DEQ-CFW_00001405

C-8 in f%rinking Water Wells q l a-i/0 7
Subject: C-8 in Drinking Water Wells P4
�b From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> 1�0_L l0 0�0
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:09:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: [e-mail] �, 5
V°/
r6Y v
i�
The C-8 Working Group sampled several wells north and northwest of the
plant. I think all their samples were reported as ND. Isn't their
data on their web site? K D
I've talked with DuPont about continuing to monitor Marshwood Lake and
some private wells near Marshwood Lake. So far, they've been opposed
to it. DuPont wants to monitor on -site near the APFO unit. But
because of the complexity of the geology at the APFO unit and the fact
that transport is by air, I'm not sure close -in monitoring will be a
good predictor of more distant groundwater conditions.
Connie,
The C-8 Working Group is correct, but the reported concentrations have
been low. As far as I know, only one well has had a quantifiable
concentration of C-8 (see below).
In January 2006, DuPont and EPA Region 4 split samples from five off -
site drinking water wells. The wells were located north of the plant.
This is the area where people live relatively close to the plant --
within a radius of about two miles. And the dominant wind direction is
to the northeast.
These wells all came back non -detect for EPA. EPA's samples were
analyzed at the EPA National Enforcement Laboratory in Denver. Their
detection limit was about 30 parts per trillion. � Jv Xt v &Ak .
DuPont's samples were also non -detect, except for one which was not
quantifiable. DuPont's detection limit was 2-3 parts per trillion, and
the quantification limit was about 12 parts per trillion.
DuPont also sampled a private well south of the plant (nondetect) and
one to the northeast. The one to the northeast is located about a mile
north of the plant in a subdivision named Marshwood Lake. This sample
was split and analyzed by two different laboratories (DuPont contracted
for both). One lab reported a NQ (quantification limit of about 11
I�L-3 .003
1.
parts per trillion) and the other reported a concentration of about 12
parts per trillion. P/L�j a-+- ( - N Q
There is actually a small lake at the Marshwood Lake subdivision. I
think the C-8 Working Group collected a sample from the lake and
reported 12 or 13 parts per trillion. This is very close to what
DuPont reported in the well located adjacent to the lake.
a'- S
lJ�
A private citizen who lives at Marshwood Lake and has a private well
had his blood analyzed for APFO. He sent me the lab report. It showed
an APFO level of about 9 parts per trillion --double the national
average but within the "normal range". The same is true for the (By
concentration of PFOS in his blood (i.e., within the normal range).
comparison, one would expect people who have been drinking Cape Fear
River water for a number of years (sole source) to have 10 to 25 parts
per trillion of APFO in their blood.)
I have the well data plotted on a map if you want to see it. It's
just a topo sheet with hand -plotted data points, but it shows the
picture pretty well.
ba-c��
Larry Stanley
of 1
4/25/2007 11:20 AM
DEQ-CFW 00001405

C-8 in k;rinking Water Wells
Subject: C-8 in Drinking Water Wells
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:09:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: [e-mail]
Connie,
The C-8 Working Group is correct, but the reported concentrations have
been low. As far as I know, only one well has had a quantifiable
concentration of C-8 (see below).
In January 2006, DuPont and EPA Region 4 split samples from five off -
site drinking water wells. The wells were located north of the plant.
This is the area where people live relatively close to the plant --
within a radius of about two miles. And the dominant wind direction is
to the northeast.
These wells all came back non -detect for EPA. EPA's samples were
analyzed at the EPA National Enforcement Laboratory in Denver. Their
detection limit was about 30 parts per trillion.
DuPont's samples were also non -detect, except for one which was not
quantifiable. DuPont's detection limit was 2-3 parts per trillion, and
the quantification limit was about 12 parts per trillion.
DuPont also sampled a private well south of the plant (nondetect) and
one to the northeast. The one to the northeast is located about a mile
north of the plant in a subdivision named Marshwood Lake. This sample
was split and analyzed by two different laboratories (DuPont contracted
for both). One lab reported a NQ (quantification limit of about 11
parts per trillion) and the other reported a concentration of about 12
parts per trillion.
There is actually a small lake at the Marshwood Lake subdivision. I
think the C-8 Working Group collected a sample from the lake and
reported 12 or 13 parts per trillion. This is very close to what
DuPont reported in the well located adjacent to the lake.
The C-8 Working Group sampled several wells north and northwest of the
plant. I think all their samples were reported as ND. Isn't their
data on their web site?
I've talked with DuPont about continuing to monitor Marshwood Lake and
some private wells near Marshwood Lake. So far, they've been opposed
to it. DuPont wants to monitor on -site near the APFO unit. But
because of the complexity of the geology at the APFO unit and the fact
that transport is by air, I'm not sure close -in monitoring will be a
good predictor of more distant groundwater conditions.
A private citizen who lives at Marshwood Lake and has a private well
had his blood analyzed for APFO. He sent me the lab report. It showed
an APFO level of about 9 parts per trillion --double the national
average but within the "normal range". The same is true for the
concentration of PFOS in his blood (i.e., within the normal range). By
comparison, one would expect people who have been drinking Cape Fear
River water for a number of years (sole source) to have 10 to 25 parts
per trillion of APFO in their blood.
I have the well data plotted on a map if you want to see it. It's
just a topo sheet with hand -plotted data points, but it shows the
picture pretty well.
Larry Stanley
1 of 1 4/25/2007 11:23 AM
DEQ-CFW 00001406