DEQ-CFW_00012429

From: Pmsiewic4Candace [W[/O=NCMA|L/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|BOHF2]SPD[T)/CN=REOP|ENTS/CN=PRU5|EVV|CZ,CANDAC[K89E6]
Sent: 3/4/20143:0827P[W
To: Brower, Connie [/o=NCMAL/ou=ExchangeAdministrative Group
(FYD|BOHF23SPDO)/cn=Recipient$cn=connie.brower]
Subject: FVV: US EPA Peer Review on PFOA& PFOSHeu|th Effects Document
Attachments: Federal Register, Volume 79 Issue40 (Friday, February 28, 2014).htm; EXCEL comparison for proposed EPA CSF for
PFOA.x|sx
Connie -
FYI, No doubt you are inundated with other issues these days (coal ash is NOTgoing away). You can file this away until
it resurfaces sometime in the future.
According tomyrough calculations, there does not appear tobemuch difference between the proposed EPA numbers
and t�heN[SAB's. Might want to check the calculations — I don't claim to be an expert: in water concentration
conversions.
Talk toyou soon -
Candace
Candace Prunksvicz,Ph.D.
Industrial Hygiene Consultant
NCDENR.Division ofAir Quality
Technical Services Section, ToxcsProtection Branch
1641Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC27880-1041
Phone: (818)7U7-8435
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence tOand from this address may be subject tOthe
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed *Jthird parties.
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:49 PM
To: Prusiewicz, Candace M
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: US EPA Peer Review on PFOA & PFOS Health Effects Documel
Candace, see attached and here:
Itappears that EPA has begun moving onPFOA again—Thedraf has candidate toxicity ve|uesIvan
—
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:26 AM
To: Friesen, Marlin D.; [e-mail]; Cooper, Glincla; Cesta, Mark (NIH/NIEHS) [E]; Rusyn, Ivan I; Lawrence H.
Subject: FW: US EPA Peer Review on PFOA & PFOS Health Effects Document
Dear Working Group Members,
OEQ-CFVV_OOO1242Q

You have probably seen this, but in case not.
Landa
OEQ-CFVV_00012430