Document wqe3jMQpkpkXnEpynpVKNbXzE

AR226-2456 "DANIEL A. WEBER 8-863-4418" <WEBERDA@WWPS-A1,EMAIL,DUPONT.COM;> on 05/11/8& 08:44:00 AM To; cc; Subject "ROBERT L, RITCHEY" <R>TCHEW.@WWP$-A1.EMA(L.DUroNT.COM>, "ANTHONY J. [TONY1 PLAYTIS" <PLAYTI8@WWPS-A1.EMAIL.DUPONT.COM>, Andrew S Hartten/AE/DuPont. Isidores J Zanikos/AE/DuPont, Andrea Malinowski/DPL/DUP, Michael J Lukas/AE/DuPont, DAWN D JACKSON <JACK80DD@VWVPS.A1.EMAILWPONrT.COM> C-8 AND DRINKING WATER. FYl FYI, X VQVSD THESE MOTES IM VS E-MAIL FILE. HOWBVBft, MUCH OP TOE C-8 RCTATED IHFOBMATXCW X MY B-MAXI, PILE HAS BEBM .DBt.BTED BY THE AUTOMATIC P1LB PTOeE HilOOMUA. DAH Message-headers: Data: Tue, 25 Mov 199'? 16;14:00 EDT ?TCBIt "XOTHONy ff. ITOIW) PUm-lS 304-863-2228" <?rA'S'TIsewWPS-M.EMaiI,.DOP01ii')t?.COM> SubjecC; C-8 In Plant Drinking Watar Tot "ROBSRT I.. B.TTCBBY" <RI'];CMEttLWWPS-Rl.El,I:[..DOPOMT.COl!>. "DANIEIi A. WEBER" <;WEBEBDAewWPS-Al.B'aiL.DUPOMT-COKl> CC: "GERMiD I>. KENNEDY <KEKNEDOL9BSVAX-Al.EMAII..DUPOMT.COM> Posting-itetet Wed, 26 Mov 1997 08!49-,00 EDT In^iortance ? nonttal Al-type: MAHi I talked to Jewy Kennedy about Bty concern with the C-a in the plant dl-iolcing water, and he suggested looking at the total dose ou;c workers would receive by both the ait- and water troufces and then comparing that with what is acceptable. I did that and came up with the tollowiicigr analysis. The air ABIi is 0.01 lng/m3 (a-hr TMA). assuming a worker inhales 10 m3 in 8 hours, our AEL allows a daily dose of 0.1 tng. Let'$ Make the pessimistic assumption that the wateac roai the east field wells contains C-.8 at the CEQ Iwal o 1 ug/L, or 0.001 Big/L. If a worker drinlts 2 liters in a shift, the dose by this route would toe 0.002 wg, or 2% of the acceptable daily dose. This would be worrisome only if our air levels were close to 98% ot the AEL, which is not the case. A similar analysis can be run for a 12-hour shift, and the conclusiott would be the taa>e, OrinUng the plant water does not significantly expose our workers to C-B. further action is necessary at this time'. It does not apjpear that any 'She current practice of analyzing the well water for C-6 once evftry year or so is reasonable. ?1, Message-headers t Datet 14 Hov 1997 l4sllt00 EDT yrowt CWIBI. A, W3BBER 8-863-44A5* <WEBERE>AWW;t>8"A^.HHMI..DWOm'.CC^> Subject* C-8 DATA FOR DOtffiSTIC WATER MBLLS TO? LYISWOOD K. IRBLMilD" <IRELAiro9WWPS-Al.EMAII..BIOKn'.CCa>, ROMAIC W MELOOH <l'^MOHRWeWWPB-Al. EMAIL. DOPOMT.COIO. 'ROBERT I,. MTCHEy" <RITCMEBI,eWBPS-Al.EMAII,.DUPOnT.CC(H>, EXD102&72 H. DAVID KfliSEY, .re.- <lR!SiSBY8WWPS-M..SMAII.,DUPOOT-.COM>, "David C. Harrison* <H&)RRISr)CBWWPS-M.EtBU;I..DOPONT.cOM> Posting-datet Pri. 14 Hov 1997 14:49;00 EDT Importance; nonnal M-fcype; MAIL FYI, C-8 XiEVELS XH THE EAST FlUBD DOMESTIC WAT6R 5EHVICE WEIiLS AMD WEST fXBLD (OI>D HJBECK WEIiliFIELD) MBCL #1 ARE SOHMARIZED BELOW: WEST WBELFIELD (OLD LUBECK WBLLFXELB) WO. !, 5/&3 B/94 B/97 0.6 PPB 2.1 PPB (RSTEST) 1.5 ?I?B 7.9 PCB ll 8 - % 60 - 75 30 - 38 % 120 - 126 saiWOGMTE RBCOVHiy % SORROOATE RECOVERY swawswe RBCOVBRY % SURROGATE RECOVERY EAST WBtSSlEltD WELL # 336 6/93 4/96 5/97 0.5 PPB 0.48 PPB 0.79 PPB 52 29 36 - 76 % 65 % 41 SDRROQATE RECOVERY SDRROQATE RECOVERY SORROOATB RECOVERY WELL t 331 6/93 4/96 5/97 2-9 PPB 0.52 PPB 0.55 PPB 55 40 43 - 78 % SOKHOGATE HBCOVERY 101 % SOBKOQATE RECOVERY 45 % SOBROQATE RECOVERY WISH, #332 6/93 3.3 PPB 69 B7 * SURROGATE RECOVERY SliBROBATB RKCOVERY PERT&TOS TO THB PR&CTtCB OiP AD&IMO COMPOTOiDS WXTH SXMXIAR C8 OROAtUG SiKOCOTmB TO TOB gAWI^B TO eAOB THB PER CENT RECOVERY OF THE AMM,YTTCAL METHOD VgBD TO DETEBMIHE THE C8 KESDLT (IE. AN ItlDICATIOlI OP HOia MOCa OF THE C-8 PRBSEHT IH THE SAMPLE WAS IDEHTIPIED). EID102&73