Document ZKnR8adM6ngLRmK3v26jxGmV

AR226-2456 "DANIEL A. W E B E R 8-863-4415" < W E B E R D A @ W W P S - A 1 ,EMAIL,DUPONT.COM> on 05/11/89 06:44:00 AM To: "ROBERT L, RITCHEY" <RITCHERL@WWPS-A1,EMAIL.DUPONT.COM>, "ANTHONY J. [TONY] PLAYTtS* <PLAYTIS@WWPS-A1.EMAILDUPONT.COM>, Andrew S Hartten/AE/DuPont, Isidores J Zanikos/AE/DuPont, Andrea Malinowski/DPL/DUP, Michael J Lukas/AE/DuPont, DAWN D JACKSON <JACKSODD@WWPS-A1,EMAIL.DUPONT,COM> cc: Subject C-8 AND DRINKING WATER FYI FYI, I FOUND THESE NOTES IN MI E-MAIL FILE. HOWEVER, MUCH OF THE C-8 RELATED INFORMATION IN MI E-MAIL PILE HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE AUTOMATIC FILE PURGE PROGRAM. DAN Message-headers: Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:14:00 EDT Front: "ANTHONY J, ITONYJ PLAYTIS 304-863-2228" <PLAYTIS0WWPS-Al.EMAIL.DUPONT.COM> subject: C-8 In Plant Drinking Water Tot "ROBERT L. RITCHEY" <RITCHBRL@WWPS"A1, EMAIL, DUPONT, C0M>, "DANIEL A. WEBER* <WEBERDA0WWPSA1.EMAIL.DUPONT,COM> Cc: "GERALD L. KENNEDY" <KENNEDGL0ESVAX-A1,EMAIL.DUPONT.COM> Posting-date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:49.00 EDT Importance: normal Al-type: MAIL I talked to Jerry Kennedy about my concern with the C-8 in the plant drinking water, and he suggested looking at the total dose our workers would receive by both the air and water routes and then comparing that with what is acceptable. I did that and came up with the following analysis. The air AEL is 0.01 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA). Assuming a worker inhales 10 m3 in 8 hours, our AEL allows a daily dose of 0.1 mg. Let's make the pessimistic assumption that the water from the east field wells contains C-8 at the CEG level of 1 ug/L, or 0.001 mg/L. If a worker drinks 2 liters in a shift, the dose by this route would be 0.002 mg, or 2% of the acceptable daily dose. This would he worrisome only if our air levels were close to 98% of the AEL, which is not the case. A similar analysis can be run for a 12-hour shift, and the conclusion would be the same. Drinking the plant water does not significantly expose our workers to C-8. it does not appear that any further action is necessary at this time'. The current practice of analyzing the well water for C-8 once every year or so is reasonable. Message-headers: Pate: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:11:00 EDT . From: "DANIEL A, WEBER 8-863-4415* <WEBERDA0WWPS-A1.EMAIL,DUPONT.CQM> Subject: C-8 DATA FOR DOMESTIC WATER WEILS TO: "LYNWOOD K. IRELAND* <rRELAND0WWPS-Al.EMAIL.DUPONT.COM>, RONALD W MELOON <MELOONRW0WWPS-A1.EMAIL.DUPONT.COM>, "ROBERT L. RITCHEY" <RITCHERL0WWPS-Al.EMAIL.DUPONT.COM>, 996600BSV E ID 1 0 2 9 7 2 H. DAVID RAMSEY, UR. " <RAMSEY8WWPS-A1.EMAIL.DUPONT.COM>, David C. Harrison* <HARRISDC0WWPS-A1.EMAIL.DUPONT.COM> Posting-date* Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:49:00 EOT Importance: normal Al-type: MAID 1 FYI, C-8 LEVELS IN THE EAST FILED DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE WELLS AND WEST FIELD (OLD LUBECK WELLFIELD) WELL #1 ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW: WEST WELLFIELD (OLD LUBECK WELLFIELD) WELL #1 5/93 8/94 5/97 0,6 PPB 0 - 11 % SURROGATE RECOVERY 2.1 PPB (RETEST) 60 - 75 % SURROGATE RECOVERY 1.5 PPB 30 - 38 % SURROGATE RECOVERY 7.9 PPB 120 - 126 % SURROGATE RECOVERY EAST WELLFIELD WELL # 336 6/93 4/96 5/97 0.5 PPB 0.48 PPB 0.79 PPB 52 - 76 % SURROGATE RECOVERY 29 - 85 % SURROGATE RECOVERY 36 - 41 * SURROGATE RECOVERY WELL # 331 6/93 4/96 5/97 2.9 :PPB 0.52 PPB 0.55 PPB 55 - 78 % SURROGATE RECOVERY 40 - 161 % SURROGATE RECOVERY 43 - 45 % SURROGATE RECOVERY WELL # 332 6/93 3.3 PPB 69 - 87 % SURROGATE RECOVERY SURROGATE RECOVERY PERTAINS TO THE PRACTICE OF ADDING COMPOUNDS WITH SIMILAR 08 ORGANIC STRUCTURE TO THE SAMPLE TO GAGE THE PER CENT RECOVERY OP THE ANALYTICAL METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE C8 RESULT (IE, AN INDICATION OF HOW MUCH OF THE C-8 PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE WAS IDENTIFIED) . ASH009%7 EXD12973