DEQ-CFW_00050888

From: Andrew Barksdale [[e-mail]]
Sent: 4/7/2015 8:04:36 PM
To: Massengale, Susan [/O=NCMAIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Susan.massengale]
CC: Young, Sarah [/O=NCMAIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Sarah.young]; Kritzer, Jamie [/O=NCMAIL/OU=EXCHANGE
ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jamie.kritzer]; Henson, Belinda
[/O=NCMAIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Belinda.henson]
Subject: 1,4-dioxane study in Cape Fear River
P••i • •I •I •I • •! '• i • • i • •• •
•' •' :
1. The • i' study in the Cape Fear River basin endsSeptember •' that
month of sample taking, right?
2. How long will it take roughly for the state to get a final report or make a final report to the public
on of the studya • 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 can email
4. I'm confused on the river sampling being done by DWR versus what N.C. State and Detlef Knappe
is doing. Is the state doing some of !taking, and Detlef and his students• • • the rest
of • l'• •rather,• '• D' .'' doing concurrent but '!• a ' studies a •
river samples in an • to find the sourceof i •
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?
Andrew Barksdale
Senior public life reporter
The Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer
Direct work: [phone]
Twitter: https__//twitter__com[F'0Barksdale
Blog: htt ://www.fa-ol�server.com/blo js/news/ eo les 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
Hello Andrew,
Below are the answers to your questions. I have also attached several documents: a Copy of the DWR 1,4-dioxane study
plans where our samples are being taken and the sample results for the first few months.
DEQ-CFW 00050888

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?
`rhe state dues not cUrrUnIV have a drinking (treated water) standard of 3 u 'L (ppb), not- does the
federal government have are esmblished safe drinkin., wester level, Treated water distribute as,
ddrih-in., wester through public water w sterns comes under the federal regulations for drinl nlLl water
regardless of the source. North Ca:rolina, by rule, follows the Safe Drinking eater Act federal
reaulations for drinking water distribution EPA is in the process of collecting and evaluating
unre,a laced contaminant data (1_"C_'1,1R) for 1,4Wdioxane and will determine iffurther regulation is
needed,
The ,1 ppb standard in g cundwater is a resource protection standard for the groundwater rescuree,
developed under state authori ty to protect waters of the state not a treated water standard. See 4-2
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 a:re talking about three specific sets of standards - an-o n.dwater, surface
water and federal regulations for drinking water.
NC has surface water quality, criteria for 1,4-diuxane calculated to protect human health. Waters
scr-,i g a Water Supply intake are protected at 03 ug- ., (ppb ;t, Waters not ws ed as public water
supplies are screened at 80 ug"T, for protection of the consumption of potentially containinated
f sli. State regulations provide, protective calculations to be applied for any toxicant lfthere is
sufficient tonicity information availably: to support. the derivation This is the situation witli l ,4—
Diox ane.
']'he guoundwater standards are regulatory thresholds past which groundwater may riot: b
contaminated. It is used, for oxa€nple, to determine hogs rnuch dean up may be needed in a groundwater
contamination incident based on the' reSU ption that the aquifer may be used as a source of drinking
water supply. Groundwater standards are usually developed based on an "as needed" basis, sufficient
toxicity information must be available in order for the stag to establish a standard for any
contaminant identified in groundwater. `%feed'' for a groundwater standard is usually based on a
site, life a contaminated waste site, having a chemical or compound € f concern, There are a number
of —waste sites that have I A-dioxane contamination. NC d(-)es have an established groundwater
standard of 3 ppb €ug"11J. This number is In need of revisions, as the toxicity inforinakion on winch it
is based is outdated. When modified, staff��ould. recomin.end 0.35 ug,�''l , based upon the same
tonicity information. as the surface water criterion.
EPA typically only develops new drinking water standards once a contaminant has been detected in
finished drink-in.g wester supphes. The purpose of the EP 's t.VNIR. study is to identify such
situations in rrrfcrtr, deterr� ine if'fi�i'tllei' e lath, is needed, EPA sets d ii lei z ester standards
based on an establi.slied acceptable risk level. 1-he levels that are: being seen a:re within the general
rang: of acceptable risk- that EPA could use: when setting drinking water standards, and if the EPA
does establish a federal €:lririkimz water standard, it is not vet clear whether the levels beimz 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 stations. '1-'wo of the locations are In 1-1-a€nett 1_'Ounty, t-,at/lonas
and additional info are on the chair.
DEQ-CFW 00050889

5. Will your study end after one year, meaning after samples taken in October 2015? When do you
think DENR will be able to report the findings of its investigation?
The current study Man is for one year, (f have attached a copy of the plan..) A determination of whet
actions, ifan%?, are needed L)�oim, 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.
Monthb,; data are currentiv sent- to the folly ,,ving non-DWR emplo-yees:
Chad Harn, Fayetteville PW C
Martie Ctroon.e, €--ireensboro
Detlef Miappe, NCSU
Alan O'Briant, Harnett County
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?
Accordino to DWR records, Harriett County, Sanford and Fayetteville Public Works Commissl0flS
show no open violations, They are currently in compliance -with the federal Safe Drinking Water -=act
and the North. (-'arolma Drinkffla Water Act.
With that stated, the Division ofWater Resources has concern about the appearance of 1,4-dies ne
in sanngles gathered during EPA s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (1. CMR) data
collection 1: rocess. DWR has initiated its own -,,fti y in advance of'any conclusions by the EPA to
detennine ifthere are sources that can he idendlied., then ultimately reduced or eliminated. When"'if
the EPA creates a. drinkma water standard, it is €iot yet clear whether the levels beffl , see€i 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?
NoBy reLndation, North Carolina follows federal guidance for drinking water systems. The EPA is
the reg; latory agency for Ui'MR in North Carolina. Data collected as hart of the UCMR program
are designed to be evahiated bv EPA to determinc if further federal re wladon is needed. At that
point, advisories oi, recommendatiom, could be made.
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.
o samples are being, collected. fro . Jordan l:-,aka: as Bart of this study. While ozone treatment
provides some benei t it does not provide complete treatment fir this chemical.
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 stated above in item 2, NC leas water quality- criteda for 1,4-dig. x ne: 0,35 a-111. (l- ) for Water
Supply surface waters and 80 ug`1 for all (Aber surface ,,v ters.These are calculated to protect human
healtli through coiisumptioii of potentially costa:€ninated water a€�d fsli ( waters classified. as Water
Supplies) and consumption of fish. (all other waters).111s cliein.cal is not particularly hann.fril to
aquatic: life in this instance, the value protects hunran health as endpoint.
As previously stated, DWR ha.,, concern about the appearance of 1,4-dig xane in samples gathered
from surface waters, DWR initiated sampling In October 2014 to screen the ambient concentrations
DEQ-CFW 00050890

in surface waters. ":['he data. received from this studv will aid. the division. in forriiing the proper plar.
Of C OFTeCti e nie. asures.
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 ass in identifNim, the source or sources of 1,4-dio a ne in the system,
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. reopei�er clause M inost municipal discharge permits that allows us to adjJust permit.
requirelnents.
13. Can the state require industries to report the use or discharge of 1,4-dioxane into municipal water
systems?
I; think you a: re talking about the pretreat€n.em program. Municipalities are required to meet the
permit limits and. other requirements in. the state permit. To that end, they mad,% require pretreat€n.em
from industries that send waste streams to their plant. Read more about the program here:
http://portal . ticdetit-. org/web/wcl/swp/�s/pret
Susan Massengale
I uhlic Information Officer
DEER- Dk ision of Water Resources
161_7 MSC, Raleigh, NC 276(l)o-i61
snsan. massengale @ncdenngov
As a general 1 ale, the most ,tu ees,tfu / IYTS0I?/ U? 11'e. is the one who has Me best hi/bP"wafi+ nr Disraeli
E--rnod corresporrdenC ire at?d 0M dais Oddra .s.s MOB.,, he SRbl Ct to the
,Norih C'arohno Pu.blic Rec:r3r c Lav and n a .v be disclosed to third parties
DEQ-CFW 00050891