?
Need
to
return
call
by
/
at/
between
and
.
Signature:
Project
No.:
0172.02.005.052
 
DISTRIBUTION
Page
___
of
_

Project
Name:
304(
m)

TELEPHONE
CALL
RECORD
Outgoing
Call
Date:
02/
07/
05
Time:
2:
00
pm
Company
Name:
Eastman
Kodak
Co.
Kodak
Park
Rochester
NY
14652
Contact
Name:
Derek
Guest
Phone
No.:
(
585)
722
­
3949
Name:
TJ
Finseth
Eastern
Research
Group
GENERAL
SUBJECT
:
Eastman
Kodak
Rochester
NY
Dioxin
and
PACs
releases
to
TRI
2002
TOPICS
DISCUSSED
AND
ACTION
TAKEN
On
Wednesday
February
2,
2005
at
11:
45
am,
I
contacted
Mr.
James
Blamphin.
I
asked
Mr.
Blamphin
about
the
dioxin
and
PACs
discharges
that
his
company
reported
to
TRI
in
2002.
Mr.
Blamphin
told
me
that
I
needed
to
talk
to
someone
else
about
the
discharges.
Mr.
Blamphin
told
me
that
he
would
contact
the
person
and
have
them
contact
me.

On
Wednesday
February
2,
2005
at
4:
00
pm,
Mr.
Derek
Guest
left
a
message
on
my
machine
saying
that
he
was
the
person
that
I
needed
to
ask
about
the
dioxin
discharges.

On
Thursday
February
3,
2004
at
1:
00
pm,
I
left
a
message
on
Mr.
Guest's
machine
asking
him
to
contact
me
back
about
the
discharges.

On
Monday
February
7,
2005
at
2:
00
pm,
I
contacted
Mr.
Guest.
I
asked
Mr.
Guest
how
the
Eastman
Kodak
Rochester
facility
estimated
their
dioxin
releases.
He
told
me
that
the
facility
has
several
sources
of
dioxin.
The
main
source
of
dioxin
is
from
coal
boilers
that
the
facility
uses
to
generate
electricity.
The
facility
estimates
the
dioxin
discharges
due
to
the
coal
boilers
by
using
an
emission
factor.
Another
source
of
dioxin
from
the
facility
are
the
incinerators.
The
facility
estimates
the
amount
of
dioxin
released
from
the
incinerators
based
on
data
that
was
collected
for
their
permit
application.
Mr.
Guest
told
that
this
data
was
collected
while
the
incinerator
was
operating
at
"
worst­
case
scenario".
Based
on
the
data
collected
the
facility
was
able
to
estimate
how
much
dioxin
was
released
from
the
incinerators.
Mr.
Guest
also
told
me
that
they
made
an
estimation
for
dioxin
releases
from
vehicles
that
are
driven
on­
site.
He
did
not
explain
exactly
how
the
estimation
was
made,
but
said
that
EPA
requires
this
to
be
estimated.

I
then
asked
Mr.
Guest
if
he
knew
which
PACs
the
facility
was
reporting
discharged.
Mr.
Guest
told
me
that
he
wasn't
sure,
but
that
he
thinks
the
source
is
from
the
coal
boilers.
Mr.
Guest
told
me
that
he
would
investigate
which
PACs
they
are
releasing
and
call
me
back
in
a
few
days.

On
Monday
February
14,
2005
at
3:
30
pm
I
contacted
Mr.
Guest.
I
told
me
Guest
that
there
had
been
some
?
Need
to
return
call
by
/
at/
between
and
.
Signature:
confusion
in
our
previous
conversion,
and
that
I
was
only
concerned
about
the
facility's
water
discharges.
Mr.
Guest
told
me
that
he
too,
realized
that
there
had
been
some
confusion
and
was
going
to
call
me
back.
Mr.
Guest
proceeded
to
tell
me
that
the
facility
has
its
own
wastewater
treatment
facility.
The
facility
analyzed
the
sludge
produced
by
the
facility
for
dioxin.
Based
on
the
concentration
from
the
sludge
and
the
amount
of
solids
leaving
the
wastewater
treatment
facility,
they
were
able
to
estimate
the
amount
of
dioxin
discharged.
Mr.
Guest
told
me
that
in
2003,
the
facility
measured
the
effluent
from
the
wastewater
treatment
facility
for
dioxin,
and
that
the
measurement
was
very
close
to
what
the
facility
was
estimating
from
the
sludge
analysis.

I
asked
Mr.
Guest
if
he
knew
how
the
PACs
discharge
was
estimated
and
if
he
knew
which
compounds
were
being
released,
and
he
told
me
that
he
did
not
know.
He
told
me
that
he
would
call
someone
right
now
and
send
me
an
e­
mail
with
the
answers.

On
Monday
February
14,
2005
at
3:
47
pm,
Mr.
Guest
sent
me
an
e­
mail.
In
the
e­
mail,
Mr.
Guest
wrote
that
the
PACs
discharge
is
estimated
the
same
way
as
the
dioxin,
by
analyzing
the
sludge
at
the
wastewater
treatment
facility.
Mr.
Guest
also
wrote
that
the
PACs
discharges
are
based
on
one
study
done
in
1995,
looking
at
three
samples
of
sludge.

Attached
is
a
copy
of
the
e­
mail
that
Mr.
Guest
sent
to
me.
