Document BJ7Vvwm8NwnVZ2JYp2YQjB0k

AR226-2558 -9 - Andrew S Hartten 05/31/2001 03:29 PM To: cc: Subject; wentworth.wltliaffi@epamall.epa.gov Robert L Ritchey/CL/DuPont@DuPont, Isidores J Zanites/ABDuPont@DuPont, Andrea V Malinowski/AE/DuPont@OuPont, Alison A Crane/A/DuPont@DuPont information on Washington Works Facility Bill, The following provides answers to your questions in the May 23 memo you sent me, which Is attached, Per our conversation today, I'm faxing to you hard copy analytical results and the pertinent portion of the site NPDES permit modification (to add to the original permit which you have). If any information or data is missing, please let me know and I'll get that info or data to you asap. Based on your questions: The majority of C-8 emmissions do not pass through the site WWTP, but go directly from the Teflon process to and through NPDE8 permitted Outfall 005. The quantitly of C-8 discharged directly via 005 is estimated to range between 40,000 and 60,000 Ibs/year, for recent years (recent, 2001 results being sent). By contrast, the amount of C-8 being discharged via on-site production wells (including Gallery .which really collects river water) would conservatively total 200 Ibs/year (using worst case of 16 ppb at Ranney Well for all production wells). A more realistic number would be 50 Ibs/year using actual concentrations and flow rates at all site production wells. The C-8 discharges via Outfall 002 would primarily be from production wells (I.e., used for non-contact cooling), hence the relatively low concentration at the outfall (recent results being sent). It is Important to note that forecast discharges from Teflon via 005 should drop to approx. 20,000 Ibs in 2001 with the late winter 2001 start-up on the new carbon adsorption treatment unit (Note: you'll notice a drop in C-8 results between Feb/March and April). As experiences are gained and improvements are implemented, it Is believed these discharges should reduce to approx. 5,000 Ibs/year. As required by the NPDES permit modification, we began monthly monitoring in February of Outfall 005 and 002 for C-8, and have verbally committed to quarterly monitoring of the Ranney, Gallery, and West Field (combined How) production wells (results being sent). Recent NPDES sampling results are being forwarded. It should be noted that most organics have been below detection limits. Acute toxicity is measured annually, with recent testing indicating zero mortality for daphnia and fathead minnows or "no toxicity demonstrated", Please note that year 2000 annual prodcutlon well sampling event summary we recently submitted to you provides up-to-date analytical results for key on-site production wells. I hope this anwers your questions and the Information being sent meets your needs. As I indicated previously, please contact me if anything is missing or you need additional info. Andrew Forwarded by Andrew S Hartten/AE/DuPont on 05/31/2001 02:07 PM -------------- Wentworth.William@epamait.epa.gov on 05/23/2001 04:47:44 PM EID316910 To: ce: Subject Andrew 8 Hartten/AE/DuPont Information on Washington Works Facility Andrew - I would appreciate if you could provide me with the following information. could you provide me with the information on the approximate amount of C-8 that leaves the facility through the waste water treatment plant (under NPDES) vs the amount that goes out as part of the noncontaet cooling water (I believe that you provided gome numbers on this during my plant visit and indicated that the majority of the C-8 is from the Teflon process and goes out through the treatment plant). Also, is the C-8 monitored as a requirement under MPDE3, or is it something that DuPont monitors for its own information. do you have analytical results from the plant discharge of th untreated noncontaet cooling water. If so, may I see a copy of the most recent ceaulta for all parameters that you analyze for. may I have a copy of the facilities NPDES permit<3), or at leaat the portions of the permit(s) that would indicate the frequency of sampling and what you are required to analyze for. Also, may I have a copy of your most recant MPDBS analytical results. the RFI Report indicated that you sampled potable well number 336 during the RTI. Could you please provide me with the most recent analytical results from all of the potable wells found on-site. the Dupont-lubeck well field represents the old liUbeek Municipal Water Supply Wells, that are now used as part of DuPont's production wells (groundwater capture system) - correct? could you provide me with a copy of the most recent analytical results for all of the on-aite production wells. Thank you for your help. Bill. EID316&11