Document 5LBn0ZwnDY7Rz0qwG6KbqLnb4

>*224-/SO P rsn 8ema/d - on 10/04/2001 08 26 AM cc SvOiect rhjrru^jtPv'fcncorp com swashburn@envtrencorD com M Am 8'<H*v.'STB/QUPDUP. John 3 Sowman.A/DuPonl@DuPont. Isidoros J Zamttci/Ag/CuPortgOuPont Martha L R**/AE/DuPont(9DuPort. David M RoraK/AE/DuPontQDuPont Next Week at Region O' We have senous concerns that when we smft to the new analytical technique using Exagent. LC/MS/MS. along with improved sample gathenng techniques e g. avoiding glass, that we will get numbers considerably above the DuPont CEG of 1 ppb (or 3 ppo where there is no air exposure) Region 3 has oid us they plan to order DuPont to provide alternative drinking water for any user above the 1 ppb When they told us this (Sep 7) we did not Know now stnking might be the increase compared to Lancaster Lab that we have been using, could be a factor of 10 or more and thus greatly over the CEG maybe range of 5 to 10 ppb or even higher (hoping recent steps to curb river discharge starting to impact wells). To try to avoid such an Order (although we may decide to provide dnnKing water on a voluntary basis) we therefore plan to get to EPA Region 3 dnnKing water (Karen Johnson) and rtsK (Sam Rotenberg) people next week, if they are willing to meet Our porpoise would be to express concern that our very conservative number may be used against us. and that is not fair Then inform them that using the traditional tools of interpreting animal data to humans a far higher number than the CEG does is obtained. We are certain they have not worked through such a process. The Environ monograph would be essential in this regard, and we would hope Environ can be there to present a summary of it. Of course another Key part of the presentation is the lack of numan health impacts based on ail studies to date. We have an internal call on this at 9 AM today, then izzy will try to set up something with Region 3. we will first check your availability - Bemie ooooos KDD00'S:33