Table
5.4
Summary
of
Analytical
Results:
C­
8
in
Surface
Water
Letart
Landfill
Letart,
WV
Sample
Date
C­
8
(
ug/
l)
002(
LEACHATE
BASIN)
11/
25/
2002
939
10/
31/
2002
645
9/
27/
2002
4.52
8/
30/
2002
2050
7/
30/
2002
1410
6/
28/
2002
Not
Analyzed*
5/
30/
2002
1630
4/
30/
2002
443
3/
28/
2002
131
2/
19/
2002
355
1/
25/
2002
50.1
12/
14/
2001
36.1
11/
27/
2001
53.2
7/
20/
2001
159
7/
25/
2000
1350
4/
3/
2000
1900
1/
14/
2000
920
10/
21/
1999
3240
003
11/
30/
2002
No­
Flow
Conditions
10/
31/
2002
No­
Flow
Conditions
9/
27/
2002
0.17
8/
30/
2002
No­
Flow
Conditions
7/
30/
2002
No­
Flow
Conditions
6/
28/
2002
Not
Analyzed*
5/
30/
2002
0.282
4/
30/
2002
0.0653
3/
28/
2002
0.198
2/
19/
2002
No­
Flow
Conditions
1/
25/
2002
0.148
12/
14/
2001
0.39
STORMWATER
RUNOFF
9/
27/
2002
50.9
RT
33
STREAM
10/
31/
2002
2.83
9/
27/
2002
2.24
8/
30/
2002
No­
Flow
Conditions
5/
30/
2002
1.57
4/
30/
2002
0.845
3/
28/
2002
1.26
2/
19/
2002
3.92
1/
25/
2002
1.9
7/
20/
2001
2.01
7/
31/
2000
0.573
7/
20/
1999
2.23
7/
23/
1997
2
4/
17/
1996
1.8
BRINKER
RUN
10/
14/
2002
0.0612
1/
6/
2004
1
of
2
Table
5.4
Consent
Order
Tables
1
Table
5.4
Summary
of
Analytical
Results:
C­
8
in
Surface
Water
Letart
Landfill
Letart,
WV
Sample
Date
C­
8
(
ug/
l)

CAP
RUNOFF
11/
25/
2002
65.1
10/
31/
2002
102
8/
30/
2002
No­
Flow
Conditions
6/
28/
2002
Not
Analyzed*
5/
30/
2002
371
4/
30/
2002
279
3/
28/
2002
Not
Sampled
2/
19/
2002
No­
Flow
Conditions
1/
25/
2002
119
*
Samples
were
taken
at
the
respective
surface
water
locations.
However,
due
to
an
error
by
the
courier,
the
samples
arrived
at
the
lab
warm
and
were
not
analyzed.
Note:
Analytical
method
changed
as
of
November
2001
(
see
Section
2.0
of
DuPont
(
2003b)
for
details).

1/
6/
2004
2
of
2
Table
5.4
Consent
Order
Tables
1
Table
5.5
Summary
of
On­
site
and
Off­
site
Exposure
Pathways
Evaluation
Letart
Landfill
Letart,
WV
C­
8
Impacted
Media
Pathway
Assessment
(
Complete
or
Incomplete)
Comparison
to
Screening
Criteria*
Pathway
Assessment
(
Complete
or
Incomplete)
Comparison
to
Screening
Criteria*
On­
Site
SWMUs/
Landfilled
Materials
I
­­
I
­­
Soil
I
­­
I
­­
Leachate
**
C
*
2050
ug/
l
>
150
ug/
l
C
*
2050
ug/
l
>
150
ug/
l
Surface
Water
C
371
ug/
l
>
150
ug/
l
C
371
ug/
l
>
150
ug/
l
Groundwater
I
­­
I
­­

C­
8
Impacted
Media
Pathway
Assessment
[
Complete
(
C)
or
Incomplete
(
I)]
Comparison
to
Screening
Criteria*
Off­
Site
Drinking
Water
Wells
­
Letart
C
0.139
ug/
l
<<
150
ug/
l
Non­
drinking
Water
Wells
­
Letart
C
NQ(<
0.050)
<<
150
ug/
l
Unused
water
sources
­
Letart
I
­­
Ohio
River
water
C
0.128
ug/
l
<<
150
ug/
l
**
Highest
C­
8
concentration
(
since
the
landfill
cap
installation
in
April
2001)
is
shown.
Exposure
Pathways
Evaluation
*
Highest
value
in
category
is
compared
to
the
screening
criteria.
Screening
criteria
was
established
by
CATT
of
240
mg/
kg
for
soil,
1360
ug/
l
for
aquatic
life
(
surface
water),
150
ug/
l
for
drinking
water.
For
complete
exposure
pathways,
all
water
samples
are
compared
to
the
drinking
water
screening
criteria
to
be
conservative.
No
comparison
is
made
for
incomplete
exposure
pathways.
Human
Health
Exposure
Pathways
Ecological
Exposure
Pathways
Exposure
Pathways
for
Human
and
Ecological
Receptors
1/
6/
2004
1
of
1
Tab
5.5
Consent
Order
Tables
1
Table
6.0
Summary
of
Off­
site
Sampling
Program
(
C­
8
Sampling)
Dry
Run
Landfill
Lubeck,
WV
Number
of
homes
contacted
(
1)
75
Number
of
homes
surveyed
(
1)
64
Number
of
wells
identified
(
2)
41
Number
of
wells
sampled
(
2)
37
Number
of
wells
sampled
that
are
used
for
drinking
water
13
Number
of
cisterns
identified
(
2)
17
Number
of
cisterns
sampled
(
2)
8
Number
of
cisterns
sampled
that
are
used
for
drinking
water
1
Number
of
springs
identified
(
2)
8
Number
of
springs
sampled
(
2)
8
Number
of
springs
sampled
that
are
used
for
drinking
water
1
Total
number
of
samples
53
Total
number
of
collected
samples
used
for
drinking
water
15
(
1)
During
this
investigation,
homeowners/
residents
identified
within
the
sampling
radius
were
contacted
to
determine
residential
water
usage.
Up
to
two
contacts
were
attempted
at
each
residence.
After
the
second
contact
attempt,
a
voluntary
survey
was
left
at
the
residence.
Because
not
all
homeowners/
residences
to
the
survey,
the
number
of
residences
surveyed
is
less
than
the
number
of
homes
contacted.

(
2)
Some
water
sources
(
e.
g.
wells,
cisterns,
springs)
identified
during
the
survey
were
not
sampled.
In
many
cases,
sampling
of
these
water
sources
was
refused
by
the
homeowners/
residents.
In
other
cases,
the
water
sources
were
either
not
accessible
or
damaged.
As
a
consequence,
the
number
of
water
sources
sampled
was
less
than
the
number
of
water
sources
identified.
Note:
Field
duplicates
not
considered
in
sample
count.
RESIDENTIAL
SAMPLING
FOR
1­
MILE
RADIUS
Springs
Samples
Homes
Wells
Cisterns
1/
6/
2004
1
of
1
Tab
6.0
Consent
Order
Tables
1
TABLE
6.1
Summary
of
C­
8
Analytical
Results
In
Groundwater
and
Surface
Water
(
ug/
l)
Dry
Run
Landfill
(
Off­
site
Wells,
Springs,
and
Cisterns
­
One
Mile
Radius)
Lubeck,
WV
C­
8
Water
Use
*
Sample
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
ug/
l
Comments
Type
OS­
ABBOTTRL
12/
11/
2001
0.0606
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
ABBOTTRL
4/
11/
2002
NQ
(<
0.050)
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
ABBOTTS
12/
12/
2001
0.22
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
ABBOTTS
4/
11/
2002
0.422
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
ANDERSONCD
12/
13/
2001
ND
(
0.010)
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
ATKINSONJ2
1/
9/
2002
0.149
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
ATKINSONJ2
4/
12/
2002
0.264
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
ATKINSONM
12/
12/
2001
ND
(
0.010)
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
BAKERH
12/
14/
2001
0.339
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
HOPKINSKE
12/
11/
2001
NQ
(<
0.050)
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
HORNBECKJW
12/
13/
2001
ND
(
0.010)
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
MORRISONM
2/
4/
2002
ND
(
0.010)
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
NICHOLSONDH
12/
11/
2001
0.0505
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
PARKERJL
12/
10/
2001
0.177
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
SHEPHERDM
2/
4/
2002
NQ
(<
0.050)
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
WESTBROOKLM
12/
12/
2001
ND
(
0.010)
Drinking
Water
Well
OS­
SEEBAUGHR
2/
26/
2002
0.273
Drinking
Water
Spring
OS­
NICHOLSONDH2
2/
4/
2002
0.242
Drinking
Water
Cistern
OS­
ATKINSONJ1
1/
9/
2002
ND
(
0.010)
Misc.
Well
OS­
BAKERHK2
2/
20/
2002
NQ
(<
0.050)
Unused
Well
OS­
CHANEYG
2/
14/
2002
0.164
Unused
Well
OS­
COBBAJ
12/
11/
2001
0.0639
Misc.
Well
OS­
COBBAJ2
1/
15/
2002
ND
(
0.010)
Unused
Well
OS­
DAVISA2
2/
13/
2002
NQ
(<
0.050)
Unused
Well
OS­
GRIENERD1
2/
5/
2002
NQ
(<
0.050)
Misc.
Well
OS­
GROSED
2/
15/
2002
ND
(
0.010)
Unused
Well
OS­
HARRISRE
12/
12/
2001
ND
(
0.010)
Unused
Well
OS­
HOFMANNDE
12/
12/
2001
0.354
Unused
Well
OS­
HOPEWELL
2
1/
26/
2002
ND
(
0.010)
Unused
Well
OS­
JONESDR
12/
13/
2001
0.0614
Misc.
Well
OS­
KAUFMAND
1/
11/
2002
ND
(
0.010)
Unused
Well
OS­
LOBBINSJ
2/
12/
2002
0.078
Unused
Well
OS­
ROBERTSDR
1/
18/
2002
ND
(
0.010)
Unused
Well
ND
=
Not
Detected
at
or
above
the
limit
of
detection
(
LOD).

The
listed
LOD
is
approximate
and
varies
by
instrument
and
over
time.
NQ
=
Not
Quantifiable.
Detected
at
a
level
above
the
LOD
and
below
the
limit
of
quantification
(
LOQ).
All
C­
8
results
are
reported
in
ug/
l.
Misc.
=
Miscellaneous
water
use
is
not
used
for
drinking.
livestock
watering,
gardening
and
any
other
non­
human
consumption
water
uses.
*
Drinking
Water
(
highlighted
in
bold
blue)
indicates
human
consumption.
Non­
drinking
Water
uses
include
Data
highlighted
in
yellow
are
results
for
water
sources
located
in
the
one­
mile
radius
that
were
resampled
during
the
two­
mile
radius
sampling
event.

1/
6/
2004
10:
00
AM
1
of
2
Tab
6.1
Consent
Order
Tables
1
]
TABLE
6.1
Summary
of
C­
8
Analytical
Results
In
Groundwater
and
Surface
Water
(
ug/
l)
Dry
Run
Landfill
(
Off­
site
Wells,
Springs,
and
Cisterns
­
One
Mile
Radius)
Lubeck,
WV
C­
8
Water
Use
Sample
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
ug/
l
Comments
Type
OS­
SHEPHERDP
12/
14/
2001
NQ
(<
0.050)
Misc.
Well
OS­
VANDYNEHR
12/
13/
2001
ND
(
0.010)
Unused
Well
OS­
VANDYNEHR
12/
13/
2001
ND
(
0.010)
duplicate
Well
OS­
VANDYNEHR1
1/
11/
2002
0.694
Unused
Well
OS­
WHITEEE
2/
20/
2002
NQ
(<
0.050)
Unused
Well
OS­
WIGALR
1/
14/
2002
NQ
(<
0.050)
Unused
Well
OS­
WIGALR1A
1/
26/
2002
0.127
Unused
Well
OS­
WIGALCA
4/
3/
2002
NQ
(<
0.05)
Unused
Well
OS­
WINTERSJ
12/
11/
2001
Misc.
Well
OS­
WRIGHTLE
4/
29/
2002
0.166
Unused
Well
DUPONT
DR2
1/
2/
2002
0.839
Unused
Well
DUPONT
DR3
1/
2/
2002
0.68
Unused
Well
OS­
ATKINSONJ3
4/
12/
2002
0.625
Non­
drinking
water
Spring
OS­
CAMPG3
2/
28/
2002
0.0998
Water
Cattle
Spring
OS­
CAMPG2
2/
28/
2002
0.081
Water
Cattle
Spring
OS­
DOWLERE2
1/
28/
2002
0.347
Water
Cattle
Spring
OS­
DOWLERE2
1/
28/
2002
0.35
duplicate
Spring
OS­
RHODESR
2/
4/
2002
0.0748
Misc.,
Water
Cattle
Spring
OS­
SEEBAUGHV
2/
26/
2002
0.278
Unused
Spring
OS­
TENNANTJD
2/
8/
2002
0.107
Unused
Spring
OS­
CAMPG1
2/
28/
2002
0.338
Misc.
Cistern
OS­
DALEL
2/
28/
2002
0.54
Misc.
Cistern
OS­
DAVISA1
2/
8/
2002
0.446
Unused
Cistern
OS­
DOWLERE1
1/
28/
2002
0.307
Misc.
Cistern
DUPONT
DR3A
1/
28/
2002
0.175
Unused
Cistern
OS­
GRIENERD2
2/
5/
2002
0.409
Misc.
Cistern
OS­
HOPEWELL
1
1/
11/
2002
0.743
Unused
Cistern
OS­
MOYERSV
2/
28/
2002
0.974
Unused
Cistern
ND
=
Not
Detected
at
or
above
the
limit
of
detection
(
LOD).

The
listed
LOD
is
approximate
and
varies
by
instrument
and
over
time.
NQ
=
Not
Quantifiable.
Detected
at
a
level
above
the
LOD
and
below
the
limit
of
quantification
(
LOQ).
All
C­
8
results
are
reported
in
ug/
l.
Misc.
=
Miscellaneous
water
use
is
not
used
for
drinking.
*
Drinking
Water
(
highlighted
in
bold
blue)
indicates
human
consumption.
Non­
drinking
Water
uses
include
livestock
watering,
gardening
and
any
other
non­
human
consumption
water
uses.

1/
6/
2004
10:
00
AM
2
of
2
Tab
6.1
Consent
Order
Tables
1
]
Table
6.5
Summary
of
On­
site
and
Off­
site
Exposure
Pathways
Evaluation
Dry
Run
Landfill
Lubeck,
WV
C­
8
Impacted
Media
Pathway
Assessment
(
Complete
or
Incomplete)
Comparison
to
Screening
Criteria*
Pathway
Assessment
(
Complete
or
Incomplete)
Comparison
to
Screening
Criteria*
On­
Site
SWMUs/
Landfilled
Materials
C
­­
C
­­
Soil
C
­­
C
­­
Leachate
(
captured
&
treated)
I
­­
I
­­
Surface
Water
C
87
ug/
l
<
150
ug/
l
C
87
ug/
l
<
150
ug/
l
Groundwater
I
­­
I
­­

C­
8
Impacted
Media
Pathway
Assessment
[
Complete
(
C)
or
Incomplete
(
I)]
Comparison
to
Screening
Criteria*
Off­
Site
Drinking
Water
(
wells,
springs
and/
or
cisterns)
­
Dry
Run
C
0.422
ug/
l
<<
150
ug/
l
Non­
drinking
water
(
wells,
springs
and/
or
cisterns)
­
Dry
Run
C
0.54
ug/
l
<<
150
ug/
l
Unused
water
sources
­
Dry
Run
I
­­
Exposure
Pathway
Evaluation
*
Highest
value
in
category
is
compared
to
the
screening
criteria.
Screening
criteria
was
established
by
CATT
of
240
mg/
kg
for
soil,
1360
ug/
l
for
aquatic
life
(
surface
water),
150
ug/
l
for
drinking
water.
For
complete
exposure
pathways,
all
water
samples
are
compared
to
the
drinking
water
screening
criteria
to
be
conservative.
No
comparison
is
made
for
incomplete
exposure
pathways.
Human
Health
Exposure
Pathways
Ecological
Exposure
Pathways
Exposure
Pathways
for
Human
and
Ecological
Receptors
1/
6/
2004
1
of
1
Tab
6.5
Consent
Order
Tables
1
