DEQ-CFW_00050892

From: Henson, Belinda [/O=NCMAIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BELINDA.HENSON]
Sent: 4/7/2015 8:20:53 PM
To: White, Hughie [/O=NCMAIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Hughie.white]; shad turlington ([e-mail])
[[e-mail]]
CC: trent allen ([e-mail]) [[e-mail]]
Subject: FW: 1,4-dioxane study in Cape Fear River
Eyi
Belinda S. Henson
Regional Supervisor
NCDENR-Division of Water resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Fayetteville Regional Office
910-433-3326 voice
310-486--0707 fax
Email. belinda.henson@ncdenr. ov
E--mail correspondence to and from this, address may be SUbjec.t to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
A o Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping NCDENR
environmentally,responsible.
Tuesday, 4:05 PM
To: Massengale,
Young,Henson,Belinda
Subject: 1,4-dioxane study in Cape Fear River
• •' • '• •I •• •W191
•I • • •
F I • •I • • • • ••` • r `''•MIM • • •' • • ••,
g •
1. The year -long study in the Cape Fear River basin ends in September 0•. that is the last
month of sample taking, right?
2. How long will it take roughlyfor I to •^' a final'•• or '••I to the public
on of
the studyI • any recommendations?
3. In late January, you s sent me the samples for Oct -Nov -and Dec. 2014. Do you have any more
recent results you I
confused on • • being done by DWR versus what .'ice and Detlef Knappla.
is doing. Is the statedoing some of • •le taking, •' • Detlef • I• his students• • • the rest
of sampling? / rather, , , I n , ' l State e doing concurrent but separate studies • •d'.
river samples in an effort• the sourceof • •
DEQ-CFW 00050892

4. And finally, has DWR or DENR taken any additional steps or action in response to my coverage or
this issue since my story was published Feb. 1, 2015?
•' M. • 511
Senior public life reporter
The Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer
Direct work: [phone]
Twitter:llttDS://twitter.corn/FO Barksdale
Blog: http://www.fayobserver.corn/blogs/nevus/peoples business/
From: Massengale, Susan [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 5:25 PM
To: Andrew Barksdale
Cc: Young, Sarah; Kritzer, Jamie; Zimmerman, Jay, Reeder, Tom; Brower, Connie; Godreau, Jessica; Henson, Belinda;
Elliot, Drew; Poupart, Jeff; Kane, Evan
Subject: RE: Detlef Knappe at N.C. State and 1,4-dioxane study in Cape Fear River
Mello Andrew,
Below are the answers to your questions. I have also attached several documents: a copy of the DWR 1,41-dioxane study
plan, where our samples are being taken and the sample results for the first few months.
Why does the state have a drinking (treated water) standard of 3 ppb if the source is groundwater
(e.g. wells.), but has no standard for treated water if the source is surface waters?
The state does not currently have a drinking standard of 3 ug/L (ppb;1., nor d(-)es the
fe.dera:l government have an established safe drinking water level, "freated eater distributed as
drinking water through. public water systems comes under the federal regulations for drinking water
regardless of the source;. _North Carolina, by rule;, follows the Safe Drinking Water Act federal
reL relations for drinking water distribution EPA is in the process of collecting and evaluating
UnreaUlated cont.anunant data (L)CM) for 1..4-dioxane and will deternflnc if firrthcr regulation is
needed.
1'he 3 ppl) standard in groundwater is a resource protection standard. for the groundwater resource,
developed under stag, authority- to protect waters of the state — not a treated water standard See
below for additional information.
2. In other words, why has the state chosen to have a higher standard for groundwater but not for
surface waters?
First, a point of clarity. We are talking about three; specific sets of standards - groundwater, surface
,, atcr and federal regulations for drinking,,eater.
C has surface wter quality criteria for 1.,4-dioxane calculated to protect human health. Waters
servina a Water Supply- intake are, protected at € . 5 ug;/L (ppb ). Waters not used as public water
supplies are, screened at 80 ug,/ L for protection of the consumption of potentially conta €-n.inated
fish. State regulations provide protective calculation,,:, to be applied for any toxicant if there; is
,uffrcient toxicity information mailable to support the derivation. "l'lris is fire situation with 1,
Ili oxanc.
DEQ-CFW 00050893

The groundwater standards are regulatory thresholds past which groundwater may not be
contarilin tad. It is used, for exarnple, to determine. how riluch clean !gyp rilay be needed in a groundwater
cryntarni€ration incident based on the presurr.ption that the a uifer may he used as a source of drinking
water supply. Groundwater standards, are usually- developed based on an "as needed"" basis, sufficient
toxicity information inu."t he available in order for the sf.at.e to establish a,,tandard for any,
containinant identified in groundwater. deed" for a groundwater standard is usually based on a
site, like a contaminated waste site, having a ch.ei .ical or compound of concem,'`here are a number
of waste sites that have IA--dioxa:€ e contamination. (_' does have an established groundwater
standard of 3 pph (ug, ). This number is in need. of revisions, as the toxicity information on which it
is based. is outdated, 4 ``lien modified', staff would recommend ().35 tig,`'L based upon the same
toxicity information as the surface wester criterion,
EPA wpicaliv only develops new drinking: water standards once a. contaminant has been. detected. in
finished drinking: eater supplies, 7`he purpose of the EPA's f CMR study is to identify such
situations in order to determine if further reLnalation is needed. EPA sets drinking water standards
based on an established acceptable risk level. The levels that are being seen are within the general
range of acceptable risk that EPA could uw ,vhen setting drinking water standards, and 'if the EPA
d(-)es estaf list a federal drinking water standard., it is not yet clear whether the levels being seen
would exceed. that standard.
3. A study led by DWR began in October, you said, to include 12 sites sampled every month. Can I get
some of your preliminary or early data?
Attached
4. Are any of those sites in Cumberland, Lee or Harnett County, and if so, where?
I've attached a table of"our sampling statfons. T,,vo of the location,, are in Hamett County, I at."longs
and additional info are on the chart.
5. Will your study end after one year, meaning after samples taken in October 20159 When do you
think DENR will be able to report the findings of its investigation?
'f`he current study plan is for one year. 0- have attached a copy of the plan.) A determination of what
actions, if anv, are needed aoina forward will be determined at the end of the stud-.
6. I would like to request a copy of the stakeholders (names and organizations/entities) that have been
distributed data and other related info on this subject by DWR.
Month.lv data are currentiv sent to the following non-DWR erriplov yes:
Chad. I-1 m, Fayetteville PWC
M rtie Groonie. Greensboro
Detlef Kral: pe, NCSTJ
Alan O'Briant., Harnett Coy ray
7. From DENR's perspective, how safe is our drinking water, particularly for systems such as Harnett
County, Sanford and Fayetteville that are showing levels of up to 9 ppb of 1,4-dioxane in treated
water? How worried should water consumers be?
. ccordi€ a to DWR. records, I la:rriett County, Sanford and Fayetteville Public Works Worn€��issions
show no open violations. They are currently in compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
€€ d. the North Carolina Drinking Water Act.
With that stated, the Division of Water Res m,ces has concern about the appearance of f A-dioxane
in samples gathered. during EPA's Unregulated Contamina:nt Monitoring Rule (,UCMR) data
collection process. DWR. . h' s initiated its own study in advance of a:ny conclusions by the E P A to
determine ifthere are sources that can he identified, then ultimately reduced or eliminated. When"'if
DEQ-CFW 00050894

the EPA creates a drinking water standa:rd, It is not yet clear whether the levels being seen would
exceed. the calculated standard.
8. Has DWR or DENR issued any advisories or recommendations to municipal water treatment
systems that are showing levels of 1,4-dixoane under the EPA's new list of contaminants to test for?
o. By reg_,ul lion, North Carolina follows federal guidance for drinking water systems. `rhe EPA is
the regulatory ag;enc:y for-11CMR in North Carolina. Data collected as part of the I- CMR program
are designed to be evaluated by EPA to determine if f other federal regulation is needed. At that:
point., advisories or recormendations could be rria&
9. Does Jordan Lake have any measurable levels of 1,4-dioxane? If so, do the Triangle -area water
systems that draw from Jordan Lake use any advanced treatment processes, such as ozonation, to
remove it? I know that Cary does use ozone, for instance.
No samples are being collected from Jordan l a]r e as per€-t of this study, While ozone treatment
provides some benefit it does not provide complete treatment for this clrcrnical.
10. Deflet told me that the state has set a standard of 0.35 ppb for 1,4-dioxane in surface waters to
protect aquatic/plant life. But, yet clearly this standard is being widely violated along the Cape Fear
River basin. How is DENR responding to this violation? What can DENR do about it?
As ;Mated above in item 42, NC has wester t ualit-y criteria for 1,4-dio arici O 3 5 ug,/L (ppb) for Water
Supply surface waters and 80 ug/L for all other surface waters.Thc,se are calculated to protect human
health tlirou.ah consumption of potentially comarm n.a.ted. water and fish ( waters classified as Water
Supplies) a:€rd. consumption of fish (all other wale s).Tliis chemical is not particularly (rarmful to
€cluatic life in this instance, the value protects, human health as the "niost sensitive" endpoint,
A—,, previously stated, DWR has concern about the appearance of l,4-dioxane in ,,arnples gathered
from surface waters, D R initiated sampling in October 2014 to screen the arrrbient concentrations
in surface waters. 1-'he data. received from this study will aid. the division. in for€rring the proper plan.
efcO€restive measures.
11. What do you think of Deflet's statement that he thinks it's likely the source of the 1,4-dioxane is
coming from an industry that is sending its waste to a municipal sewage plant, which in turn is
discharging it back into the basin?
The DWR study will aid us in identifNimthe source or sources of 1,4Wdioxane in the systertr.
12. Can DENR just make municipal sewage treatment systems along this basin test for 1,4-dioxane to
aid in your investigation for the source?
Yes, there is a. reoperier clause lu ino—,,t municipal discharge permits that: allows us to artjust perrrrit
requirements,
13. Can the state require industries to report the use or discharge of 1,4-dioxane into municipal water
systems?
l- funk vou a: re talking about the pretreat€went program. Municipalities are required to meet the
permit limits and. other requirements in. the state permit. To that end, they may require pretreat€rient
from industries that send waste streams to their plant. Read more about the progratrt here:
http://portal .ticdettr. org/web/wcl/swp/�s/pret
Susan Massengale
Public Ira:forrnation Officer
DEER- Division of Watt:er Resources
161-7 MSC, Raleigh, NC 276()o-r61;
(919) 707--9014
sttsan. massengale @ncdenngov
DEQ-CFW 00050895

Is a general rule, the mosisuccessful 1persc�nj in lifi, is the one who has the best hy/b rmation. Disraeli
h-mclil carrespondence to andfi,oir this address iro , 1, be subject to die
JV'orth Carohno PublicRecords Low and maY be disc lased, to third parties
DEQ-CFW-00050896