solvay of private potable wells; reported as summary tables and map, EDD, laboratory report, and data validation report Immediate Environmental Concern Public Water System (PWS) Wells response Action Form 60 Day Response 120 Day Response 1 Year IEC Source Control Report Quarterly Data Reports 12i9l201 5 12261201 6 3i22i'2016 12i7i?201 6 12i3l2013 - 1J1 4201 5 LSRP submissions to NJDEP LS RP report of resuits of quarterly sampling by Solvay of PWS welis at E. Greenwich, Greenwich, National Park, Paulsboro, West Deptford, Westvilie, and Woodbu ry. Greenwich Township declined a fourth round of sampling. Each submission includes a summary table and map along with an EDD, laboratory report, and data validation report. Paulsboro PWS Sampling Summary Data Report for PFCs, December 2014 to May 2015 8i5l?201 5 sampling by Sotvay at Paulsboro PWS from December 2014 to May 2015. Summary table, EDDs, laboratory reports, and data validation reports. Summary Data Report (2015) Summary Report: PFC Investigations Conducted by Solvay Specialty Poiymers USA, LLC, West Deptford, NJ 3l3i20?l 5 Summary tables and figures for samples collected from surface water, sediment, and pore water in the Deiaware River, including discussion of resuits and conclusions Appendix A: Results of the Temporary Well Point investigation 3l3i2015 Summary tables and figures, EDD, laboratory report, and data validation report, including discussion of results and conclusions Appendix B: Delaware River Surface Water and Sediment Data Repon 313i2015 Summary tables and figures, EDD, laboratory report, and data validation report, including discussion of results and conciusions Appendix C: Air Modeling Report for Perfluoroatkyl Compounds 3132015 Summary of approach and findings, plus model input and output tiles for inciuding discussion of results and conclusions Public Inspection Copy Exhibit A Tabte 1. PFAS Investigation Work Plans and Reports Prepared by Solvay and Submitted to NJDEP since 2013. tnvestigatton Program Submission Title Submission Date Description of Data and Reporting Summary Data Report (2017) Perfluoroaikyl Compound Investigation Report 613012017 Summary tabies and figures for samples cotlected from onsite and offsite soil and groundwater; and surface water. sediment, and pore water from the Main Ditch and Littie Mantua Creek Other Sources Letter from Solvay to NJDEP with Attachment entitted ?LikeEy Third Party Sources of PFNA in the Delaware River Watershed and the Environment in and near Gioucester County, NJ 1012212015 Specific examples of evidence that there are likely multiple sources that reieased PFNA and other PFAS to the environment Summary Report on Potentiat Sources of PFAS, Gtoucester County. NJ 5i24l20?l 8 Specific examptes of evidence that there are likeiy multipte sources that released PFNA and other PFAS to the environment Notes: EDD electronic data delivery FSP field sampling ptan HSP health and safety plan EC 2 immediate environmental concern sodium per?uorooctanoate NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environments! Protection PFAS per- and poly?uoroalkyl substance PFC per?uoroalkyl compound PWS public water system QAPP quality assurance project plan RI 3 remedial investigation Public Inspection Copy Exhibit A Table 2. Summary of environmental samples collected by Solvay as part of the PFAS investigation at West Deptford, NJ between 2013 and 2019. Sample Type ll1:Eznat?:ieornosf Number 2f Sampled Samples Drinking water from Private Potable Wells 98 112 Drinking water from Public Water System (PWS) Wells 7 PWS 280 Groundwater from Monitoring Wells 124 216 Groundwater from Temporary Well Points 11 48 Groundwater from Onsite Recovery Wells 4 4 Surface Water 40 4O Sediment 32 79 Porewater 16 16 Soil 50 228 Total 382 1,023 Excludes samples, such as ?eld duplicates. Mr. Shawn LaTourette A ri] 17 2019 Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources of PFAS, Gloucester County New Jersey, May 2018 (behind May 24, 2018 Letter M. Gertz to E. Bergman) Public Inspection Copy Exhibit LVAY Via Hand Delivery at May 24, 2018 Meeting Ms. Erica Bergman New Jersey Department of Envirornnental Protection 401 East State Street Mail Code 401?05 13.0. Box 420 Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 Erica.Bergmanr?ldcp.nigov Re: Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC (?Solvay?) SRP PI #015010 Activity Number RPC140002 Dear Erica: In previous meetings, the Department indicated that. it would welcome and consider any information that Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC could provide on other potential sources of per?uoroalkyl substances to the environment in Gloucester County and the Delaware River. The purpose of this letter is to convey such information. As is clear from the documented presence of branched chain PFNA in sampling conducted by Solvay, there is no question that there are other sources of PFAS, including of PFNA, in the area that Solvay has investigated so far. It is also clear from the data gathered that PFAS at parts per trillion levels are nearly ubiquitous in the local environment. The Department will need information and action from other sources in order to pursue its stated goal to have exceedances of the ?nal groundwater quality criterion for PFNA investigated and addressed. Attached is a Summary Report on Potential Sources Gloucester County, NJ, prepared by Integral Consultants, Inc. at Solvay?s request. This report provides the Department with a summary of speci?c and general information that Solvay and Integral have compiled regarding potential sources. Solvay strongly urges the Department to thoroughly review and follow?up on the information in the attached report to require information, including sampling, from other potential sources in the immediate area of the Solvay plant. Because of the importance of the Department obtaining information from other sources, Solvay respectfully requests a follow-up meeting on or about June 24, to discuss the attached Report, as well as the Department?s planned and completed efforts to compel information from other potential sources. Please let us know if June 24 would work or whether the Department would prefer another date and time. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane, West Deplford. NJ 08086. USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 com Public Inspection Copy Exhibit 0 LVAY Sincerely, LIA (it ,1 v?vb Of Mitchell Gertz HSE Compliance Manager Enclosure: Summary Report on Poten?al Sources of PFAS, Gloucester County, NJ, IntegTal Consultants, Inc., 2018. Public Inspection Copy Exhibit SUMMARY REPORT ON POTENTIAL SOURCES OF PFAS Gloucester County, New Jersey Prepared for Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane West Deptford, NJ 08086 Prepared by inie ml mnsultinq int. 923 Haddon?eld Road Suite 300 Cherry Hill, 08002 May 24, 2018 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Report Potential Sources Gloucester County, New ]ersey May 24, 2018 CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2 INFORMATION GATHERING 2-1 2.1 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACTS 2-1 2.2 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2?1 2.3 INTERNET-BASED INTELLIGENCE GATHERING 2?1 2.4 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS REVIEW 2-2 3 EXAMPLE SITES 3-1 3.1 FIRE TRAINING AREAS 3-1 3.1.1 Rowan College Gloucester County Fire Academy 3-1 3.1.2 Huntsman Polypropylene Corporation Facility 3?2 3.1.3 Philadelphia International Airport 3-3 3.2 MANUFACTURING 3-3 3.2.1 GGB Bearing Technology 3-4 3.2.2 Products 3-4 3.2.3 Other Potential Industrial/Manufacturing Sources 3-5 3.3 REFINING OPERATIONS AND BULK STORAGE 3-6 3.3.1 Eagle Point Refinery 3-6 3.3.2 PBF Energy 3-7 3.4 OTHER SITES 3?8 3.4.1 Matteo 8: Sons Superfund Site 3-8 3.4.2 Landfills 3-9 4 CONCLUSIONS 4-1 5 REFERENCES 5-1 Integral Consulting Inc. if Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potentini Sources Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Potential PFAS Source Location Map Integral Consutting Inc. Public Inspection Copy Exhibit unwary Report on Potential Sources Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 AOC ARFF BP CRTK DGW DSG ECF ECRA EI FOIA GCUA GGB HSWA Hunstman Integral ISRA LSRP Matteo NAICS NFA NJDEP NJEMS NJPDES NPL OPRA PFCs PFAS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS area of concern aqueous film forming foam aircraft rescue and firefighting British Petroleum community right?to-know discharge to groundwater discharge to surface water electrochemical ?uorination Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act environmental indicator Freedom of Information Act Gloucester County Utilities Authority GGB Bearing Technology Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment Huntsman Polypropylene Corporation Integral Consulting Inc. Industrial Site Recovery Act Licensed Site Remediation Professional Matteo ti: Sons North American Industry Classi?cation System no further action New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Environmental Management System New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System National Priority List Open Public Records Act perfluoroalkyl compounds perfluoroalkyl substance(s) Integral Consulting Inc. to Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources of PPAS Gloucester County, New Jersey PF NA PFOA PF OS Poly Rez PRM PTFE RC-GCFA RCRA Shell SIC Solvay SRP TSCA USEPA WWTP per?uorononanoic acid per?uorooctanoic acid perfluorooctanesulfonic acid Polyrez Company Potomac~Raritan?Magothy aquifer polytetrafluoroethene (Teflon Rowan College?Gloucester County Fire Academy Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Shell Chemical Corporation Standard Industrial Classification Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC Site Remediation Program Toxic Substances Control Act United States Environmental Protection Agency wastewater treatment plant May 24, 2018 Integral consulting Inc. Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Report on Potential Sources Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an investigation of potential sources of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), that have been detected in groundwater in the Delaware River Basin in the vicinity of the Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC site in West Deptford, New Jersey (Solvay Plant). This report provides specific examples of evidence that there are likely multiple sources that released PFNA and other PFAS to the environment. Sampling conducted by Solvay clearly demonstrates the presence of branched isomers of PFNA in multiple samples and locations and the presence of anomalous PFAS and PFNA levels at locations not consistent with migration from the Solvay Plant. This report supplements previous information on potential sources and data submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Solvay continues to urge NJDEP to take the actions necessary to identify the sources and begin to investigate them. We believe that, together, the public information and documents we have gathered and the empirical data demonstrate conclusively the existence of other sources of PFAS releases to the environment. These additional sources need to be identified and investigated by NJDEP if it seeks to develop an effective mitigation strategy to address pathways by which PFAS is released to groundwater in New Jersey. Information on individual sites presented in this report was gathered from local, state, and federal records databases, internet searches, and a review of public data associated with specific industry codes. In addition, empirical data summarized in the Pei?uoroalkyl Compound Investigation Report submitted to NJDEP (Integral 2017a) was also considered to assess potential sources of PFAS within the Delaware River Basin. As presented in the Per?uoroolkyl Compound Investigation Report (Integral 2017a), isomer chemistry in conjunction with substantial data on groundwater flow provide important lines of evidence of other sources. In particular, the presence of branched PFNA isomers detected in groundwater samples demonstrates conclusively that there are sources of PFNA and other PFAS that are not related to Solvay. In fact, there are numerous potential sources in Gloucester County of linear and branched PFNA including facilities that manufacture and use polytetrafluoroethene (PTFE) and fluoroelastomer products (related to gasket/seal design, testing and manufacturing industries), historic aqueous film forming foam use (industrial operations, refineries and fire training areas), fluorochemical facilities (manufacturing), and petrochemical facilities (refining 1 Examples of data submitted to NJDEP that provides evidence of multiple sources of PFNA include: 1) Integral (2015b; 2) ln tegral (2015a) [See Appendix A, Figures A?l (Selected Industrial Facilities within the Delaware River Watershed), A-2 (NJPDES Surface Water Discharge Locations in the Delaware River Watershed), and A-3 (USACE Confined Disposal Facilities for Channel Deepening and Maintenance)]; and 3) integral (2017b). Integral Consulting inc. I-I Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources of PFAS Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 operations). Some of these companies/operations that were evaluated, such as Air Products, hold ?uorochemical product patents and others conducted fire prevention training events. In some cases, documentation is available confirming that was used in large quantities in response to fires and spills. Although not discussed in specific detail in this document individual municipal landfills are not identified as examples but are included on Figure 1), it should be noted that landfills and wastewater treatment plants are present in the area in which PFAS sampling has occurred and these types of facilities are well documented potential sources of PFNA and other PFAS (Benskin et al. 2012; Iarnberg et al. 2011; Lang et al. 2017). This report identifies several facilities that fit within the activities and/or industry categories above that are likely sources of PFAS compounds found in groundwater. Figure 1 includes the locations of facilities discussed as well as several other petrochemical, manufacturing, bulk storage/refining, and land?lls located proximate to the Solvay site. This report is divided into five sections. Section 2 describes how information regarding sites was collected and Section 3 includes a description of relevant information on several example sites. Sections 4 and 5 present the conclusions and a summary of reference materials used as part of the process of gathering information on potential sources of PFAS. Integral Consulting Inc. 1-2 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources of PPAS Gloucester County, New let?sey May 24, 2018 2 INFORMATION GATHERING The following presents a summary of the sources used to identify and research potential sources of PFAS proximate to the Solvay site that may have released PFAS to the environment. 2.1 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACTS Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests were submitted to local municipalities and the NIDEP for information on incident reports response to spills, fires, etc.), current and historical community right-to-know (CRTK) reports to determine if PFAS were listed or suspected from chemical descriptions provided on CRTK reports, and general facility history. Specifically, the requests were made to identify any information related to the use, storage, Spillage, and handling of materials containing PFAS. Because there have not been specific reporting requirements for PFAS, records of PFAS analytical chemistry measurements related to any of these activities were not produced. Nevertheless, other lines of evidence are available. As noted below, information that is available on reported chemicals and known or suspected manufacturing processes indicates that one or more products in fact likely contained PFAS. 2.2 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were submitted to the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for sites regulated by the EPA. In addition, a FOIA request was filed with the EPA related to publication (USEPA 2009) to obtain detailed information on trade names regarding PFAS in articles of commerce. Relevant articles of commerce include common household products that may be disposed in municipal landfills including but not limited to household carpet/fabric care products, treated apparel, textiles and upholstery, and treated food contact paper. 2.3 INTERNET-BASED INTELLIGENCE GATHERING To supplement OPRA and FOIA requests, Integral Consulting Inc. (Integral) conducted internet searches to obtain information regarding the ownership and operational history of facilities, to review aerial photographs to assess operations, and to research potential incident/spill response actions. In addition, where available, EPA facility fact sheets and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) environmental indicator status reports were also searched. Integral also conducted on~line searches using the NIDEP online DataMiner resource, which provides information on the status of facilities within the NIDEP Site Remediation Program (SRP) framework (active/closed) and permits New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination Integral Consulting Inc. 24 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Stunninry Report on Potential Sources of PEAS Gloucester County, New jersey May 24, 2018 System water allocation, air) issued to the site owner/operator to assess potential pathways for release to the environment. As discussed in the remainder of this report, there is substantial evidence from public information to identify a wide range of facilities that may be historic and/or ongoing sources of PFAS in the Delaware River watershed. 2.4 NORTH AMERICAN CLASSIFICATION INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS REVIEW The North American Industry Classi?cation System (NAICS) is a standard developed for use by Federal agencies to classify businesses for the purpose of analyzing and providing statistical data related to the US. manufacturing and business economy. The NAICS system was adopted in 1997 to replace Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) to allow comparison across North American companies. Companies select their NAICS codes based on the primary business operation and there is no official rule for the selection of the code used. In order to use the NAICS codes to assess potential use of PFAS in product manufacturing or as a process aid, an evaluation of the industry is required. Examples of industries linked to products containing PFAS include automotive, aviation, and metal plating. Based on statements made by the NIDEP at the June Site Remediation Advisory Group meeting and from responses to OPRA requests, it is clear that NIDEP has searched their New Jersey Environmental Management System (NIEMS) by NAICS code to identify potential sites in New Jersey for evaluation of PFAS. The search was limited to NAICS code 325211 (Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing) and 313320 (Fabric Coating Mills). However, as identified by the NJDEP on their Contaminants of Emerging Concern website ?Per? and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) have been used in a wide variety of industrial and commercial processes and products, including, but not limited to, electroplating and metal finishing chromium plating), vapor/mist suppression, stain repellants, electronics, aerospace, automotive, insecticide/herbicides, adhesives/varnish/pamts, as well as coatings for textiles such as fabric, rug, and paper.? As PFAS use occurs in a wide variety of manufacturing sectors a review of additional NAICS codes is useful to identify potential sites that used or manufactured products that contain PFAS. In addition to NAICS codes 325211 and 313320, the following six NAICS codes are relevant because sites would be expected to use PFAS in manufacturing or as part of firefighting efforts: NAICS . . 1 . Code Description Examp Slte 332991 Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing GGB Bearing Technology 325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing Products Integral Consulting Inc. I 2-2 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources of PPAS Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 324110 Petroleum Refineries PBF Energy 922160 Fire Protection Rowan College Gloucester County Flre Academy 423930 Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers Matteo 8.: Sons Superfund Site . . . 48 8999 All Other Suppor Act1v1t1es for Eagle Point Transportatlon Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report. on Potential Sources Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 3 EXAMPLE SITES Multiple lines of evidence indicate that the sites discussed in this section may have contributed PFAS to the watershed based on historic uses of and/or PFAS in the manufacturing process. This report provides illustrative examples and is not intended to be an exhaustive summary of every site that has contributed PFAS t0 the watershed. The examples discussed here show that PFAS, including PFNA, releases are likely not limited to the Solvay site and that a more comprehensive effort by the NJDEP to identify both current and historical activities at facilities proximate to the Solvay Plant is warranted. 3.1 FIRE TRAINING AREAS 3.1.1 Rowan College Gloucester County Fire Academy The Rowan College-Gloucester County Fire Academy (RC-GCFA) comprises approximately 18 acres located at 200 Shady Lane, East Greenwich Township (Clarksboro), NJ. The site is located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of Solvay?s Plant (Figure 1). Based on a review of historic aerial photographs, this location has been used for fire?fighting training activities for at least 20 years. The NJDEP Site ID for the facility is 382828 and the facility has been issued permits under the Air and Water Allocation programs. There is no historic or current SRP program interest number associated with the Site ID, indicating that there is no history of environmental investigation. This site is used to practice and train for fire suppression events including aircraft rescue firefighting. It is very likely that was used in training activities to address fires involving hydrocarbons and other fuels. In fact, Integral has reviewed photographs from the that show that significant amounts of firefighting foam are applied to the ground as part of its normal training operations. In addition, groundwater data from approximately 1,250 ft away from the included branched isomers of PFNA, and the presence of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), both of which are not associated with a release emanating from the Solvay site, and PFAS at this location is not consistent with groundwater migration from the Solvay facility south/southeast). The empirical evidence that use can contribute to PFNA in the environment is reported in the literature as well as investigation reports submitted to NIDEP for Department of Defense facilities located in New Jersey. For example, analytical results for samples collected from Joint Integral Consulting Inc. 3-1 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources of PFAS Gloucester County, New Iersey May 24, 2018 Base McGuire?Dix~Lakehurst (Department of the Air Force 2016) shows that PFNA is present in soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. PFNA in residual can be related to the following: - formulation method, including telomerization or electrochemical ?uorination Formulation mixtures of precursors that may degrade to PFNA as a terminal end product (Place and Field 2012); and 0 Environmental conditions that promote oxidation of A study by Houtz et a1. (2013) used an oxidative assay to determine if PFNA (and other PFAS) could be produced by in situ transformation of the fluorinated compounds present in various formulations. The study demonstrates that all four telomerization?based studied Ansul, Buckeye, Chemguard, and National Foam) produce PFNA upon oxidation. PFNA was not detected in any of the ECF formulations, such as the produced by 3M Company. Only formulations produced after 1988 were tested, so the study is inconclusive for earlier ECF- based formulations. Since can contain PFNA or compounds that can transform into PFNA, it is reasonable to assume that PFNA is associated with the use of at sites located in Gloucester County. Therefore, by extension, historical use of the at the facility likely contributed to PFNA releases to the environment. 3.1.2 Huntsman Polypropylene Corporation Facility While a facility dedicated to fire training activities is an obvious source of PFAS in the environment, attention should be called to industrial facilities where fire training activities were conducted as part of routine site operations. The former Huntsman Polypropylene Corporation (Huntsman) facility was located on a 300-acre parcel of land on Mantua Grove Road, in West Deptford Township (USEPA Facility ID NID00282602) and fire training activities were documented to be conducted at the facility (EPA RCRA El) by Huntsman and their predecessor at that location. Huntsman manufactured polypropylene at the site until 1999. Prior to Huntsman, the site was owned by Shell Chemical Corporation (Shell) who conducted similar operations at the site from 1962 to 1987. Shell conducted investigation activities under the NIDEP Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (ECRA) including soil and groundwater sampling and hot spot removal of impacted soil. Shell received an NFA from the NIDEP in 1992. Integral Consulting ll?lC. 3?2 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report. on Potential Sources of PFAS Gloucester County, New jersey May 24, 2018 As part of the site closure investigation conducted in 1999 under the Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA), successor program to ECRA, Huntsman identified various areas of concern (AOCs) for review and evaluation. This evaluation included the identification and subsequent investigation of Fire Training Area. According to the RCRA RI, the AOC consisted of a steel pan and circular pit, which was used to hold hydrocarbons that were ignited for fire suppression training. While the area was investigated and remediated for hydrocarbon releases, no mention is made with respect to investigation of or other fire suppressant agents used in the training exercises. This training area would have been used for over 30 years and warrants further evaluation, especially since the site is located adjacent to Mantua Creek and run off from fire suppression training could have easily reached surface water. In addition, from 1962 to 1972, facility chemical and sanitary sewers drained to an onsite treatment plant with ef?uent discharged directly to the Delaware River. For a period of time (1972?1975), effluent discharged to Mantua Creek. From 1975 until cessation of operations by Huntsman, ef?uent was discharged to the Gloucester County Utilities Authority (GCUA). 3.1.3 Philadelphia International Airport The Philadelphia International Airport is served by Philadelphia Fire Department Station 78 for aircraft rescue and fire?ghting (ARFF). The station has been located on airport property at the current location since 1987. According to the call signs for emergencies at the airport, three crash response vehicles (call signs - Foxtrot 6, Foxtrot 7, and Foxtrot 8) were equipped to carry 3,000 gal of water, and 420 gal of foam concentrate (Philadelphia International Airport Operational Procedure #30, June 2009). Maps included in the Operational Procedure show the location of the ARFF Training Facility and the ARFF Station adjacent to the Delaware River. Again, given the presence of an ARFF training facility and from direct responses to emergency situations, emergency response and historic training activities are likely sources of PFAS. This would not only include discharges to the surface, which is the recharge area for portions of the Potomac Raritan Magothy (PRM) aquifer system, but also to the Delaware River as a result of direct surface runoff (including discharges from storm drains). 3.2 MANUFACTURING Two sites are presented below that have indicated current or past potential use of PFAS in the manufacturing process. Integral Consulting Inc. 3~3 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Smmnary Report on Potential Sources of PFAS Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 3.2.1 GGB Bearing Technology GGB Bearing Technology (GGB) operates two facilities located at 700 Mid Atlantic Parkway (Thorofare I) and 1414 Metropolitan Avenue (Thorofare II), West Deptford (Thorofare), Gloucester County, NJ The Thorofare I facility has operated since 1976. This location produces metal?polymer bearings for use in the automotive, general industrial, and aerospace industries. The Thorofare facility has Operated at that location since 2015 and produces ?ber reinforced composite bearings, busing blocks, and high precision assemblies for the agricultural, construction, marine, and hydro and fluid power industries. Prior to relocation to a larger building in the Mid Atlantic Industrial Center, the Thorofare II operations were located at 1413 Metropolitan Avenue. Both historic and current GGB Thorofare I and Thorofare II operations are located approximately mile southeast of Solvay?s Plant (Figure 1). NJDEP DataMiner currently lists the following information with respect to regulatory programs: 0 700 Mid Atlantic Parkway (Thorofare I): Site ID 14640; SRP PI 015833 (all case numbers closed). This facility location is also regulated in the Air and Water Quality (NJPDES) Programs. 0 1413 Metropolitan Avenue: Site ID 39740; SRP PI (3000042869 (for ISRA closure of 1451; remedial action objective issued by Robert L. Carter). 0 1414 Metropolitan Avenue: There is no NJDEP Site ID associated with this address. Integral reviewed the CRTK reports submitted for the GGB sites. CRTK lists chemicals stored in various locations at the GGB Thorofare I site. CRTK documents prepared in 2016 include information that scrap Teflon (such as Material) accumulates as waste in the processing area of the Thorofare I facility. GGB discharges stormwater and industrial offgases under permits issued by the In addition, GGB also stores Teflon?containing waste materials for disposal. PFAS may have been released to soil from air dispersion and spills to the surface. PFAS also may have been released to surface water from surface runoff and/0r stormwater discharges that contact surfaces that have been impacted. by PFAS roof leaders). 3.2.2 Products The Products site (NJDEP P146026) is located at 675 Billingsport Road, Paulsboro, approximately 1.8 miles southwest of Solvay?s Plant (Figure 1). The industrial facility, which appears unchanged since 1992, occupies approximately 7.5 acres southeast of the Valero and Paulsboro refining complexes. integral Consulting Inc. 3-4 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Report on Potential Sources of PFAS Gloucester County, New jersey May 24, 2018 The CRTK reports list dozens of chemicals stored in various containers at the Products site. One product, Surfynol-DF, is listed on several CRTK forms. Surfynol?DF is the tradename of a fluorinated chemical produced by Air Products (Jarnberg et al. 2011). In addition, Air Products was awarded patents (US Patents: 5035841, 4657564, and 4020233) indicating it has long been involved in organofluorine chemical research and development. According to DataMiner records (NJDEP 2018), Products currently holds or has been historically issued a Permit (N10004278) for the discharge of treated effluent to surface water (DSW activity class code) for discharge of sanitary and industrial wastes to groundwater (DGW activity class code). Products also holds a permit for land application of residuals, presumably biosolids (activity class code RES) from wastewater treatment. PFAS may be released to groundwater or surface water from untreated or partially treated industrial wastewater discharge. Furthermore, given the nature of the industrial operations at this facility, surface application of during fire training drills or emergency response to incidents also may have contributed to the release of PFAS to the environment. In addition, groundwater samples collected from Paulsboro?s public water supply wells located approximately 1 mile downgradient from the Products Paulsboro location included PFOS and branched isomers of PFNA, indicative of a source other than Solvay. Furthermore, the well locations are downgradient from Products, and not downgradient from the Solvay Plant. 3.2.3 Other Potential Industrial/Manufacturing Sources The Colonial Seal Company is located at 1114 Crown Point Road in Westville, approximately 3 miles northeast of the Solvay facility. The company manufactures and distributes custom shaft seals, oil seals, hydraulic seals, and gaskets. According to the company website the seals are available in high performance compounds including PTFE and Teflon?. A search of the NJDEP DataMiner database for "Colonial Seal" did not provide any information regarding facility permits or other regulatory actions, which indicates that many smaller facilities may go unnoticed by the NJDEP in a search. Additionally, the former Polyrez Company (Poly Rez) facility located at 5. Columbia Avenue/Railroad Avenue in Woodbury, operated from 1950 to 1995. Historic operations varied from a production of plastics, phenolic resins, phenol formaldehyde coatings, elastomers and derivatives to, in later years under new ownership, the repackaging of halons, which are commonly used in fire suppression. Poly Rez has a long documented history of environmental incidents and discharges. This includes direct spills to surface water including a loss of 1,000 gal of phenol to Matthews Branch, a tributary to Woodbury Creek, and the discharge of sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid, to which the US. Coast Guard responded. Integral Consulting inc. 3?5 Public inspection Copy Exhibit Report on Potential Sources Gloucester County, New jersey May 24, 2018 Environmental remediation activities included the removal of contaminated soil related to an underground storage tank used for heating fuel. The site was also cited by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration related to worker safety violations. Additional operations/industries in the West Deptford area that may use PFAS and that conduct activities that are included as part of the identification of potential industries on their emerging contaminants website, but where details from intelligence gathering activities are limited, include: Lilly Industrial Coatings (West Deptford, NJ), which manufactured coatings adhesives, varnish, paints). HPS, Inc. (West Deptford, NJ), a design and testing facility for precision gaskets and seals. 0 Automatic Plating Accu?Cote (Accu-Cote Inc), a steel and aluminum electro coating, dipping, wrapping, and painting, and plating service company. 3.3 REFINING OPERATIONS AND BULK STORAGE Fire suppression training and incident response are conducted throughout the operating history of refining and bulk storage operations. Based on the operating age of and the type of fuels and petrochemicals produced and stored at these locations it is highly likely that firefighting foam is currently (for active facilities) and historically stored onsite and used in fire suppression incidents. As previously discussed in Section 3.1, there is clear empirical evidence that use can contribute to PFNA in the environment. Therefore, by extension, historical use of at the Eagle Point Refinery Complex, the PBF Energy Facility, and other refinery complexes in the region may well have contributed to PFNA discharges to the environment. Summaries of the Eagle Point Refinery and PBF Energy Facility, including documented use of where available, are presented below. 3.3.1 Eagle Point Refinery The Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals, L.P., facility, a/k/a Eagle Point Refinery comprises approximately 1,000 acres located on the Delaware River waterfront at 1250 Crown Point Road (Route West Deptford, NJ. The refinery is located approximately 3 miles east?northeast of Solvay?s Plant (Figure 1). integral Consulting Inc. .- 1. 3'6 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Report on Potential Sources of PPAS Gloucester County, New jersey May 24, 2018 The refinery is regulated within the NJDEP SRP under the following case and site identification numbers: Site ID: 15834; SRP lD: 003724 (Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals); Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP): Gary A. Angyal (Coastal Eagle Point Site Wide Remediation); and under Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment (HSWA) Permit No. NJD990753162 (USEPA 2008). Two incidents of fires at the facility were documented in the OPRA files (July 26, 1989 and July 11, 2007) and indicated that foams were used as part of fire suppression activities. In addition to the incidents reported to the NJDEP and included in the file review, the Contingency Plan prepared for the site included the storage of two foam trailers containing foam, which is a ?uoroprotein foam concentrate used to extinguish fires in hydrocarbon fuels. PFAS would be released to the surface from direct application of during training and response activities (Oland 2008). This release would impact soil, groundwater, and potentially direct discharge to surface water unless proper spill control measures are in place to prevent this scenario from occurring placement of berms to contain and prevent migration to stormwater features or direct discharge to surface water) 2017). In addition, groundwater samples collected from public water supply wells for the City of Woodbury located approximately 1.5 miles downgradient of the Eagle Point Facility included PFOS and branched isomers of PFNA, indicative of a source other than Solvay. These wells are not downgradient from the Solvay Plant. 3.3.2 PBF Energy The PBF Facility comprises over 650 acres located on the Delaware River waterfront within Greenwich Township, NJ. PBF is located approximately 2 miles southwest of Solvay?s Plant (Figure 1). The re?nery has been in operation for over 60 years. In addition to refining and manufacturing operations, the site includes bulk storage tanks, pipelines, railways, and port areas for bulk delivery and product shipment (PBF 2015). The PBF Refinery is regulated within the NJDEP SRP under the following case and site identification numbers: Site ID: 14376; SRP ID: 157002; LSRP: Nicholas DeRose. During February 2012, following the release of more than 6 million gal of fuel oil due to a catastrophic tank failure, foam was applied for odor control. Photographs of the incident including foam application were released through news reports. PBF is permitted to discharge treated industrial wastewater to the Delaware River. PBF is also permitted to discharge stormwater under a NIPDES permit. PFAS would be released to the surface from direct application of during training and response activities. This release would impact soil, groundwater, and potentially direct discharge to surface water (unless proper spill control measures are in place to prevent such discharges). li'i't'egml Consulting Inc. 3-7 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources of PFAS Gloucester County, New jersey May 24, 2018 In addition, groundwater samples collected from Paulsboro?s public water supply wells located approximately of a mile downgradient from the PBF Energy Facility included PFOS and branched isomers of PFNA, indicative of a source other than Solvay. These wells are not located downgra dient of the Solvay Plant. Eagle Point Refinery and PBF Energy facilities are highlighted in this report as examples of local storage and fining operations that likely contributed PFAS, including PFNA, to the watershed. There are numerous other storage or refining operations in the West Deptford/ Paulsboro area, including: 0 Colonial Pipeline Company and Gulf Oil LP, which operate transfer/storage terminals in West De ptford; Axeon Specialty Product LLC (located along Mantua Creek), which operates an asphalt refinery in Paulsboro; and - British Petroleum (BP), which operated a terminal facility along Mantua Creek. 3.4 OTHER SITES 3.4.1 Matteo Sons Superfund Site The Matteo Sons Superfund Site (Matteo) is located at 1708 US Highway 130 (Crown Point Road) in West Deptford, Gloucester County, (Figure 1), approximately 2.3 miles northeast of the Solvay facility. The approximately 82 acre property was purchased by the Matteo family in 1947 and includes a scrapyard and an open field/waste disposal area. The Matteo family operated an unregistered landfill, junkyard and metals recycling at the site since 1961 and an active incinerator was identified at the site in 1968. Among other violations, inspections from the NIDEP identified lead sweating, landfilling, and household wastes along Hessian Run (a Delaware River tributary adjacent to the landfill). Matteo was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 2006 by EPA Region 2: EPA ID: EPA Remedial Project Managers: Lawrence Granite and Thomas Dobinson (USEPA 2006). The Matteo site operated as a landfill until 1984 and subsequent operations included a junkyard and metals recycling facility. A portion of the property is currently used for active metal salvaging. These types of operations are known to potentially contribute releases of PFAS, including PFNA, and other compounds to groundwater: 0 Landfills Numerous studies have demonstrated that landfill leachate can be an ongoing source of PFAS, including PFNA, loadings to watersheds (see Section 3.4.2). Integral Consulting Inc. 3-8 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources Gloucester County, New [ersey May 24, 2018 0 Chrome plating The use of products containing PFNA and other PFAS for chrome plating operations was one of the exemptions from the Significant New Use Rules enacted by EPA. Therefore; under this exemption discharges from facilities that use or recycle these materials can contribute PFAS to the environment without documentation of their use under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). For example, the source of high concentrations of PFOS in a WWTP was traced back to a large chrome plating operation that used a surfactant product and discharged to the WWTP (Kelly and Solem 2007). Pathways for release of PFAS to the environment include soil and groundwater impacts associated with disposal and staging of scrap metals; and landfill leachate (groundwater and surface water pathWay) from the improper disposal of household wastes along Hessian Run. 3.4.2 Landfills Landfills are a likely source of PFAS, including PFNA, to both surface water and groundwater (OECD 2002; Kallenborn et al. 2004; Prevedourous et al. 2008; Woldegiorgis et al. 2006; Clara et a1. 2008; Busch et al. 2010; Eggen et al. 2010; Huset et al. 2011; Benskin et al. 2012; Li et a1. 2012; Clark et al. 2015; Lang et al. 2017). Depending on the type of landfill, PFAS may enter the waste stream through consumer products, industrial wastes, and sludge from WWTP operations. Leachate from unlined landfills may percolate into underlying groundwater or discharge into surface waterways. Lined, engineered landfills may also route leachate through an onsite treatment system or through a WWTP, both of which may not effectively remove PFAS. Many landfills are present within the Delaware River watershed. An online search was conducted using the NJDEP landfill database NIDEP 2015), DataMiner NJDEP 2018), USEPA Envirofacts database USEPA 2018), and a dataset of municipal waste operations available from the Department of Environmental Protection environmental mapping tool eMapPA PADEP 2015). These sources provide information on approximately 150 landfills located within a 20 mile radius of the Solvay Plant. Given the demonstrated association of PFNA to land?ll leachates and the presence of numerous NFL-listed and other landfills across the watershed, it is reasonable to assume that many of the landfills are sources of PFNA to the Delaware River and the environment in and near Gloucester County. integral Consulting inc. - 3?9 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Potential Sources Gloucester County, New Iersey May 24, 2018 4 CONCLUSIONS The main objective of this report was to present information on potential sources of PFAS that we obtained from public sources, including online resources. There are a variety of types of industries located proximate to the Solvay site that may be sources of PFAS releases to the environment. This research identified several users of PFAS in manufacturing GGB), an active user of during fire training activities and incidents where was applied to mitigate odor or suppress fire the tank failure at PBF Energy and the tank explosion at the Eagle Point Refinery). This report is not intended to serve as an exhaustive list of potential sources, but rather to demonstrate that there are a variety of facilities and industries, as shown on Figure 1, located proximate to the Solvay Plant that should be further evaluated by the NJDEP as potential sources of PFAS to the environment. It appears that, to date, NJDEP has focused its information gathering efforts on only two NAICS codes. NJDEP should consider, at minimum, the facilities identified in this summary report and, more generally, should consider a wider set of activities and NAICS codes. The data submitted to NJDEP and available from public sources, including online resources, provide compelling evidence that multiple sources of PFNA and other PFAS exist in the vicinity of the Solvay Plant. NJDEP cannot hope to Lmderstand and address the presence of PFAS in the environment without taking steps to identify and investigate other potential sources. Integral Consulting Inc. Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Sunni-inn; Report on Potential Sources Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 5 REFERENCES Benskin, B. Li, MC. Ikonomou, Grace, and LY. Li. 2012. Per? and polyfluoroalkyl substances in landfill leachate: Patterns, time trends, and sources. Environ. Sci. Tecli'nol. Busch, I, L. Ahrens, R. Sturm, and R. Ebinghaus. 2010. Poly?uoroalkyl compounds in landfill leachates. Environ. Pollnt. 158:1467?1471. Clara, M., S. Scharf, 5. Weiss, 0. Gans, and C. Scheffknecht. 2008. Emissions of perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) from point sources-identification of relevant branches. Water Sci. Teclinol. Clark, 13.0., T. Anumol, M. Barlaz, and SA. Snyder. 2015. Investigating land?ll leachate as a source of trace organic pollutants. Chemospliere. 127:269?275. Department of the Air Force. 2016. Memorandum from Curtis Frye, P.E., Remediation Program Manager to Doug Pocze, USEPA Region 2 Remedial Project Manager, providing validated sample results for PFCs at Ioint Base November 28. Accessed on October 10, 2017. Eggen, T., M. Moeder, and A. Arukwe. 2010. Municipal landfill leachates: A significant source for new and emerging pollutants. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2017. Fact sheet on fire fighting agents. Available at: Accessed on October 12, 2017. Fire Fighting Foam Coalition, Arlington, VA. I-Ioutz, E.F., C.P. Higgins, Field, and D.L. Sedlak. 2013. Persistence of per?uoroalkyl acid precursors in groundwater and soil. Environ. Sci. Teclinol. 47:8187?8195. Huset, C.A., M.A. Barlaz, D.F. Barofsky, and LA. Field. 2011. Quantitative determination of ?uorochemicals in municipal landfill leachates. Cliemosphere. Integral. 2015a. Delaware River surface water and sediment data report. Samples collected I August 19?28, 2014. Integral Consulting Inc. March 3. Integral. 2015b. Summary Report. Findings of PFC investigation conducted by Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC, West Deptford, NJ. Integral Consulting Inc. March 3. Integral. 2017a. Perfluoroalkyl compound investigation report. Integral Consulting Inc. integral Consulting inc. 5-1 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Summary Report on Pater-trial Sources of PFAS Gloucester County, New Jersey May 24, 2018 Integral. 2017b. Personal communication (letter to USEPA Region 2, with copies to NJDEP, dated March 29, 2017, regarding PFAS detected at Matteo 8: Sons Superfund Site in New Jersey). Integral Consulting Inc. Jarnberg, U., K. B. van Bavel, and A. Karrman. 2011. Per?uoroalkylated acids and related compounds (PFAS) in the Swedish environment. Accessed on April 28, 2015. Kallenborn, R., U. Berger, and U. Jarnberg. 2004. Perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) in the Nordic environment. TemaNord 2004:552. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. 112 pp. Kelly, J., and L. Solem. 2007. Identification of a major source of per?uorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) at a wastewater treatment plant in Brainerd, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Health, MN. Lang, J.R., B. Allred, J. Field, J. Levis, and M. Barlaz. 2017. National estimate of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) release to U.S. municipal landfill leachate. Environ. Sci. Teclmol. 51:2197-2205. Li, 13., MN. Dannon-Schaffer, L.Y. Li, M.G. Ilconomou, and JR. Grace. 2012. Occurrence of PFCs and PBDEs in landfill leachates from across Canada. Water Air Soil Pollut. 223:3365-3372. NJDEP. 2015. New Jersey Land?ll List, last updated December, 2014. Accessed on March 20, 2015. Last updated on January 23, 2015. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, Trenton, NJ. December. NJDEP. 2018. NJDEP DataMiner. Accessed May 2018. Last updated on March 17, 2016. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. OECD. 2002. Hazard assessment of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts. JT00135607. Available at: Organisation for Economic Co?operation and Development, Environment Directorate. 362 pp. November 21. Oland, J. 2008. Fire protection engineer: Atmospheric storage tank fire protection (presentation for Sunoco dated September 19, 2008). Jeffrey Oland, P.E. Available at: Integral Consulting hic. 5-2 Public inspection Copy Exhibit Report on Potential Sources Gloucester County, New jersey May 24, 2 018 PADEP. 2015. eMapPA Municipal Waste Operation Dataset. Accessed on March 20, 2015. Department of Environmental Protection, Geospatial Data Center, Harrisburg, PA. PBF Energy. SEC Form filing for year ending 2015. Available at: PBF Energy, LLC. Place, and Field. 2012. Identification of novel ?uorochemicals in aqueous film-forming foams used by the US Military. Environ. Sci. Teclmol. Prevedourous, K., I.T. Consins, R.C. Buck, and SH. Korzeniowski. 2006. Sources, fate, and transport of per?uorocarboxylates. Environ. Sci. Techno). USEPA. 2006. Matteo Sons Superfund Site National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. US Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA. 2008. Sunoco Incorporated Eagle Point Refinery, Documentation of environmental indicator determination, Sunoco, Inc. Eagle Point Facility. Available at: US. Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA. 2009. Per?uororcarboxylic acid content in 116 articles of commerce. 09/033. US. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. USEPA. 2018. Envirofacts database. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Woldegiorgis, A., J. Anderson, M. Remberger, L. Kaj, Y. Ekheden, L. Blom, E. Brorstrom- Lund?n, A. Borgen, C. Dye, and M. Schlabach. 2006. Results from the National Swedish Screening Programme 2005. Subreport 3: Perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS). IVL Report B1698. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd., Stockholm, Sweden. 48 pp. November 20. Etegml-Consulting inc. I 5-3 FIGURES Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Public Inspection Copy Exhibit ?Rnlvuv Ynlk?ml'?mdudm ?eum- Rnp?ff-F. mm 1 T?Ilm anr Lo: and ?'ll'nl mt! . ..-. . - unruly-nu I .rlkghadelphia Naval Yard l'l' Sunoco Eagle Point Re?nery - I . . -. humPDPI Philadelphia ARFF II Park CDF Matteo 8. Sons a_ Superfund Sile Delaware River WoodburyI . - City Land?ll Axeon Specially GCUA emProducts i? - Greenwich . . HPS lno. TWP Land?ll .4 . I . I .r(368 Bea cg, Shell?-lunlsman - Technologyg '1 I- 7' ww- - . Thoro?fare rm nu (?on - BoetikaAP . Lilly . ?irt/.9" - . -. . Industrial I -- . -I.I Coatings . In. a ?Lif-f If - "Inc?! Rowan College- . Inrnm-m GloucesterCounly .- ,5 Fire Academy - - UrduHelen . rI Kramer 'l rj Land?ll -- II . I 1 "am? . . "a -. Potenlial Third Party Location . - I Potential Third Party Location Discussed in Delall in Report I . Solvay Property.r It mun NotesARFF aircralt rescue and ?re?ghting IIJ .. . CDF con?ned disposal facility I . GCUA Gloucester County Utilities Authority PWS =putallowater supply I "no . TWP township .. 1- .r I 3. r: Regional groundwater flow in New Jersey is to the southeast. away . .. - -. lrom the Delaware River. II. EasernapSoLuoe:E5rl World TnpoMap [d1 Figure 1. . Potential Third Party Location Map Mr. Shawn LaTourette A . Exhibit Solvay?s Response to Request for Information Paragraph 68 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit -- Solvay Response to information Request at Paragraph 68 of the Directive Solvay hereby responds to the Information Request at Paragraph 68 of the Directive, as to historic uses of PFNA, PFOA and PFOS at Solvay?s West Deptford Facility. Each Respondent, as applicable, within 21 days of receipt of this Directive, shall provide the following information to the Department regarding its historic use of PFNA, PFOA and/or PFOS in New Jersey: a. identify all PFNA, PFOA and PFOS manufactured, supplied, transported, stored, used, treated, disposed, and/or discharged in New Jersey; Solvay?s Response: This request calls for information previously provided to DEP. Solvay did not manufacture PFNA, PFOA or PFOS in New Jersey. Solvay used Surflon?, which contains ammonium perfluorononanoate (PFNA) from late 1990 through 2010, and sodium perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) from 1995 through 2003, as processing aids in its manufacturing operations at 10 Leonard Lane, West Deptford, NJ ("West Deptford Facility"). Solvay has never used PFOS at the West Deptford Facility. in November 2013, Solvay, through its Licensed Site Remediation Professional, Thomas R. Buggey of Roux Associates, submitted to DEP information that, among other things, identified the products used at the West Deptford Facility that contained PFNA and PFOA. See the November 15, 2013 letter from Thomas R. Buggey, LSRP to Erica Bergman-in the DEP Bureau of Case Management and the attached West Deptford Plant PFC Usage and Emissions spreadsheet ("November 2013 Submission?). b. Identify the nature, extent, source and location of discharges of PFNA, PFOA and PFOS into the waters of the State; Solvay?s Response: During the period of Solvay?s operation of the West Deptford Facility, Solvay did not discharge process waste water containing PFNA or PFOA into the "waters of the State,? as that phrase is defined in the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10A?3t and the regulations thereunder including at N.J.A.C. Note that the masses provided in the ?Water? columns in the West Deptford Plant PFC Usage and Emissions spreadsheet in the November 2013 Submission represent estimates of the masses emitted in the process waste water. They do not represent discharges to the ?waters of the State.? In addition, since September 2013, Solvay has conducted an extensive investigation of the presence of these substances in the environment in the area in which the West Deptford Facility is located under the oversight of Solvay?s LSRP and DEP. A summary table of the work plans and data reports related to this investigation is attached as Exhibit A to Solvay?s Response to the Directive. See Table 1. PFAS investigation Work Plans and Reports Prepared by Solvay and Submitted to NJDEP since 2013. The results of that work have been and will continue to be submitted to DEP, and that work is continuing. Public Inspection Copy c. Identify the nature, extent, source and location of emissions of PFNA, PFOA and PFOS into air; Solvay?s Response: This request calls for information previously provided to DEP. See the November 2013 Submission. In addition, since September 2013, Solvay has conducted an extensive investigation of the presence of these substances in the environment in the area in which its plant is located under the oversight of Solvay?s LSRP and DEP. A summary table of the work plans and data reports related to this investigation is attached as Exhibit A to Solvay?s Response to the Directive. See, Table 1. PFAS Investigation Work Plans and Reports Prepared by Solvay and Submitted to NJDEP since 2013. The results of that work have been and will continue to be submitted to DEP, and that work is continuing. Beginning in September 2013, Solvay also initiated the development of an air dispersion model to understand historical emissions of perfluoroalkyl compounds from the West Deptford Facility. This model was developed with significant input and comments from both DEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. See Exhibit to Solvay?s Response to the Directive, Table 1. Key Agency Communications on Air Modeling for the PFAS investigation at West Deptford, NJ, 2013 to 2015; Exhibit F.1 to Solvay?s Response to the Directive, Copies of Key Air Modeling Communications. The results of the model were submitted to DEP in March 2015. Air Modeling Reportfor Perfluoroalkyl Compounds, March 3, 2015, Integral Consulting, Inc. The key conclusions of the report were that no significant amount of PFNA or PFOA emitted from Solvay operations would have been deposited beyond the West Deptford Facility property boundary and that depositions decreased significantly with distance from the facility. Solvay supplemented that report with information requested by DEP in September 2015, and has received no further input or comments from DEP on the results of that air dispersion modeling. d. if the respondent is not the manufacturer, supplier, or transporter of PFNA, PFOA and PFOS, identify any such manufacturer, supplier or transporter; and Soivay?s Response: This request calls for information previously provided to DEP. Solvay purchased Surflon? from Asahi Glass and purchased sodium perfluorooctanoate from 3M. e. the respondent?s ability to pay for, or perform, the clean-up and removal of PFNA, PFOA and PFOS from New Jersey?s environment, and every ?change of ownership? (as defined in N.J.5.A. section 13: involving Respondents? current or former sites in New Jersey. Solvay?s Response: This request calls for information previously provided to DEP. I As to Solvay?s ability to pay for the investigation and remediation associated with the West Deptford Facility, Solvay has established and maintained a remediation funding source for this site since January 2017. Solvay updates this funding source as required by NJAC Public Inspection Copy 0 As to changes in ownership, this request calls for information previously provided to DEP by Solvay and prior owners of the plant through ECRA and processes. 0 in 1985, Pennwait Corporation designed and built the current polyvinylidene fluoride plant in West Deptford, New Jersey. Pennwalt became Atochem North America, lnc. On October 31, 1990, Ausimont USA, Inc. purchased the plant from Atochem. it is Solvay?s understanding that Arkema lnc. is a successor to liabilities of Pennwait/Atochem for the West Deptford plant. 0 ln 2002, Solvay acquired Ausimont USA, Inc. On January 1, 2003, Ausimont USA, Inc. changed its name to Solvay Solexis. Solvay Solexis operated the plant until it was merged into Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC in 2012. Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC has operated the plant since 2012. The ISRA Case #5 for the plant are: E89231, E90205, 20020018. Mr. Shawn LaTourette Exhibit Redacted as Confidential Business Information Pursuant to N.J.A.C. the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, and Case Law. Solvay?s Response to Request for Information Paragraph 69 Mr. Shawn LaTourette A . Exhibit List of POETS Installed by NJDEP to Address PFNA Potentially Attributable to the West Deptford Facility Per LSRP Public Inspection Copy Exhibit List of POETs Installed by NJDEP to Address PFNA Potentially Attributable to the West Deptford Facility Per LSRP West Deptford Township, Gloucester County 1) Block 351, Lot 8.03, 963 Kings Highway; and 2) Block 351, Lot 8.01, 965 Kings Highway; and 3) Block 346.07, Lot 21.02, 643 Mantua Grove Road; and 4) Block 350.03, Lot 45, 1043 Kings Highway; and 5) Block 346.07, Lot 21.01, 619 Mantua Grove Road; and 6) Block 353, Lot 1.03, 350-352 Parkville Station Road; and 7) Block 354, Lot 1.03, 1098 Jessup Road. Mr. Shawn LaTourette A "l 19 Exhibit Table 1. Key Agency Communications on Air Modeling for the PFAS Investigation at West Deptford, NJ, 2013 to 2015 And Exhibit F.1 Copies of Key Air Modeling Communications Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Tabie 1. Key Agency Communications on Air Modeling for the PFAS investigation at West Deptford, NJ, 2013 to 2015. Retevant Exhibit in this Item Date Participants Description of Communication Letter 1 8~Oct-13 NJDEP1 and Solvayz case manageri?rica Bergman, identifies NJDEP point of Exhibit Item 1 contact and eXpert on air modeling, Greg John, who Soivay shoutd contact for guidance. 2 17-Oct-13 NJDEP3 and Integral" In a phone catt with Sotvay's air modeling expert at Integral, NJDEP verbal conveys expectations for the goals and iechnicai approach to PFAS air communication modeling and shares an example of PFAS air modeiing conducted by NJDEP at another facility. NJDEP its preferences for: 1) model software 2) meteorologicai data source; 3) example inputs and 4) mode! output. 3 15-Nov-13 and Solvayz Soivay submits Air Modeling Plan as part of the PFAS project By reference in workptan. Exhibit A, Table 1 4 7?Jan-14 and lntegral? NJDEP provides meteorological file to use for modeling using Exhibit F.t, Item 4 AERMOD. 5 10-Mar-14 NJDEP3 and Integral? Integrai provides NJDEP with proposed complete set of inputs for Exhibit Fit, Items 5 modeling using AERMOD. 6 6 11-Mar-14 NJDEP3 and integrai? NJDEP recommends additionai modeling run scenarios to address Exhibit F.1, items 5 cumulative sources. 6 7 13-Mar-14 NJDEP3 and Integrai? NJDEP and integrai discuss additionai scenarios after which Solvay verbal submits draft air modeling report. communication 8 31-Mar~i4 and Sotvayz NJDEP coordinates review with USEPA and provides comments from Exhibit F.1, Item 8 USEPA on air modeling report submitted by Sotvay. 9 9~Apr?t4 and Soivay2 Soivay provides NJDEP with a reSponse to comments. Exhibit F.1, item 9 10 10?Apr?t4 NJDEP1 and Solvayg NJDEP indicates that USEPA finds 3 of 4 responses are adequate, Exhibit F.1, Item 10 and requests additional modeiing to address simultaneous emissions from multiple point sources. 63-May-14 NJDEP3 and tntegral? integrai provides NJDEP with additionai input iites and results of Exhibit F.1, Item 11 modeling to address comments received. 12 13-Jun?14 and Solvayz NJDEP provides combined comments from NJDEP and USEPA, Exhibit F.1, Item 12 indicating partiai fulfillment of Nov 2013 workpian. No deficiencies in approach are noted; but additional information is requested for reporting. 13 13-Jul-14 NJDEP3 and tntegrai? Integral coordinates teleconference with NJDEP to discuss proposed Exhibit F.t, Item 13 approach to address comments. 14 13-Mar-15 and 301m)? Sotvay submits PFAS investigation report that includes air modeling By reference in approach and findings. Exhibit A, Tabie ?i 15 10-Jun-15 NJDEP1 and Soivayz NJDEP and Soivay meet to discuss PFAS investigation report verbal including air modeiing approach and findings. NJDEP expresses communication overalt agreement with air modeling methodoiogy and conclusions, and indicates that minor comments are forthcoming. 16 31-Jui-15 NJDEP5 and Solvayz NJDEP provides written comments to Soivay on PFAS investigation Exhibit F.1, item 16 report, including air modeiing. NJDEP questions choice of modei, scenarios evatuated, and inputs and assumptions that were applied. 17 22-Sep-15 NJDEP1 and Solvaya Solvay provides a response to comments received on July 31, 2015. Exhibit F.1, Item 17 mot-bu .. Erica Bergman, NJDEP Bureau of Case Management. Mitch Gertz, Soivay Specialty Poiymers, HSE Compliance Manager Greg John, NJDEP Division of Air Quality, Bureau of Technical Services Jim Lape, Integral Consulting, Senior Science Advisor - on behalf of Soivay. Steve Maybury, NJDEP Chief of Bureau of Case Management. Chuck Jones, Solvay, West Deptford Site Manager. Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 item 1 From: Bergman, Erica Date: Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:43 PM Subject: Soivay - 9/6/13 meeting powepoint To: "Gertz, Mitcheli Mitch, Thanks for meeting with the Department to discuss the Solvay and investigation of PFNA. We appreciate Solvay working cooperatively with the Department and EPA on this issue. I don't have the public suppiy weil iocation or data iist from Safe Drinking Water yet, i forward when i receive it. Regarding air modeling, I mentioned that DEP has an expert that you can contact for guidance. {told him that Solvay or a representative may be contacting him. His name is Greg John and he's in the Division of Air Quality, Bureau of Technical Services. 609-633?1106 or Grngohn@dep.state.nj.us. Can you provide me with an electronic c0py of your powerpoint presentation used at our 9/6/13 meeting? I'd like to share the powerpoint with others at DEP that attended the meeting, so piease redact anything that Soivay finds necessary and state ?confidential proprietary" on the emaii if required. thanks, Erica Erica Bergman NJDEP - Bureau of Case Management 401 E. State Street - Mail Code 40105 PO. Box 420 Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 Erica.bergman@dep.state.nj.us 609?292-7406 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 Item 4 From: John, Greg Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 12:03 PM To: Jim Lape Subject: RE: Solyay Air Modeling 2008 -2012 Philadeiphia met data for AERMOD version 12345. Greg John Research Scientist From: Jim Lape Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:59 AM To: John, Greg Cc: mitcheli.oertz@solvav.com: Philip Goodrum; S. Xiah Kragie Subject: RE: Solvay Air Modeling Thanks Greg. How about 10:30 am this Friday Jim James Lape I Senior Science Advisor Integral Consulting Inc. I 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 330 I Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: 410.573.1982, ext. 13 I Cell1430.097.7006 I Fax: 410.573.9746 HEALTH ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY SUSTAINABILITY From: John, Greg Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:50 AM To: Jim Lape Cc: mitcheli.gertz@solvay.com; Philip Goodrum; S. Xiah Kragie Subject: RE: Solvay Air Modeling I have some meetings on Thursday; anytime Friday is betterfor me.. Greg John Research Scientist (609) 633-1106 From: Jim Lape Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42 AM To: John, Greg Cc: mitchell.oertz@solvay.com: Philip Goodrum; S. Xiah Kragie Subject: Soivay Air Modeling Hi Greg: Would you have time later this week to talk about the air modeling for the Solvay West Deptford facility? We now have all relevant data in hand, with the exception of the met data. We would like to Public Inspection Copy Exhibit Item 4 talk about the relevance and avaiiability of the met data mentioned in the NJDEP air modeling guidance, and a review process for the model input files. i am tied up untii Wednesday of this week. Thursday and Friday are wide open between 9:30 am and 3:30 pm. Let me know if any of those times work for you. Thanks Jim James Lape Senior Science Advisor Integrai Consulting Inc. I 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 330 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: 410.573.1982, ext. 13 I Cell: 410.897.7006 1 Fax: 410.573.9746 HEALTH ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY SUSTNNABIIJTY Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 items 5 and 6 From: John, Greg Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:08 PM To: Jim Lape Cc: Bergman, Erica 'azzam.nidal@epa.gov' mitchell.gertz@solvay.com; Goodrum S. Xiah Kragie Subject: RE: AERMOD Input Files for Soivay PFC Air Emission Modeling Jim: While I appreciate that each PFC source was modeled discretely to characterize the individual dispersion and deposition resuits for each, i wouid have iiked to aiso see a modeiing run with the cumulative impacts of all four PFC emission sources. Can you provide the files .SUM, .TAB, .50) used to create the input fiies? Greg John Research Scientist (609) 633-1106 From: Jim Lape Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:26 PM To: John, Greg Cc: Bergman, Erica; mitchell.qertz@soivav.com: Philip Goodrum; Jim Lape; S. Xiah Kragie Subject: AERMOD Input Files for Solvay PFC Air Emission Modeiing Greg: Attached are the input files for modeling air emissions of perfluoroaikyl compounds (PFCs) from the Solvay Specialty Poiymers USA, LLC (Solvay) West Deptford, New Jersey, Piant (Site) iocated at 10 Leonard Lane in West Deptford Township, Gioucester County, New Jersey. The focus of the air modeiing is certain PFCs used historically in manufacturing operations at the Site. The primary objective of the air modeiing is to provide estimates of the spatiai distribution of concentrations in air and particle deposition to surfaces in the areas surrounding the Site. The results wili be used to refine the conceptual site model for PFC fate and transport, and to aid in decisions regarding future environmental sampiing. The modeiing will use estimated historic air emissions forthe period from 1991 to 2010. We are using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AERMOD (Vers. 13350) to conduct the air modeiing for the four stacks of interest at the Site. The 2008 to 2012 meteorological dataset for Philadeiphia International Airport provided by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is being used for this evaluation. As discussed in the Air Modeling Plan submitted to NJDEP as Appendix of the Per?uorinated Compounds Work Plan (November 15, 2013) the historic PFC air emission sources have been grouped as either primary or secondary stack sources. Two spray dryer stacks, PT3001 and PT3011, were identified as the primary PFC sources given they represent the most continuous source of PFC emission to the atmosphere. The secondary sources are stacks that vent tanks along the batch manufacturing process. Emissions from the secondary stacks, PT3002 and PT3004, are intermittent and are released at significantly lower flow rates than from the spray dryer vents. Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 items 5 and 6 Each of the four stacks was modeled discretely in order to characterize the individuai dispersion and deposition patterns. A unit emission rate was used to allow for scaling the model results with the annual estimates of PFC air emissions. As noted in the Air Modeling Plan, each spray dryer vented one of two different PFC surfactants Ii.e., Surflon or sodium perfluorooctanoate while the secondary stacks vented both, depending on the type of batch be processed at any given time. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to address the contribution each stack could have made to the annual facility~wide PFC air emissions. A table providing the model input stack parameters and the nature of the source and historic emissions is also attached to this email. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding these files. Thanks Jim James Lape I Senior Science Advisor Integrai Consulting Inc. I 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 330 I Annapoiis, MD 21401 Tel: 410.573.1982, ext. 13 I Cell: 410.897.7006 I Fax: 410.573.9746 HEALTH ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 Item 8 From: "Bergman, Erica" Date: March 31, 2014 at 2:36:24 PM EDT To: ?Gertz, Mitchell Cc: "Park, Andy Subject: Solvay - EPA comments on air input parameters Mitch, EPA air program reviewed the air deposition input parameters and have the following comments: . The AERMOD dispersion model was used in this case which is acceptable. NJDEP ran the AERMET preprocessor and provided the facility with the preprocessed meteorological data that is input to AERMOD. The meteorological data was measured at the Nationai Weather Station in Phiiadeiphia between 1990 to 1994 with concurrent upper air data from Atlantic City and Brookhaven. The time frame and iocation of the measurements are acceptable. However. it would be advisable to run the model and process the data using the most current version and AERMET. it is not clear which version was used in this case. . The workplan notes that some of the meteorological parameters that are necessary for deposition modeling (such as precipitation and retative humidity) may be missing from the NJDEP data set. if so. the facility will obtain the additional data and inciude it in the final report. Again, this is acceptable but AERMET wiil need to be rerun using the fuli data set. . The model plan assumes that ali the terrain in the area is flat. If the terrain in the area of impact is below stack height then this may be a reasonable assumption. But if the terrain height exceeds the stack height then the AERMAP preprocessor should also be run using the actual terrain features. AERMOD wouid then need the actual base eievation of the emission points and of the anemometer. These must be inputted into the model (preferably in meters). Thereceptor grid would also need to reflect the actuai ground eievation. . There were separate input files for each emission point. it wouid be preferabie to include all the emission points into a single input fiie so that the cumulative impacts may be better assessed. Please let us know if you have any questions, Erica Bergman NJDEP Bureau of Case Management 401 E. State Street - Mail Code 401-05 PO. Box 420 Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 erica.bergman@dep.state.nj.us 609?292-7406 Public Inspection Copy Integral Consulting Inc. 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway :2 mnsullmq Suite 330 I Annapolis, MD 21401 telephone: 410.573.1982 facsimile: 410.573.9746 MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Gertz, Solvay Specialty Polymers LLC From: Jim Lape, Integral Consulting Inc. Date: April 8, 2014 Subject: Response to Comments from USEPA on Air Modeling Protocol for Airborne Perfluoroalkyl Emissions Project No.: This memorandum provides responses to four comments from the NJDEP regarding the air modeling proposed for historic airborne emissions of perfluoroalkyl compounds from the Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, (Solvay) LLC facility in West Deptford, New Jersey. The comments were conveyed in an email from Erica Bergman of NJDEP to you on March 31, 2014. We have reproduced the comments below. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM USEPA Comment #1 The AERMOD dispersion model was used in this case which is acceptable. NJDEP ran the AERMET preprocessor and provided the facility with the preprocessed meteorological data that is input to AERMOD. The meteorological data was measured at the National Weather Station in Philadelphia between 1990 to 1994 with concurrent upper air data from Atlantic City and Brookhaven. The time frame and location of the measurements are acceptable. However, it would be advisable to run the model and process the data using the most current version and AERMET. It is not clear which version was used in this case. Response #1 The air modeling is being conducted using version 13350 of AERMOD, which is the most current version. We are using meteorological data provided by Greg John of NJDEP. The data were compiled for the period from 2008 to 2012 from surface observations at the National Weather Service (NWS) Station in Philadelphia, PA, and concurrent upper air data from the NWS Station in Sterling, VA. The data were processed using AERMET version 12345, which is compatible with AERMOD version 13350. Public Inspection COpy Response to Comments from USEPA on Air Modeling Input Parameters April 8, 2014 Page 2 of 3 Comment #2 The workplan notes that some of the meteorological parameters that are necessary for deposition modeling (such as precipitation and relative humidity) may be missing from the NIDEP data set. If so, the facility will obtain the additional data and include it in the final report. Again, this is acceptable but AERME will need to be rerun using the full data set. Response #2 The meteorological data provided by NJDEP for this modeling effort contained all necessary parameters to allow for wet and dry particle deposition modeling; therefore, no additional data are required after all. Comment #3 - The model plan assumes that all the terrain in the area is ?at. If the terrain in the area of impact is below stack height then this may be a reasonable assumption. But if the terrain height exceeds the stack height then the AERMAP preprocessor should also be run using the actual terrain features. AERMOD would then need the actual base elevation of the emission points and of the anemometer. These must be inputted into the model (preferably in meters). The receptor grid would also need to re?ect the actual ground elevation. Response #3 There are no locations within the model domain where the terrain elevations exceed the stack height for the primary stack sources. Additionally, the vast majority of the terrain within the model domain is below the shortest of the secondary stack sources. The terrain to the southeast of the air emission sources gently rises and reaches an elevation equal to or greater to the height of the secondary stack sources at a distance of 2 miles However, the maximum ground-level air concentrations in this direction for emissions from the secondary sources occur more than 1.5 miles upstream of this location. In summary, the primary stack sources, which are the focus of this modeling exercise, are above the maximum terrain elevation throughout the model domain, and the effects of terrain on air concentrations for the secondary sources will be negligible in areas of elevated terrain. Accordingly, the model runs will reflect the assumption as specified in the Work Plan. Comment #4 There were separate input files for each emission point. It would be preferable to include all the emission points into a single input file so that the cumulative impacts may be better assessed. Response #4 Source-specific air emission data were not available for the site; therefore, each of the relevant stacks were modeled discreetly using a unit emission rate to provide an understanding of the relative dispersion and deposition characteristics for each source. In the absence of source-specific emissions data, these individual results, combined with an understanding of the nature of the processes leading to the airborne emissions, are fundamental to developing a reliable conceptualization of the spatial distribution of Integral Consulting Inc. Public Inspection Copy Response to Comments from USEPA on Air Modeling Input Parameters April 8, 2014 Page 3 of 3 airborne emissions. The final air modeling report will provide details on additional air modeling conducted as part of the sensitivity and uncertainty analysis performed for this project to evaluate the potential cumulative effect on the spatial distribution from multiple air emission sources operating simultaneously. Integral Consufting Inc. Public inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 item 9 From: Gertz, Mitchell Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:42 AM To: Bergman, Erica Subject: Response to comments on air dispersion model Erica, Attached is our consultant's (Integral) response to the comments on the air dispersion model. Contact me if there are any questions. Mitch Gertz Solvay Specialty Polymers HSE Compliance Manager T: 856-251-6630 - M: 856-371-93l8 10 Leonard Lane West Deptford, NJ 08086 miatayjiaia_c.o_la Public Inspection COpy Exhibit F.1 Item 10 From: Bergman, Erica Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:37 AM Subject: RE: Response to comments on air dispersion model To: ?Gertz, Mitcheli" Mitch, Please see air modeling reviewer?s comment below: Response 1, 2 and 3 are adequate. However, Response 4 should still be addressed further. The modeling analysis will provide a better spatial distribution of the cumulative impacts if there is a modei run with all the units emitting the same pollutant in a single run. This would show spatial distribution of the cumuiative impacts rather than the individual units even if unit emissions are desired. Piease pass along to your air modelers for their consideration. thanks, Erica Erica Bergman NJDEP - Bureau of Case Management 401 E. State Street - Mail Code 401-05 P.0. Box 420 Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 erica.bergman@dep.state.nj.us 609-292-7406 From: Gertz, Mitchell Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:42 AM To: Bergman, Erica Subject: Response to comments on air dispersion model Erica, Attached is our consultant?s (integral) response to the comments on the air dispersion model. Contact me if there are any questions. Mitch Gertz Solvay Specialty Poiymers HSE Compliance Manager T: 856-251-6630 - M: 856-371?9318 10 Leonard Lane West Deptford, NJ 08086 Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 - item 11 From: Jim Lape Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:21 PM To: Greg.John@dep.state.nj.us Cc: mitcheil.gertz@solvay.com; Philip Goodrum Subject: AERMOD input Files for Solvay PFC Air Emission Modeling Greg: We are providing additional air modeling files related to our analysis of the historic PFC air emissions for the Soivay facility in West Deptford, NJ. The following bullets provide a description of the fiies and their respective names. - input files for addressing building effects A BPIP file is provided for each stack in the site air modeling. 0 input file for stack PT3001 PT3002HUnitEmissioanethod2,bpi input file for stack PT3002 input file for stack PT3004 PT3001_UnitEmission_M ethod2,bpi input file for stack PT3011 - Combined source analysis for Surfion emissions AERMOD input files for the range of scenarios used to evaiuate combined Surflon emissions from all relevant air sources 0 Surflon_661616_UnitEm Assumes 66% of annual emissions from primary source (PT3001) and remaining 33% split equally between the secondary sources PT3002 and PT3004. Surflon_502525_UnitEm Assumes 50% of annual emissions from primary source (PT3001) and remaining 50% spiit equaiiy between the secondary sources PT3002 and PT3004. Surflonm333333_UnitEm Assumes 33% of annual emissions from primary source and remaining 66% split equaliy between the secondary sources PT3002 and PT3004. - Combined source analysis for emissions AERMOD input files for the range of scenarios used to evaluate combined emissions from all reievant air sources 0 NaPFO_661616mUnitEm Assumes 66% of annual emissions from primary source (PT3001) and remaining 33% split equally between the secondary sources PT3002 and PT3004. NaPFO_502525wUnitEm Assumes 50% of annual emissions from primary source (PT3001) and remaining 50% split equally between the secondary sources PT3002 and PT3004. Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 item 11 Assumes 33% of annual emissions from primary source (PT3001) and remaining 66% split equaliy between the secondary sources PT3002 and PT3004. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks Jim iames Lape I Senior Science Advisor integrai Consulting inc. I 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 330 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel:410.573.1982, ext. 513 I Cell: 410.897.7006 I Fax: 410.573.9746 HEALTH ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY From:Jim Lape Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:26 PM To: Greg.John@dep.state.nj.us Cc: mitchell.gertz@solvay.com; Philip Goodrum; Jim Lape; S. Xiah Kragie Subject: AERMOD input Files for Solvay PFC Air Emission Modeling Greg: Attached are the input files for modeling air emissions of perfiuoroalkyl compounds (PFCs) from the Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC (Solvay) West Deptford, New Jersey, Plant (Site) located at 10 Leonard Lane in West Deptford Township, Gloucester County, New jersey. The focus of the air modeling is certain PFCs used historically in manufacturing operations at the Site. The primary objective of the air modeling is to provide estimates of the spatial distribution of concentrations in air and particle deposition to surfaces in the areas surrounding the Site. The results will be used to refine the conceptuai site modei for PFC fate and transport, and to aid in decisions regarding future environmental sampling. The modeling will use estimated historic air emissions for the period from 1991 to 2010. We are Using the US. Environmental Protection Agency AERMOD (Vers. 13350) to conduct the air modeiing for the four stacks of interest at the Site. The 2008 to 2012 meteorological dataset for Philadelphia international Airport provided by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection P) is being used for this evaluation. As discussed in the Air Modeling Plan submitted to NJDEP as Appendix of the Perfluorinated Compounds Work Plan (November 15, 2013) the historic PFC air emission sources have been grouped as either primary or secondary stack sources. TWO spray dryer stacks, PT3001 and PT3011, Were identified as the primary PFC sources given they represent the most continuous source of PFC emission to the atmosphere. The secondary sources are stacks that vent tanks aiong the batch manufacturing process. Emissions from the secondary stacks, PT3002 and PT3004, are intermittent and are reieased at significantly lower ?ow rates than from the Spray dryer vents. Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 Item 11 Each of the four stacks was modeled discretely in order to characterizethe individual dispersion and deposition patterns. A unit emission rate was used to allow for scaling the model results with the facility~wide annual estimates of PFC air emissions. As noted in the Air Modeling Plan, each spray dryer vented one of two different PFC surfactants Surflon or sodium perquorooctanoate whiie the secondary stacks vented both, depending on the type of batch be processed at any given time. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to address the contribution each stack could have made to the annual facility?wide PFC air emissions. A table providing the model input stack parameters and the nature of the source and historic emissions is also attached to this email. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding these files. Thanks Jim James Lape Senior Science Advisor Integral Consulting inc. 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 330 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: 410.573.1982, ext. 13 I Cell: 410.897.7006 I Fax: 410.573.9746 HEALTH ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY SUSTAINABILITY Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.l- item 12 From: Bergman, Erica Date: Fr,i Jun 13, 2014 at 3: 26 PM Subject: Solvay? Air modeling comments To: ?Geitz, Mitchell (mitchell. gertz@solvay com)" Cc: "Park, Andy Mitch, Please see comments below from EPA and attached comments from DEP on the air modeling information Submitted. 1) Model input files include runs with the combined emission units into one run as we previously requested. However rather than using a unit emission rate of 1 gram/sec for each emission unit the 1 gram/sec unit emissions were split across the number of units in that run This would provide relative impacts but care would be needed when proportioning the impacts for future risk assessments In other words the impacts would only be a fraction of their actual emission emissions. Therefore, that fraction would need to be adjusted. Please explain how emissions would be adjusted in the caSe of future risk assessments. 2) A mean mass particle diameter of 0.68 is used in each model run. How was this value determined? Let me know if you'd like to discuss these comments on Wednesday? I will try and send comments this afternoon or Monday regarding other (non?air) discussion items regarding the PFC workplan. Erica Erica Bergman NJDEP Bureau of Case Management 401 E. State Street - Mail Code 401?05 PO. Box 420 Trenton, NJ 08625?0420 erica.bergman@dep.state.ni.us 609-292-7406 Public Inspection Copy State of ?sh: alarm}; CHRIS CHRISTIE DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BOB MARTIN Governor Commissioner KIM GUADAGNO Lt. Governor Division ofAir Quality Bureau of Technical Services Air Quality Evaluation 401 E. State Street, P.O. Box 420 Trenton, NJ 08625-0027 June 10, 2014 TO Erica Bergman, Bureau of Case Management FROM: Greg John, Bureau of Technical Services SUBJECT: Perfluorinated Compounds Work Plan, Solvay Specialty Polymers West Deptford Plant The Bureau of Technical Services has reviewed the air dispersion modeling ?les provided on May 6, 2014. The information provided to date does not completely fulfill the Air Modeling Plan, dated November 15, 2013. The Air Modeling Plan?s Presentation of Air Modeling Results section stated that, ?The air modeling results will be conveyed to NJDEP in a report that provides text, tables, and ?gures to support critical review of the modeling approach and conclusions. Tables will be provided that summarize each of the AERMOD inputs and their source. The model-predicted concentrations and deposition will also be summarized in both tabular and graphical format. Graphical formats will include isopleths of concentrations and deposition ?ux shown on maps of the Site vicinity.? More speci?cally, the air dispersion modeling report should provide a description of the different modeling scenarios. For example, explain the use of unit emission rate percentages in different model runs 33% from each source, 50?25-25% and 66?16-16% among the three sources). Explain the details of the Sur?on model runs compared to the model runs. Document/explain the use of mass mean particle diameter of 0.68 microns. Furthermore, the air dispersion modeling submitted does not de?nitively demonstrate that air emissions can be excluded as a source of perfluorinated compounds in the water samples. A ?gure that shows the maximum water sample concentrations of per?uorinated compounds overlaid by the air modeling general impact isopleths would be helpful to this demonstration. Additionally, air dispersion modeling should be performed using averaging periods that are shorter than a year and 24-hour periods). If the locations of the predicted annual, and 24-hour air concentrations are not consistent with the locations of the maximum water sample concentrations, then the modeling will show that it is less likely that Solvay Facility air emissions are a source of the perfluorinated compounds in the water. New Jersey is rm Equal Upperinns?;i Empfoyer - Recycled Paper Public Inspection COpy Annamaria Coulter, USEPA - Region 1 Andy Park, USEPA Region 1 Public inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 item 13 From: Jim Lape Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:09 PM To: 'Greg John' Subject: RE: Call to Discuss Solvay Air Modeling Comments Excellent. l?ll call you then. Hopefully Arthur will stay far enough off-shore to not mess with our holiday. From: Greg John Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:51 PM To:Jim Lape Subiect: RE: Call to Discuss Solvay Air Modeling Comments OK From: Jim Lape Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:42 PM To: Greg John Subject: RE: Call to Discuss Solvay Air Modeling Comments How about 11 am on Monday James Lape 1 Senior Science Advisor integral Consulting inc. I 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 330 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tei:410.573.1982, ext. 513 Cell: 410.897.7006 Fax: 410.573.9746 HEALTH ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY From: Grngohn Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:09 PM To: Jim Lape Subject: RE: Call to Discuss Solvay Air Modeling Comments I am free most of the week; lam NOT available between 10 AM and 12 PM on July 8, 10, 8:11. Enjoy the long weekend Greg From: Jim Lape Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:43 PM Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 Item 13 To: Greg John Subject: Call to Discuss Sonay Air Modeling Comments Hi Greg: Would you haye any time early next week to talk about the comments regarding the air modeling for the Solyay facility in West Deptford? My time is pretty wide open between 9 am and 3 pm. Have a great 4th. Jim James Lape Senior Science Advisor Integral Consulting Inc. 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 330 I Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: 410.573.1982, ext. 513 I Cell: 410.897.7006 I Fax: 410.573.9746 HEALTH ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY SUSTAINABILITY Public Inspection Copy Exhibit F.1 Item 16 From: Maybury, Steve Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:16 PM Subject: comment letter To: ?Gertz, Mitchell" Cc: "Bergman, Erica? "Migiiarino, Maurice" Mitch, Per our discussion today attached is our comment fetter. After your tech nicai teams review you have questions regarding air discharge/modeling let us know and we can set up a call/meeting. Stephen E. Maybury New Jersey Department of Environmentai Protection Chief, Bureau of Case Management Mai! Code PO Box 420 401 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08625?0420 Phonei;l 609633-1455 Public Inspection Copy September 22, 2015 Via Email and First Class Mail Ms. Erica Bergman Bureau of Case Management New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Mail Code 401w05F 13.0. Box 420 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420 Subject: Response to NJDEP Comments July 31, 2015 Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC SRP PIii 015010; Activity Reference Number: RPC 1200001 Dear Ms. Bergman: On behalf of Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, (Solvay), this letter provides responses to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP or Department) letter dated July 31, 2015. The Department?s letter was prepared in response to the following- three reports developed by Solvay and submitted to the Department on March 3, 2015 pursuant to a detailed work plan that was voluntarily developed by Solvay in consultation with the Department and the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and performed by Solvay as agreed upon with the agencies beforehand: 9 Summary Report of Findings of PP Investigations; 9 Delaware River Surface Water and Sediment. Data Report; and a Air Modeling Report for Pei?aoroalkyl Camper-aids. The July 31 Department letter asserts that Solvay submitted the reports pursuant to the Site Remediation Reform Act (N .J.S.A. et seq.), the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (N .J.A.C. and the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation This was never Solvay?s agreement 01' intent, nor do we believe this assertion is legally supportable, as explained in response to General Comments 4 and 5 below. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane, West Doptford, NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +858 853 6405 mate?soivayazotu Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 2 For ease of reference the Department?s comment appears in italics with the corresponding response below. Comments and the associated responses are presented in the order given by the July 31 letter. TEMPORARY WELL POINT INVESTIGATION Solvay conducted a groundwater investigation between the site and Woodbury Creek through the installation and sampling of groundwater and soils from?ve temporary well points (We) at various depth intervals. This [element of Solvay?s] investigation was not preapproved by the Department. Solvay concludes that there is no plausible ground water transport pathway that connects groundwater near the site with impacted groundwater residential wells) near Woodbury Creek due to lower concentrations of PFNA and PP OA found in the TWPs compared to the impacted residential wells, the nearly 2 mile distance from the site to Woodbury Creek and since groundwater flows southusoutheast and- not toward Woodbury Creek. Solvay concludes that other sources must exist near Woodbury Creek to cause the PPNA detected-in groundwater in that area. NJDEP Comment 1. It is stated Section 3.1) that gallons of water were used at each TWP. In Section it is stated each sample zone was purged for 1u2 hours to remove drilling fluids and water quality indicator parameters were monitored until they stabilized; indicating the predominant presence of ground water. Review of Appendix Groundwater Purge Logs) indicates that a total ofroughly 345?585 gallons of water were reportedly purged ?'om each TWP. Given that gallons were added to each TWP, only about 3.5% to 14.6% of the drilling water was removed. Schilling and Hoyle (1996) note that drilling ?uid nuist be recovered before sampling to ensure that samples represent ground water; not drilling fluid. When lost drilling fluid has not been adequately removed, dilution of contaminant concentrations in the aquifer may occur; sometimes extending a considerable distance. They noted that rel-naval of water equivalent to that lost during drilling did not result in ground water samples consisting of 100% formation water. This is also noted by the USACE (1998), where it is stated that even removal of one or more volumes of water equal to that lost during drilling will not remove all of the lost fluid. purging may result in under? prediction of chemical concentrations in ground water. in addition, in most of the sample intervals had not stabilized, As such, it appears that the vast majority of water sampled was drilling water and not ground water; thereby potentially resulting in significant dilution of the ground water samples. Therefore, while the analytical results from. the TWP sampling are not rejected, they must be qualified. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deplford. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 ayxmm Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 3 Response: Solvay disagrees with the Department?s characterization that insufficient drilling fluid water was purged to adequately estimate the concentration in formation water. NIDEP's estimate of 3.5% to 14.6% is flawed. The purge volume for each sample interval. was determined primarily based on changes in water quality parameters that indicated introduced water had been removed and formation water was being sampled changes in temperature, oxidation-reduction potential, and dissolved oxygen). The Screened interval at each sample location was no more than 5 ft and the temporary screen was set below the cased interval (at the bottom of the zone where Water was introduced into the formation during drilling). Because of the horizontal anisotropy of coastal plain sediments, additional purging at the base of the cased hole would not be expected to remove 100% of the water introduced higher up in the formation, outside the cased interval. Although this element of Solvay's work plan was not pre?approved, the Department has approved identical TWP development and sampling exercises in the West Deptford area relating to Solvay?s ongoing investigation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) under ISRA. In our ISRA VOC matter, the Department has accepted the identical TWP sampling approach as an effective sampling tool. More importantly, the validity of the TWP approach has been borne out by actual VOC data. Sampling conducted as part of the plant?s VOC delineation program has shown that data initially collected from TWPs were subsequently verified and validated by follow up groundwater samples collected from properly constructed and developed monitoring wells. As the Department is aWare, the VOC data from both the TWPs and the permanent wells are within the same order of magnitude for detected compounds. Two of the TWP locations have been selected for installation of monitoring well pairs that will provide additional data on both PFC concentrations and Water levels in this area. Comment 2. Ground water elevation (OWE) measurements from select TWP intervals were used (plus GWEs from W341), 35D 59? 36D) to construct the contour map provided as Figure 4?1. Sontheasterly?ozo is depicted. DEP created a contour map using alternative GWEs (deep zone) provided on Table 3~3. This is provided on the last page and depicts curvature of the ?ow path more toward the east. It is acknowledged that this representation may sin-tply be constrained by the number and location of monitoring points no points south of the 'l'WPs that may have even lower GWEs). It is stated (Section 3.4) that water levels were not nsed?'ont intervals where signi?cant water was introduced during drilling. While noted, there is no indication as to the exact amount ofwater introduced at a particular location or interval. In addition, as noted in Con-intent it I, it appears that SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptl?ord. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 F: +856 853 G405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 4 a signi?cant amount of drilling water remained at each location/interval. As such, this introduces uncertainty regarding natural water levels in the various intervals and the exact direction. of ground water flow in this area. Response: It was unclear from the single map provided by NIDEP how the water level data were selected to generate the contour intervals. Solvay was able to match the labels on the map to specific data points submitted, but again the criteria for data selection for the final map both the time periods and depth intervals) are not presented. The contour map presented by Solvay was developed using water level data collected in the morning after the TWP had been allowed to equilibrate overnight, which provides a more accurate representation of water depth than water leVel data collected immediately after drilling ceased, which is what NIDEP appears to have used. These elevations are inappropriate for contouring given the large degree of variability observed related to the introduction and removal of water during drilling activities As a result, the Department?s contour map does not reflect equilibrated actual) groundwater conditions and, therefore, should not be relied upon for this purpose since it is misleading. Future groundwater contour maps prepared as part of the investigation will be based on permanent Well data only. Solvay respectfully requests that the Department reissue its con tour map to reflect equilibrated water level measurements so that the written record in this matter remains clear. NIDEP Comment 3. Upon receiving the samples at the laboratory, the center's temperature was above the QC criterion. Therefore, the results of samples TBOIOO, GWIOOI, GW1002, GWIOOS, T301012, FB0007, GWIOZB and are quantitatively qualified. Although the elevated cooler temperatures are noted in Section I in the LDC data validation report, no action is noted as having been taken for this QC deficiency. Therefore, the LDC data validation and the PF Summary report must be revised to report the effected sample data with. the quali?er. Comments on the TestAnierica and AXYS laboratory data and Integral Consulting data validations/usability reviews will be provided under separate cover. Response: A revision to the data qualifiers, which were independently validated, is not warranted because the temperature met the method requirement as described below. The samples in question were received by AXYS at 9.1 and 7.1 and analyzed for perflnoroalkyl compounds (PFCS) using proprietary method, approved by the SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Depiford, NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 5 Department. The AXYS method does not specify criteria for sample temperature upon receipt. Furthermore, the sample temperatures complied with specifications given by Section 8.4 of the EPA Method 537, which states: SAMPLE STORAGE Samples must be chilled during shipment and must not exceed 1'0 oC dining the first 48 hours after collection. Sample temperature must be con?rmed to be at or below 10 DC when the samples are received at the laboratory. Samples stored in the lab be held at or below 6 until extraction, but should not be frozen. The samples in question satisfied the 10 threshold given by EPA Method 537. And as a praclicai matter, the target-PFC compounds are not volatile and do not degrade. The temperature requirements in sample handling procedures are safeguards for sample representativeness for less stable compounds. For these reasons the data Were not qualified. In addition, all samples were reviewed by an independent data validator to assess the usability of the data. The independent data validator did not qualify the data with a or other notation as it was determined that the temperature of the temperature blank in the cooler for the samples at issue did not have an adverse effect on the results and no further qualification was required. As such, based on the approved AXYS method, the temperature requirements of EPA Method 537 and no additional quali?cation as a result of the temperature by LDC, resubmission of the PFC summary report is not warranted. No additional Department comments regarding data validation/usability for TestAmerica and AXYS Laboratory have been provided to Solvay concurrent with or subsequent to July 3] letter. NIDEP Comment. The Summary Report states that additional sampling downgradient?'om the Plant is anticipated and that no expansion of the TWP investigation near Creek is planned. However, timing the n-zeeting held on lane 10, 2015 between and Solvay, Solvay coma-titted to conducting delineation ofgronndwater extending radially, in all directions from the Plant. To address the uncertainties noted in Comments ll 1 and #2 above, Solvay should obtain ground wider quality and ?ow data ?'om permanent wells, including in the direction Creek in accordance with .C. 7:26E?43ta) 4. While the installation of new wells at the appropriate locations and intervals is preferred, existing wells (ifaoailable) may be used. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptford. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 6 Response: As explained above, and in response to NIDEP General Comments 4 and 5 below, .C. 4 is not applicable to the oft?site investigation here. Further, there is no speci?c groundwater standard under the Tech Regs to use in delineation. Despite this, and in keeping with Solvay?s commitment and intent to continue to gather actual data so that the science can continue to be followed for a comprehensive understanding of area groundwater, installation of permanent: monitoring Wells and the collection of samples to characterize grormdwater quality and flow direction are included in the PFC investigation work plan, submitted to the Department under separate cover. DELAWARE RIVER SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT INVESTIGATION Solvay collected surface water, sediment, and pore water from 27 stations in the Delaware River; some samples were collected at the some locations as the DRBC sampling conducted in 2007 2009. was not detected in surface water samples, but was detected in some sediment and pore water samples. Solvay does not propose additional sampling. NIDEP Comment 1. Solvay does not include an evaluation of the surface water to ground water pathway. The physical connection between the Potomac?Raritan?Magothy aquifer (PRM) and surface water Delaware River its tributaries) has been well documented in the literature; niost notabh by Navoy and Carleton (1995). Surface water of degraded quality can affect the ground water system. as a result of: (1) induced recharge from the Delaware River and its tributaries to the 2) the physical connection between. the Delaware River and tributaries) and the and (3) tidal effects. A plausible transport mechanism therefore exists for the effects of a surface water discharge from the site to be detected in ground water (including wells not solely along a down gradient?ow path from the site). This was acknowledged by Solvay on page 6 of the 7 May 2014 Status Update, PFNA Investigation where it is stated ?Wells with elevated PF Cs are completed in aquifer units that recharge the Delaware River. It should be noted thatfollowing the lane 10, 2015 meeting, Solvay did commit to include an evaluation of the surface water to groundwater pathway in their pending PF investigation Response: Solvay proposed and the Department approved Solvay?s work plan for the collection of sediment and surface water samples from the DelaWare River. As the Department may recall, the initial basis for Solvay?s Delaware River surface water sampling was for Solvay to replicate, in substantial reSpects, prior work conducted by and published by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) in assessing the presence or absence of perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) in Delaware River. Solvay?s express intent with this work SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptford. NJ 08088, USA - T: +858 853 8119 F: +858 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 7 element, as approved by the Department, included no evaluation of potential SLu'face water to groundwater pathways. However, as subsequently discussed with the Department, as additional data are collected, a conceptual site model will be developed and modified, as needed to assess potential migration pathways of PFCs proximate to the Site. Also, the Department misinterpre ts Solvay?s quoted statement extracted from Solvay?s May 7, 2014 Status Up date. While PFCs have been detected in monitoring wells screened in aquifer units that present beneath the Delaware River, Solvay?s acknowledgement of this fact in no way identifies the source(s) of these PFCs in groundWater. A definitive migration pathway surface water to groundwater) for any particular well has not been determined. The PFC investigation work plan submitted to the Department proposes tasks to evaluate a surface water to groundwater pathway proximate to the plant. It should be noted that PFNA was not detected in surface water of the Delaware River from samples collected in 2014; therefore, any further or de?nitive characterization of a potential surface Water discharge?to?groundwater pathway based on actual data is likely not possible. 2. The conclusion 4?3) that no further surface water or sediment sampling is planned seems premature, especially in light of Solvay's cormnitment to evaluate the surface water to groinidwater pathway and will aid in the development of a conceptual site model. Additional surface water and sediment sampling should be targeted to the Solvay surface water discharge (the outfall, inside the mixing zone, and outside the mixing zone) and those tributaries to the Delaware River that may be a migration pathway or source to the ground water aquifer pumped by local private wells and the public water supply wells, along with. some locations in the Delaware River to monitor and confirm the recent results and for use in the evaluation of the results from the recommended additional investigations. Response: The PFC investigation Work plan submitted to the Department prOposes tasks to further characterize surface water and sediment in tributaries near the outfall specifically from multiple locations in the Main Ditch and Little Mantua Creek. NIDEP Comment 3. The report does not discuss or evaluate Solvay?s historic and current PF Cs discharges to the Delaware River and does not discuss PF concentrations in the river Prior to Solvay?s installation of carbon treatment for PP Cs versus post-treatment. DEP questions whether PP Cs are largely not detectable in. the surface water samples from the Delaware River (particularly in Reach around the Solvay Facility), compared to historical surface water PF data because of the recent treatment of the Solvay surface water discharge to remove PFCs. he carbon treatment may SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane, West Deplford. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection COpy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 8 have a greater e?ect on the spatial distribution of PFCs in 2014 than tidal dynamics and the presence of other sources as below. Response: None of the suggested work described in this comment was included in the Department approved work plan. However, the Department?s underlying assumed facts are not correct. Solvay?s carbon treatment system was offline between July and September 2014, which included the entire sampling period. Moreover, all samples were collected during a low flow period when less dilution would have occurred. Specifically, samples were collected during the summer, which is the period of low flow conditions for the Delaware River system. Flow records maintained by the US. Geologic Survey at the Delaware River gauge station at Trenton include the mean of daily mean values for each day for more than 100 years, between October 1912 and September 2014. During this par ticular sampling event in August 2014, HOWS in the Delaware River were among the lowest for the year. Therefore, if anything, actual circumstances and facts would suggest that PFNA levels measured in 2014 would be biased on the high side. Despite this, there were no detections of PFNA in any of the surface water samples collected from the Delaware River. IDEP Comment 4. The evaluation of the surface water data does not include any assessment of tidal stage at the time of sampling and how this may have affected the sample resnl ts. The tidal stage at the time each sample was collected is not noted or identified anywhere in the report or report appendices, but it should be possible to estimate this from other sources. There are two questions that the tidal stage may help answer. One, at certain tidal stages sample results could be diluted indicating a potential net negative bias to the sample resnl ts? Two, does the tidal stage help explain why some PP Cs are found in the surface water samples collected from the river reaches farther from the Solvay facility (Reaches A to C), but not in the Reach samples closer to the Solvay facility? This may be a more likely explanation, rather than the other sources explanation as stated on pages and 3?2 for PFNA, although there are no data or analysis presented to support this statement concerning other sources discharging to the river. The similar data distribution for PFOA and PFOS is used to indicate sonrce discharges downriver??oni Solvay with the implication that Solvay is not responsible for the PFCs in the Delaware River. This seems to be an over interpretation of the data without actual data on tidal stage at the time of sample collection and hydrographic assessment of ?ow dynamics in the river for the 2007?2 009 and 2014 sampling events. SOLVAY SPECFALTY POLYMERS USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane, West Doptford, NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 F: +856 853 6405 53 a . r; in Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 9 Response: The lowest flows in the Delaware River and its tributaries are observed from August to October and when sampling occurs at low flow periods there is limited interference from dilution associated with higher discharges more commonly observed in the spring. As stated in the response to Comment during this particular sampling event in August 2014, flows in. the Delaware River Were among the lOWest for the year. Tidal mixing during the sampling period will be considered in evaluations of mixing volumes as part of the work plan submitted concurrently with this letter. This comment appears to simply ignore the possibility of other sources of PFNA in the environment, in this case along a significant stretch of the Delaware River. The Department?s position is not supported by the scientific literature, which clearly identifies multiple potential source contributions in urban watersheds like the Delaware River watershed. These include PFC precursors and residual PFNA in aqueous film forming foam used and stored for fire prevention and training at airports, ports, and oil and gas refineries (see for example, Backe et al. 2013; Harding-Man anovic et al. 2015; Houtz and Sedlal: 2012; Place and Field 2012; Prevedouros et al. 2006; and Weiner et al. 2013); landfill leachate (Allred et al. 2014; et al. 2012; Busch et al. 2010; Eggen et al. 2010; Huset et al. 2011; Li et al. 2012); waste water treatment plant effluent (Schuitz et al., 2006; Sinclair and Kannan, 2006) and land application runoff (Konwick et al. 2008); and industrial processes involving products that may include PFNA and other PFCs (Bossi et al. 2007; Clara et al. 2008; Konwick et al. 2008). Solvay will provide additional information regarding the evidence for multiple sources of PFNA in the environment based on these citations under separate cover. Solvay also notes that the Department submitted comments to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) during the public comment period for 2009 Draft Toxicological Pro?le for In its comment letter dated October 30, 2009 (corrected November 2, 2009), the Department states: An. important source in surface water and drinking water is discharge from. wastewater treatment plants. Allred, B.M. Lang, Bariaz, M.A., Field, 2014. Orthogonal zirconium diol/ClB liquid chromatography~tandem mass spectrometry analysis of poly and perfluoroalkyl substances in landfill leachate. ChromatOgr. Accepted (in press) and available online July 2014. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Dep?ord. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 F: +856 853 6405 twmsotvaynom Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 10 Backe, T.C. Day, and Field. 2013. Zwitterionic, cationic, and anionic fluorinated chemicals in aqueous film forming foam formulations and groundwater from U.S. Military bases by nonaqueous large-volume injection Environ. Sci. chlnioi. Benskin, B. Li, M.G. Tkonomou, LR. Grace, and LY. Li. 2012. Per~ and polyfiuoroalkyl substances in landfill leacliate: Patterns, time trends, and sources. Environ Sci. Technot, 11540. Bossi, R, 1. Strand, 0. Sortkjaer, and M.M. Larson. 2008. Perfluorinated compounds in Danish wastewater treatment plants and aquatic envirorunents. Environ. Int. Busch, 1., L. Aln?ens, R. Storm, and R. Ebinghaus. 2010. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in landfill leachates. Environ. Poliut. 15314674471. Clara, M., Scharf, 8., Weiss, 5., Cans, 0., (it Scheffknecht, C. 2008. Emissions of perfluorinated al.l<.ylated substances (PFAS) from point sources-identi?cation of relevant branches. Water Science and Technology V0158 No 1 pp 59?66. Eggen, T., M. Moeder, and A. Arulcwe. 2010. Municipal landfill leachates: A sigr?ficant source for new and emerging pollutants. Sci. Tot. Environ. Harding-Marjanovic, KC, E.F. I?loutz, S. Yi, Field, D.L. Sedlak, and L. Alvareszohen. 2015. Aerobic biotransformati on of ?uorotelomer thioether amido sulfonate (Lodyne) in microcosms. Environ. Sci. Technol. Houtz, E.F., and D.L. Sedlak. 2012. Oxidative conversion as a means of detecting precursors to per?uoroalkyl acids in urban runoff. Environ. Sci. Teclmot. 469342?9349. Huset, C.A., M.A. Barlaz, D.F. Barofsky, and Field. 2011. Quantitative determination of fiuorochemicals in municipal landfill leachates. Chemosphere. Konwick, B. 1., Tomy, G. T., Ismail, N., Peterson, 1. T., Fauver, R. Higginbotham, D. and Fisk, A. T. (2008), Concentrations and patterns of per?uoroalkyl acids in Georgia, USA surface waters near and distant to a major use source. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27: 20'11~2018. Li, 13., MN. Dannon?Schaffer, L.Y. M.G. llconomou, and LR. Grace. 2012. Occurrence of PFCs and PBDES in land?ll leachates from across Canada. Water Air Soil Potlut. 223:3365?3372. Place, and Field. 2012. identification of novel fluorochemicals in aqueous filmrforming foams used by the US Military. Environ. Sci. Technol. Prevedourous, K, LT. Cousins, RC. Buck, and SH. Korzeniowske. 2006. Sources, fate, and transport of per?uorocarboxylates. Environ. Sci. chlmol. Schultz, M. M., Higgins, C. 13., 1-luset, C. A., Luthy, 11.0., Barofsky, D. F., and Field, A. 2006a. Fluorochemicai mass flows in a municipal wastewater treatment facility. Environ. Sci. Teclmoi. Sinclair, E. Sr. Kannan, K. 2006 Mass loading and fate of perfluoroalkyl surfactants in wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Sci. chlmol. 40(5), 1408?1414. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptford. NJ 08086. USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page ii Weiner, 13., L.W.Y. Yeung, EB. Marchington, LAD. D'Agostino, and SA. Mabu 17y. 2013. Organic fluorine content in aqueous film forming foams and biodegradalion of the foam component 6:2 sulfonate [6:2 FTSAS). Environ. Chem. 10:486-493. NJDEP Comment 5. The conclusion that other sources contributed or continue to contribute (particularly for PPOA, and PPOS) to the river system. is based mainly on. the locations of the samples and changes in concentrations over time, however no information is provided to substantiate this conclusion that ?ii-ray have an association with PPCs?(pp. 1-2 and (LI, and Figures Ad and While the DuPont facility from Solvay may be an obvious potential contributor of PPCs to the river system, data are not presented to indicate this possibility or for any other potential sources. Analysis of the data acquired to date indicates that Solvay has been the major contributor of PPCs, particularly PFNA, to this area of the Delaware River given previous and current river data and taking into consideration Solvay?s 2010 elimination of Suiflon use and the timing of treatment on the Solvay surface-water discharge to remove PPCs. Response: See the response to Comment #4 above regarding multiple potential source contributions of to surface water and groundwater as presented in the scientific literature and noted by the Department itself as early as 2009. Solvay will provide additional information and citations under separate cover. Comment 6. The statement on page six that the distribution. of PP concentrations is comparable to other urban systems is not otherwise discussed or evaluated elsewhere in the report. The relevance of the other urban river systems to the Delaware River system is not clear and the references cited are not provided for review. The Department is not aware of conclusive determinations of 'urban background.? in the literature. The implication that all PP Cs measured in 2014. can be attributed to some sort of urban. background is not acceptable, since there has been a confirmed and continuing discharge of PPCs from the Solvay facility to the Delaware River. Response: Please see the response to Comment Comment 7. Vertically integrated water column samples were collected 2-3), but there is no SOP in the November 2013 Field Sampling Plan. (FSP) for the collection of this type of sample, because this type of sample collection was not originally included in the FSP. Either an SOP should be provided or a detailed description of this sampling procedure should be submitted for review. it is assumed that these samples were collected acceptably. Response: The standard operating procedure (SOP) tor vertically integrated Water column samples is included as an attachment to the work plan submitted concurrently with this letter. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Depttord. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 3119 - F: +856 853 6405 in 2:5; .o out Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 12 IDEP Comment 8. Sediment pore water samples were collected at the laboratory by decanting and centri?iging the samples 2-5). Because pore water samples were collected in response to a Department comments, there is no SOP in the November 2013 SP for the collection of this type of sample. Either an. SOP should be provided or a detailed description of this sampling procedure should be submitted for review. I is assumed that these samples were collected acceptably. While this is an acceptable method, it does not provide results as representative as in?situ samplers would have provided. This uncertainty is not discussed in the report (see The sediment results and particularly the pore water results are consistent with the presmned pathway by which PP Cs enter the ground water aquifer pumped by the private wells and public water supply systems in this area, PFNA was consistently detected and at the highest concentrations in Reach. consistent with Solvay as the main source of PPNA to the Delaware River in the study area. Response: The SOP for sediment pore water sampling analysis is included as an attachment to the work plan submitted concurrently with this letter. JDEP Comment 9, It is not clear why ?gures are not included presenting the PF analytical data. As there are detailed discussions of the spatial distribution. and patterns of PF Cs in surface water, sediment, and sediment pore water, this information. should have been. shown on figures. Response: Figures showing PFC analytical data will be considered in future submittals where appropriate. NIDEP Comment 10. It is not clear why the non PFC analytical results are presented on the figures as ratios of the measured concentration to the NI DEP ecological screening criteria (2009). Response: This presentation format facilitates identification of samples and locatiOns where concentrations approach or exceed existing water quality standards. The Delaware River system is complex with many sources for the many constituents detected there. NIDEP comment 11. The Eurofins Eaton laboratory was not used for the PP analyses so the method detection and reporting limits are higher. ?l?herefore, PPCs that may have been preset-it based on Eurofins analyses are nondetectablefor this study, which may give the false impression that PF Cs are not present or less ubiquitous when they actually are present in the various sample types collected. Response: We find this comment perplexing. The Department has not certified Eurofins Eaton for analysis of: surface water and sediment. The cited lab is only certified by the Department for the analysis of drinking water samples by EPA Method 537. A different SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptford. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 F: +856 353 6405 arena. at . om Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 13 method is required for analysis of surface water and sediment, and Eurofins is not certified by the Department for those methods. Therefore, surface water and sediment samples were analyzed by AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd. which is certified by the Department (NJDEP Certification AIR MODELING REPORT FOR PERFLUOROALKYL COMPOUNDS Air dispersion. modeling conducted by Solvay shows that a majority of the impact concentrations and deposition ??om historic compound (PFC) emissions at Solvay Specialty Polymers occurred within the facili ty boundary and decreased significantly a few hundred meters o??site. Although the results of the model that was run were appropriately characterized in this report, further evaluation of the model indicates that the inputs to the model considered narrow scenarios and assumptions made were not clearly stated and were not properly supported by peer reviewed literature or other valid scienti?c reports. For example, the averages of multiple input parameters were used, and therefore peak values 3. wind speeds, particle size distribution, emission concentrations, stack velocities) were not considered. These peak values may have resulted in a higher magnitude of contamination and dispersion to more distant locations than have been concluded in this report. In addition, consideration of only the particulate form, but not the vapor form, of the contaminant may anderrepresent the transport capacity that this compound possesses as part of secondary particulate formation. Response: Frankly, and as a general matter, We are significantly concerned by the nature and extent of the Department?s air modeling comments at this time. Overall, these comments are not consistent with the frequent, extensive, iterative, and collaborative technical interactions among Solvay, the Department, and EPA throughout the air modeling process. This collaborative effort began as far back as November 2013 with the submission of the air modeling plan, which provided details and justification on the air model to be used, the sources to be evaluated, and the particle size distribution (PSD). Many discussions and exchanges took place in the interim, including submission of the air model input and output files for the baseline and combined source analysis for agency review in March and May of 2014, respectively, and follow?up activities were conducted to ensure that all comments from the Department and EPA review Were addressed. As recently as our June 10, 2015 meeting, the Department and EPA agreed with Solvay?s overall air modeling methodology and conclusions, and indicated that only minor comments were forthcoming at a later date. Despite our concerns, responses to each specific point are provided below. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane, West Depliord. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 14 Comment 1. Model Assumptions Particles a. Particle size distribution. is an important, sensitive parameter in air dispersion modeling. In this case, particle size distribution. was not determined from. stock emission. tests at the facility. Instead, the particle distribution used was taken from ?a comparable manufacturing process using a similar long carbon?chain PF ?uorosmfactant, pei?uorooctanoic acid (PPOA) (Table 4.- of report, attributed to Paustenbach et al., (2007)). It is unclear how this distribution was provided as an input to the model, but a median value of 0.68 pm was stated as an assumption (Section 3.3 of report). This assumption would not provide adequate results, given that 53.8% mass fraction (Shinn, 2011) were less than 0.2 pm in diameter. The smaller particles would most certainly travel longer distances. 1a. Response: The AERMOD model input for the PSD was the mass mean particle diameter and not a median value. Details of the calculation for the value of 0.68 micron were provided in Table 4 of the air modeling report which shows the values were calculated as mass weighted-average using the mass fraction as a function of mean particle size for both of the distributions used in the analysis. The AERMOD model input of 0.68 micron was the average of the mass?weighted particle diameter calculated for the tWo distributions. Both of the PSDs shown in Table 4 were identi?ed and proposed for use in the air modeling plan submitted in November of 2013, which the Department approved. b. Integral Consulting states that, ?based on the nature and the manu?tcturing process used at the Plant, the emissions from the staclcs would have been primarily, ifnot exclusiveh in a particle form. Although this may be true, this conclusion is not supported with stack tests from the facility. Although many PF Cs have a low vapor pressure and may partition to the particulate phase in environmental conditions, PFCs can also be found in the aerosol and vapor forms (McMurdo, 2008). These forms which have been found to substantially contribute to long range transport (Armitage, 2009), should be considered in this evaluation or at a minimum, in the sensitivity analysis). 1b. Response: The historical polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) fluoropolymer process at the Site used the salt form of the surfactant, which has been shown in the literature to possess a vapor pressure that is 1,000 times lower than the value for the corre5ponding acid. Thus, the Site PFC emissions would have been in particulate form given that the virtually non? volatile salt was the emitted Species. This assumption for PFC emissions from a fluoropolymer manufacturing plant is supported by the work srumnarized in Davis et al. (2007 [Chen-iosphere This review of emissions arormd DuPont?s Parkersburg SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane, West Depllord. NJ 08086, USA T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page '15 plant used particulate emissions to model air dispersion of supported by actual measurements of particulates vs. vapor phase emissions. This particulate assumption was also used in the more recently published work by Shin et al. (2011 [Environ Sci. 'lizchnol. Furthermore, the Armitage (2009) study cited in the comment was a ass balance analysis that attempted to correlate various enviromnental measurements with modeled emissions on a global. basis. The authors conclude that the hypothesis that atmospheric degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols is the dominant source of long range transport for long carbon?chain PFCs (not direct emissions during manufacturing), is consistent with monitoring data for C10 through C13. c. The "Estimated Historical Pl ant?Averaged Emission Rate of 0.0531 g/s used in the model is an average of emissions over a twenty year period and does not represent the maximum potential emissions that would lead to deposition. Relying on this value will provide a view of reduced impacts. In 1997, this value would be 0.0772. Note that this is still an average and would not include peak emissions or surges for unknown reasons. The maxinnan annual average emissions rate should be included in the model, run together with peak wind speeds. 1c. Response: We disagree. Use of a 5-year meteorological dataset is consistent with regulatory guidance, past Department practice, and is based on studies to identify the period of record needed to ensure worst?case meteorological conditions were adequately represented in the model results. Accordingly, the Worst~case meteorological conditions Would have been included in the model~predicted deposition results. The air modelin was conducted to simulate the potential loading to the environment over the entire period when PFC emissions occurred. Simulating just the maximum emission would be of limited utility as the results would represent a narrow range over the period of deposition. The model predicted total deposition Was based on hourly estimates at each receptor location, using a 5~year record of hourly meteorological observations, which were then summed to determine the total for a year. As an aside, this is the same modeling construct adopted by the Department in evaluating the PFC emissions from the Chambers Works facility. Sensitivity Analysis The sensitivity analysis portion of any modeling effort should include scenarios using the extreme boundaries of input parameters (highest wind speeds, highest concentrations, smallest particle distrilnitions) to detect potential impacts of worst case scenarios. This sensitivity analysis was inadequate to evaluate thefall range of potential outcomes. Response: Solvay believes the sensitivity analysis was adequate to evaluate the full range of potential outcomes because it evaluated the changes in model predictions related to the SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptfotd. NJ 08085. USA - T: +856 353 3119 F: +355 853 6405 . a ay .eorn Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 16 PSD input and building downwash computation, which were identified as the most significant sources of uncertainty in the model results. The uncertainty in model predictions related to the contribution of individual sources to site~wide emissions was evaluated in the combined source analysis by evaluating a range of plausible, likely scenarios. The typical goal of a sensitivity analysis is to provide insights into the level of con?dence in the model results based on the uncertainty in key inputs and computations rather than to bias all inputs to produce worst?case conditions that may not be representative of the real- world (USEPA. 2001. Risk assessment guidance for superlund: Volume Part A, Process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. EPA OSWER 9285.7? 45). A. Particle Size Distribution: The sensitivity analysis to evaluate the e??ect of particle size distribution only increased the size of the particle. This would have the sole e??ect of having the particle drop out closer to the source. Another scenario to determine the sensitivity of the particle size distribution on the output of the model would be to use a distribution that also includes smaller particles. A. Response: The suggested modeling scenario is technically unjusti?ed for the current eValuation. The PSD modeled in this evaluation was primarily sub~micron particles, as noted in comment 1.a above. Modeling a PSD even more skewed to sub?micron particles was considered unnecessary as such particles begin to behave much like a gas. As discussed in the Report, the gas~phase concentration modeling conducted for the evaluation indicated that maximum concentrations occurred within the plant boundaries and decreased with distance from the Si te, which was consistent with the particle deposition modeling. Therefore, the modeling was considered sufficient to determine Ihat results and conclusions would not change with the use of a smaller PSD. B. The modeling report should include a discussion on dry deposition vs, wet deposition concentrations (how were these included and discuss results). B. Response: The air modeling was conducted using both wet and dry deposition considerations and expressed as total deposition. The goal of the modeling was to provide an indication of the spatial characteristics of potential deposition loading to the environment from air emissions of PFCs. It is not clear how examination of wet versus dry deposition aids in that process, nor is it clear how the requested discussion is part of a sensitivity analysis. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deplford. NJ 08086, USA T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 vmvreotvaynmn Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 17 C. Building dozmuoash: In. reporting the results of this n-Iodel run, it is stated that, "in?uence considering building doionzoash was highly localized, showing a maximum within plant boundaries for the majority of locations outside the Plant boundary the ejj?ect was negligible, with most locations yielding a ratio of approximately I. These results should be questioned based on the first principles of physics, and detailed input parameters and results should be included. C. Response: It is not clear wh at ?first principles of physics? NIDEP is referring to that are alleged to be inconsistent with the results. Empirical studies have confirmed that building downwash effects are most significant in the wake cavity produced by structures (see AERMOD reference documents. The building cavity is a highly localized phenomenon that extends downwind from the relevant structure Once outside of the building walce regions the plume dispersion is consistent with what occurs to non- downwashed plumes. The AERMOD input and output files for the building downwash analysis were provided as part of the air modeling report. NIDEP Comment 2. Model Output a. Aermod is a steady~state model. The modeling analysis should have been signi?cantly more robust in order to eliminate air as a pathway for loading to the environment, The air modeling report should have gone further to include a discussion on limitations and imcertainties of the model. The preposed revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models (Appendix to 40 CPR Part 51) issued luly 14, 2015 states: ?Gaussian plume models use a ?steady-state? approximation, which assumes that over the model time step, the emissions, meteorology and other model inputs, are constant throughout the model domain, resulting in it resolved plume with emissions distributed throughout the plume according to a Gaussian distribution. This formulation allows Gaussian models to estimate near?field impacts ofa limited number of sources at a relatively high resolution. However, this formulation allozusfor only relatively inert pollutants, with very limited considerations of transformation and removal deposition), and further limits the domain for which. the model may be used. Thus, Gaussian models may not be appropriate if model inputs are changing sharply over the model time step or within the desired model domain or ifmore advanced considerations of chemistry are need. 23. Response: AERMOD was the Department-approved model for this modeling exercise. The comment notes several conditions that Would make using AERMOD inappropriate; however, none of those conditions are relevant to this modeling exercise. SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane, West Deptford. NJ 08086. USA - T: +856 353 3119 F: +856 853 6405 ww w. ol ay . Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 18 b. The air modeling report did not include maps showing the air concentration isopleths that cor espond to the deposition n-zodeling with estimated historical emission rates. Please submit all scenario results maps to include both deposition (g/mZ) and air concentiation (pg/i113). (Figures 10,11 and 12 do not have coir.esponding concentr ation isop l.eths) 2b. Response: The goal of the modeling was to simulate potential deposition loading to the environment over the period of emissions. The modeling approach was constructed to provide insights on the dispersion characteristics associated with emissions from each of the modeled sources individually and then simulate a range of combined source contributions. The model predicted air concentration and deposition results were presented for each individual air emission source, along with isopleths of concentration and deposition. The air model predicted maximum concentration and deposition for each source occurred within the site fence line with decreasing values with distance from the source, as is clear from the associated figures. The spatial similarities in the concentration and deposition isopleths with respect to direction Show the same transport potential in response to the regional wind patterns. The same consistency in the spatial distribution of model predicted air concentrations and particle deposition. occurred for the combined source analysis, as stated in the report. Thus Figures 10 through 15, which provide isopleths for the combined source analysis, provided more detailed insights into the particle deposition results, consistent with the goal of the air modeling. c. The air modeling report should include an analysis of mass balance for (annual and over entire time of emissions) and determine load under multiple scenarios) to all areas. This is a way to check if all sources at the facility were accounted for in. all of the modeling pathways air, surface water, and groundwater intrusion). Dining research of previous DEP air permits, DEF found that a umber of sources as part of emission unit U3 000 (mama?acture ofpolyoinylidene ?uoride) were not included in. the Integral modeling report. An explanation. is missing as to why P713003, 13'1?3005, P131006, PT3007, PTBOOB, PT3009, PTSOIO and PTBOIZ were not included or inentioi-ied in the Air Modeling Report for PP Cs. 2c. Response: The mass balance requested in this comment is beyond the agreed scope of this modeling exercise. With regard to modeled sources, the air modeling plan discussed the range of potential air emissions sources associated with the historical PVDF manufacture at the Site using PFCs. The discuesion identified the primary sources that would be the focus of the air modeling and provided a justification for their selection. Additional details of the sources modeled for the Site and their justification was provided in March 2014 to the Department and EPA along with the AERMOD input and output files. The information provided was sufficient to identify which sources included on the historical NJDEP air permits were being evaluated. The sources identified in the comment SOLVAY POLYMERS USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptrord, NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 19 were not included in the air modeling because they would have a negligible contribution to the potential loading of PFC to the environment, especially in areas outside the plant boundary, yet would greatly complicate the modeling exercise withoutmeaning?il changes in the output as explained below. a PT3003 was used to vent a temporary storage tank for off-spec materials. This was an infrequent source that had very low momentum and buoyancy. a PT3005 through PT3009 are operated for about 3 minutes to purge oxygen from empty reactor vessels 2?3 times per day. The stacks are only 12 ft tall and emissions have very low momentum and buoyancy. PT3010 and PT3012 were not part of the routine PVDF manufacturing process and emissions were infrequent and brief. As explained above, due to the minor impact of the above listed sources, including these sources is not needed to achieve the goals of the air modeling. d. Calibration/ Validation: The air modeling report does not attempt to calibrate or validate the model. Calibration of the air model with this alone is no longer possible since the emissions have ceased. However, others have calibrated similar models by linking emissions to the atmosphere to groundwater contamination (Shin et al., 2011; Davis et al., 2007). 2d. Response: Such a calibration/validation was outside the scope of this investigation as discussed previously. Furthermore, the potential effects of deposition will be considered through the proposed scope of work, which includes determining the vertical PFC concentration distribution in soil and partitioning coef?cients. This will effectively address the De partmen t?s comment. GENERAL COMMENTS NIDEP Comment 1. Please indicate ifSoloay has extended the investigation into other neighboring states. Response: The only part of the work under the work plan that extended to other states is within the Delaware River and the results were included in Solvay?s submissions. Solvay took limited additional surface water and sediment samples in the Delware River basin beyond those called for in the work plan and would be happy to share that data with the Department. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Dep?ord, NJ 08086, USA - T: +858 853 8119 - F: +858 853 6405 . a: Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 20 NIDEP Comment 2. Please indicate if Solvay is conducting or intends to conduct any additional sampling of any public water supply system. Response: Solvay has no plans to conduct additional sampling of any public water supply system. JDEP Comment 3. Due to the persistence of PFNA (~16 ng/l) and ongoing punnring of Pa ulsboro '5 public supply Well Solvay must address whether they will continue the PFC monitoring program in Paulshoro?s Well In addition to sampling, please also provide a status and summary ofioater treatment activities that Solvay is undertaking in Paulsboro. Response: All steps being taken by Solvay in Paulsboro have been taken either voluntarily by Solvay or pursuant to a settlement agreement with Paulsboro. That said, as a courtesy to the Department, the results of quarterly sampling at aulsboro public supply Well #8 which Solvay voluntarily conducted on behalf of Paulsboro in 2014 and sampling (December 2014 through May 2015) of Paulsboro public supply wells Well #8 and Well #9 have been reported to the NJDEP. The results have demonstrated that concentrations of both raw and finished water exhibit low variability over consecutive 3~month intervals and that continued sampling at Well #8 is not warranted. Construction of the additional treatment process for Paulsboro public supply Well #7 is tentatively scheduled to start the week of October 5, 2015. Con?rmatory samples will be collected after the treatment system is online and those results will be shared with the Department. NJDEP Comment 4. Dining the lane 10, 2015 meeting, Solvay raised a concern regarding gaining access to o??sitc properties for investigation purposes. For clarification, the Brown?eld and Contaminated Site Remediation Act, and the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites include requirements for obtaining off site access to properties ?rr the purposes of conducting remediation. This would also include all investigation activities of PF Cs in this case. Additional guidance-may be found at liter/human: gov ldep/srp/offsitel. Please note, the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation de?nes "Remediation? as the following: ?Remediation? or "remediate? means all necessary actions to investigate and cleanup or respond to any known, suspected, or threatened discharge, inchidinL as necessary, the rn'eliininary assessment, site investigation, remedial investigation and remedial action; provided, however, that ?remediation? SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptford. NJ 08086. USA T: +856 853 8119 F: +856 853 6405 vmwsotvayeom Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 21 or ?remediate? shall not include the payment ofcoinpensation for damage to, or loss of, natural resources. Response: As described in the September 22, 2015 work plan, Solvay will request access from the property owners of certain specified properties downgradient from the Plant. However, based on legal input, Solvay understands that the mechanisms to secure access to the property of others through the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act and the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites cited in the July 31 letter only apply in connection with the investigation 01' remediation of a suspected or actual "contaminated site? connected to the site being remediated. Thus, the off-site access provisions only apply in the context of a required remediation. Here, the access provisions would not be available to Solvay in the event a property owner is unwilling to voluntarily provide access. There is no obligation under New Jersey law to investigate or remediate off-site contamination from unrelated sources. Only the Department would have the authority to investigate or require of others the investigation of any conditions not related to Solvay?s plant. NJDEP 5. Solvay refers to their investigation of PFCs as voluntary in nature. However, note that the Department disagrees with Solvay's characterization that it is acting voluntarily, since the following statutes and promulgated regulations thereunder require the remediation of all discharged contaminants including pollutants such as pei?uorinated compounds: the Site Remediation Reform Act 58: et seq), the Brown?eld and Contaminated Site Remediation Act 58:108?1 et seq.), the Water Pollution Control Act (NJ .A.C. 7:14), the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites 7:260, and the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N. LAC. Response: Despite our disagreement, Solvay performed extensive work already pursuant to a work plan evaluated by the Department and EPA, and remainslcommitted to voluntarily performing the extensive additional work outlined in the Work plan submitted concurrently with this letter. Assuming solely for the sake of argument PFNA were a regulated "pollutant,? whether or not remediation is required depends entirely on whether applicable remediation standards have been exceeded. See, Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, 1.8 (de?ning ?contaminated site? as ?all contain one or more contaminants at a concentration above any remediation standard or screening criterion?); 3.5(b) ("If the concentration of any contantinant in the ground. water exceeds any ground SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA, LLG 10 Leonard Lane. West Deptford. NJ 08086, USA T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 oi ay .co in Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 22 water remediation standard, then the person responsible for conducting the remediation shall conduct a remedial investiga (emphasis added). Inother words, any investigation of a chemical that does not exceed an applicable standard would therefore be voluntary. As to PFCs, and speci?cally PFNA, there currently are no specific ground Water or surface water quality standards. The generic standard for similar chemicals, were it to be applied to PFNA, is 100 parts per billion (ppb).2 PFNA has not been detected above 100 at any offsite location. Thus, Solvay?s offsite investigation of ground water and surface water, including the additional worlc it proposed to to perform, is appropriately characterized as voluntary. Comment 6. As discussed in the lane to, 2015 meeting, the Department is continuing the investigation. of potable wells for PFC contamination and installation of POE TS in the vicinity of the Solvay Site. Following the meeting Solvay agreed to further investigate three specific potable wells located directly downgradient of the Solvay site in. West Deptford Twp. Solvay did not agree to any additional actions regarding receptors in the area at this time. The Department will forward information to Solvay?'orn the publicly funded investigation to aid in the development of the conceptual site model for the site. Response: Soivay has completed the investigation of the three properties identified by the Department. Two of the locations, 619 Mantua Grove Road and 346-348 Parkvilie Station/Parkville Road, have been sampled. The validated results were transmitted to the Department on September 18, 2015). The third location, 479 Crown Point Road, was contacted and the property owner stated that no potable well was present/in use at the property. Additionally, Solvay notified NIDEP via email on August 31, 2015 of their intention to canvass seven (7) additional properties. As Solvay has previously done, the results of the canvassing of these properties, including the existence of the well, active use of the well, and authorization by homeowner to collect a sample, will be provided to the Department. Solvay appreciates the Department?s willingness to provide information from the publicly funded investigation. 1 and 7.9C Appendix Table 2 Interim Generic Ground Water Quality Criteria Organic Chemicals (SOC). SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA, LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Depttotd. NJ 08086, USA T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 23 SOLVAY GENERAL COMMENT Solvay worked with the Department and EPA to quickly develop and implement a work plan to perform an extensive investigation of the presence of PFNA over a broad geographic area within which Solvay?s plant is located, butwithout regard to any connection to our plant site in response to public concerns raised in the media about the release by NIDEP of PFC sampling data in the late summer of 2013. The purpose of the work was to assist in responding to the concerns raised. The work was not conducted under any regulatory program, required by any law, nor Was it ordered by the Department or EPA. Solvay voluntarily cooperated with the Department and EPA in performing the work and continues to try to do so. We want to take this opportunity to voice our disappointment that the Department does not acknowledge Solvay?s cooperation in the July 31 letter. More importantly, that lack of acknowledgement undermines the validity of the comments in the July 31 letter. The comments on the air modeling report are especially troubling and illustrative of our point. As noted above, worked for months with the Department and EPA staff to, in great detail, determine how the air modeling should be carried out. There are no discrepancies between what was agreed to by and the Department and what was performed by Solvay and reported in the air modeling report. In addition, the results of the modeling were reviewed with the responsible Department staff for months and, at the June 10, 2015 meeting 3 months after the air modeling report was submitted the Department staff appeared to agreewith Solvay?s conclusions. Solvay was told that only minor comments would be provided. Instead, 2 months after that meeting, the July 31 letter includes two and half pages of comments that question the very steps that were worked out, agreed upon, and even requested by the Department staff. Solvay would welcome a meeting with the Department and EPA representatives to discuss the air modeling comments and, for consistency, requests that the personnel who attend the meeting from the regulatory agencies be the same personnel who contributed to planning efforts in advance of Solvay?s submission of the report. In addition, the Department?s skepticism of the usability of the TWP data and the lack of acknowledgment of even the possibility of alternative sources of PFNA in Gloucester County even where an anomalously high detection of. PFNA occurs 2 miles from our plant in an area that is not downgradient - raise additional concerns. SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Depiford. NJ 08086, USA - T: +856 853 8119 - F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 24 Our general response and concern is this: It appears from the July 31 letter that the Department is attempting to assign all responsibility for the investigation and remediation of PFNA detected in the environment in or near Gloucester County on Solvay, whether or not that is consistent with the science or authorized by law. As a result, NIDEP appears to oversimplify very complex issues, and in the process, appears to ignore the occurrence and the alternative sources of PFNA and other PFCs in the environment of the area. A lack of willingness by NIDEP to pursue an investigation into alternative sources of PFNA and other PFCs in the environment effectively makes cooperation by Solvay, or any other company that might agree to help determine the occurrence of PFCs in the environment, more difficult, and, in the end, sows confusion and prevents a complete understanding of the presence of PFCs in the environment. REQUIREMENTS: Solvay reached agreement with the Department and EPA to perform the first work plan. As explained in response to NIDEP General Comment 5 above, Solvay?s work and work plan are not governed by NIAC Please do not hesitate to contact me at 856251-3409 if you have any additional comments or questions regarding this submittal. Sincerely, Clam/aimu Charles M. Jones West Deptford Site Manager Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC cc: Via Email Only: Ken Kloo, Director, NIDEP John P. Kuehne, Deputy Attorney General, LPS Nidai Azzam, USEPA Region II assam.nidal@epa.gov Thomas Buggey, LSRP, Roux Associates, Inc. tbuggey@rouxinc.com Denise DiCarlo, Mayor of West De ptford, ddicarlo@westdeptford.com SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC ?10 Leonard Lane. West Deptford. NJ 08086. USA T: +856 853 8119 F: +856 853 6405 Public Inspection Copy Erica Bergman September 22, 2015 Page 25 Don Schneider, Gloucester County Department of Health, a? Mitch Gel?tz, Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC mitchell.gertz?Dsolvaycom Christopher Roe, Fox LLP Philip Goodrum, Integral COnsulting Inc. SOLVAY SPEGEALTY POLYMERS USA. LLC 10 Leonard Lane. West Daptford. NJ 08086. USA - T: +856 853 8119 F: +856 853 6405 Mr. Shawn LaTourette A '1 17 2019 Exhibit Redacted as Confidential Business Information Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 726015, the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, and Case Law. West Deptford Replacement Surfactants Spreadsheets Mr. Shawn LaTourette A ril 17 2019 Exhibit Redacted as Confidential Business Information Pursuant to N.J.A.C. the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, and Case Law. West Deptford Replacement Surfactants Safety Data Sheets