DEQ-CFW_00022624

U ND T, E D STA,, T E S E WR 0 MV1 E N T A: P R 0 T E CT A C E, 7
EX
E
July 13, 2017
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Laboratory Results for teen X (Rounds 1-3) NC DEQ Cape Fear Watershed
Sai-ripling
FROM: 'I'lmothy J. Buckley, Direcf6r
Exposure. Methods and re eats Division
THRUa Jennifer Orine-Zavaleta, Director
TO- Linda Culpepper, Deputy Director
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Departnient of Envirotimental Quality
Per your request ofJurie 9, 2017, 1 arn pleased to provide you with the laboratory analysis
results for the concentration of GenX in water samples collected by NC DEQ. These results ar'e
for the first thi,ee weeks of swupling. Samples were received by our laboratory on. June 23rd,
June 30tli, and July 7th for each of these three rounds of weekly sampling. It is our
understanding that we will be receiving and analyzing samplesfrom additional rourids of
sampling. Re5ults(torn these additional sampling rounds will be reported separately as they
beconi.eavallable. We will ;also report semi-qumititative concentrations of addi.t.lonal. PFAS
analytesin a later report.
Eachround of sampling consisted of anumber of sites selected by NC l.)EQ that included
a variety of water types: effluent, source, drinking, and well waters. Sampling rounds 2 and 3
also included i1eld blanks and spikes that Nvere provided by our laboratoryfor quality control
purposes, It is our understanding that duplicate samples were collected at each sate. One of the
duplicates was provided to our laboratory with the second sample being provided to a contract
laboratotA,, Test An,.icrica (Denver, Colorado), for Gen X analysis. In rounds 2 and:;, 'best
America was also provided with field blanks and spikes that werc prepared by our laboratory
(round 2) and by im independent lab within. EPA (round 3). Results fron-i these QC. samples will
provide the basis for comparing our results with.1'estAm.crica. Our laboratory methods I')r this
analysis are described. in Sun et al., 201.61 and. Stry-nar et at, 2015`,
Son N-1 A.rcvalo Slryfiu %M. Lindstioai A, Richzardson %4, K4mis B,, Pickat A; SmAh C, Knappe f.Wk Lcgacy wid Eme g_ing
Sufma-rwes Are lmpoqklrlt waqer Coma"Imants En 1,1e- Cape Feef. Rivu Watershed ofNk--lFlfi Camfirm I
Scienci&I ef fmology Lett crs, 016
,strvilar M- Dagilino S. Mc.'LAahen R, A7 Ande.scn 111.NAcMillan I-1-13E2rmaji M, Ferm 1. Ball C, ot' Novel
P(xlboroalkyl Acids, (Pf,'VCA-,) and Sulfcinac .fit ids (1111-1--SAQ,) in Nawral %ters Uin-- Ai".i:wac Mo�,,,, >'imc-of-Hight lvlass
SPXowm6Ty (I Of NIS). Envinm 2015
DEQ-CFW-00022624

July 13, 2017
The following provides a brief summary of results.
• GenX was observed above our detection limit of1 0 ng/L in all but one sample.
• GenX concentrations ranged from 4 ri&'L (DWR. 3 PO .Hoffer WTP Raw Water) to
21.759 as (DWR #'I -Chemours Outfall),
• Some samples exceeded our calibration. curve (particularly week I where this was the
case for allbut onessample). These samples were diluted and the wialysis was repeated.
The dilution procedure introduces some additional uncertainty in our quantification. We
have.flagged results for samples that required dilution.
• Quality control samples (included in rounds 2 & 3 only) indicated no field or laboratory
contamin,ation and results accurate with about 5% of the expected values. Specifically,
QC samples showed:
* (-'jcnX was not detected in either of the two field blanks (round 2 & )
* Spiked field samples (n 4; round 2 & '3) were measured with an accuracy that
ranged from 96.7 to 106 percent.
Hence. we have hioh confidence in the concentration results reported here.
Thank you for inviting us to be a part of this effort tliat addresses a very importantPublic
health concern. in North Cmolina. These results represent the effort of many within our lab but I
would especially like to acknowledge Dr, Mark Suynx and his laboratory conducting the
an,a-lysis, his Branch ChietDr. Myrim-n Medina -Vera who provided invaluable support and
coordination,and Ms. Sania Tong Argao who supported and oversaNN7 quality assurance.
If youl-tave any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] or
email h.ck I look forward to our continued work together -
Attachment
CC: Becky B. Allenbach, Acting Deputy. Director
Water Protection Division, EPA Region 4 — Atlanta
DEQ-CFW-00022625

Concentration of GenX Measured in Cape Fear Watershed Samples
Conn.
Fla
Week
Location Sample Identifier
L)
I
DWR 1- Ch rneurs QOtfall
21,760
1
1
DWR #2 - R#aden Bluffs Raw water intake
501
2
1
NC DEQ##1- LCFWSA
629
2
1
NC DEQ #l2 - CFPU A Sweeny
726
2
1
SIC DEQ #t - CFP A ASR Well
588
2
1
NC DEQ 5 - International Paper Raw
703
2
1
NC DEQ #6- International Paper Finished
523
2
1
NC DEQ #7 e NW Brunswick WTP finished
695
2
1
NC DEQ #8 _ Pe€:der County 421 WTP Finished
269
2
1
NC DEQ, #4 - Wri htville Beach Well 11.
27
2
DWR #t1 Chemours € utfall 002
15,250
1
2
DWR #2 Bladen Bluffs Raga eater
31
2
NCDEQ 1 LCFWSA Raw Water
72
2
NCDEQ 2 Sweeny Finished
100
2
NCDEQ S ASR well
336
2
NCDEQ 4 Wrightsville Peach Well #11
28
2
NCDEQ 5 International Paper Raw water
41
2
NCDEQ 0 International Paper Finished water
111
2
NCDEQ 7 NW Brunswick WTP Finished
52
2
NCDEQ R Pender WTP Finished
1.12
S
DWR 1 Chernours Outfall 002
21,530
1
S
DWR 2 Blade Bluffs Raw Water
16
S
DWR 5 PO Hoffer WTP Raw Water
4
4
S
NCDEQ, 1 LCFWSA Raw
119
NCDEQ 2 Sweeny Finished
57
NCDEQ 3 ASR Well
148
3
NCDEQ, 4 Wrightsville Beach Well #11
2
NCDEQ 5 International Paper Raw
:1.58
NCDEQ Q:5 International Paper Raw DUPLICATE
162
5
NCDEQ 6 International Paper Finished
80
5
NCDEQ 7 NW Brunswick WTP Finished
125
5
NCDEQ 8 Pender CO 421 WTP Finished
68
Flag
1 Sample diluted 20X diluted sample still exceeded calibration
2 Sample diluted 5
5 Sample diluted 2
4 Below limit of puantitation
DEQ-CFW 00022626