DEQ-CFW_00074615

i
Questions from the call
What has DEQ done about this?
• DHHS continues to work with EPA, CDC and other federal agencies to get any health information
from them as quickly as possible.
• After seeing EPA's presentation on Monday and noting the lack of a downward trend for the Nafion
byproducts, DEQ has urged Chemours to stop discharging wastewater from the Nafion
manufacturing process.
• DEQ also repeated its call for Chemours to provide the state agency with a complete inventory,
sampling data and test results for all chemicals included in the company's waste stream.
• We must stress, however, that there is little -health information available on any of the five
perfluorinated compounds the EPA analyzed. Unlike GenX, there is not even sufficient enough
health information to develop a health goal.
• So the actions the state took this week were taken out of an abundance of caution.
• Until we know more about the health effects of these byproducts, the company needs to stop
discharging them.
• EPA recognizes limited health data is an issue — they are looking at a variety of a new approaches
that could possibly allow them to make health statements.
• We are going to be transparent and share information as we receive it.
• Many other states are dealing with PFAS challenges: Alabama, Alaska, New Hampshire, New York
and Michigan have contacted the EPA's Office of Research and Development for help.
• We will continue to take water quality samples — the extent will be determined at a later date.
• We will continue weekly calls and will schedule more frequent calls as needed.
• We are also awaiting groundwater testing results from the monitoring wells at the Chemours
facility.
Are the Nafion by-products in the discharge permit? If not listed, can it be stopped?
• The Nafion manufacturing process is mentioned in the permit. We are reviewing the permit for
the byproducts
Is Nafion year-round? Or do. we know the schedule?
• We have asked Chemours for more information about the schedule.
What legal authority does DEQ have to stop the discharge of Nafion?
DEQ is looking at all legal options including going to court to get the company to stop the
discharge.
Has Chemours responded or given any indication? When do we expect to hear from them?
• DEQ is having ongoing conversations with legal options with Chemours.
What were the other three compounds, besides Nafion?
• The other compounds are identified in the EPA's report with preliminary findings.
DEQ-CFW 00074615

Why can't the state take action under the Clean Water Act?
• DEQ is looking at all legal options including going to court to get the company to stop the
discharge.
• The new results from EPA do not change our recommendations about water use. Levels of GenX
have been decreasing and are below the health goal established by DHHS. Based on these
results and results of routine testing for other contaminants, for which we do have health
information, our current recommendation is that people can continue to drink the water.
• We do recognize that there are concerns about other compounds for which health effects are
unknown and we are working with the EPA, CDC and other scientists to understand the possible
health effects as quickly as possible.
• It's important to recognize that this is a rapidly evolving situation and our current
recommendations could change if new information becomes available.
• Federal agencies and academic partners understand the need to get health information rapidly,
and there are several ongoing activities that could provide new insights.
• Our goal is to provide the best information available in a timely manner so people can make
decisions for themselves and their families.
Can't the state take injunctive relief to make our customers feel more confident?
• DEQ is looking at all legal options including going to court to get the company to stop the
discharge.
• The new results from EPA do not change our recommendations about water use. Levels of GenX
have been decreasing and are below the health goal established by DHHS. Based on these
results and results of routine testing for other contaminants, for which we do have health
information, our current recommendation is that people can continue to drink the water.
• We do recognize that there are concerns about other compounds for which health effects are
unknown and we are working with the EPA, CDC and other scientists to understand the possible
health effects as quickly as possible.
• It's important to recognize that this is a rapidly evolving situation and our current
recommendations could change if new information becomes available.
• Federal agencies and academic partners understand the need to get health information rapidly,
and there are several ongoing activities that could provide new insights.
• Our goal is to provide the best information available in a timely manner so people can make
decisions for themselves and their families.
What authority does the state Health Director have?
The State Health Director is delegated the authority given to the Secretary under G.S. 130A-18
to institute an action for injunctive relief.
The State Health Director is delegated the authority given to the Secretary under G.S. 130A-19
and G.S. 130A-20 to abate public health nuisances and imminent hazards.
DEQ-CFW 00074616

• The State Health Director is delegated the authority given to the Secretary under G.S. 130A-23
to suspend and revoke permits and program participation.
• The Director shall be responsible for coordinating the division's monitoring functions with other
divisions and local partners to ensure compliance with state and federal requirements.
• The Director shall be responsible for ensuring that the division is familiar with and adheres to
the department's policy and procedures manual.
• This delegation of authority shall not deprive the Secretary from performing, in lieu of the
Director of Public Health/State Health Director, any of the acts set forth above. This delegation
of authority may be amended or withdrawn by the Secretary at any time and without notice.
This delegation of authority shall not apply to any actions which by law, state policy or NC
Governor's Executive Order, may only be executed by the Secretary.
Can you walk through the decision to not change the recommendations about drinking
water?
• The new results from EPA do not change our recommendations about water use. Levels of GenX
have been decreasing and are below the health goal established by DHHS. Based on these
results and results of routine testing for other contaminants, for which we do have health
information, our current recommendation is that people can continue to drink the water.
• We do recognize that there are concerns about other compounds for which health effects are
unknown and we are working with the EPA, CDC and other scientists to understand the possible
health effects as quickly as possible.
• It's important to recognize that this is a rapidly evolving situation and our current
recommendations could change if new information becomes available.
• Federal agencies and academic partners understand the need to get health information rapidly,
and there are several ongoing activities that could provide new insights.
• Our goal is to provide the best information available in a timely manner so people can make
decisions for themselves and their families.
DEQ-CFW 00074617

Internal FAQ for Other Perfluorinated Compounds
8/30/2017 9:54 PM
What are the health effects of the compounds in the EPA's report?
We don't have enough scientific information about these compounds to know if the levels
reported by the EPA are a risk to human health. GenX is the only one of these emerging
compounds for which we have enough information to establish a health goal.
Will DHHS set a health goal for the compounds in the EPA's report? How long will it take?
While we know it's frustrating, DHHS does not have enough scientific information to set a
health goal for the non-GenX compounds in the EPA's report. DHHS is working with the EPA,
CDC and other scientists to get more information about these compounds as quickly as possible.
Is my water safe to drink?
We have not changed any of our recommendations. Levels of GenX have been decreasing and
are below the health goal established by DHHS. Based on these results and results of routine
testing for other compounds, our current recommendation is that you can continue to use the
water. We do recognize that there are concerns about other compounds for which the health
effects are unknown. We are working with our federal partners and other scientists to understand
the possible health effects as quickly as possible. Our goal is to provide the best information
available in a timely manner so people can make decisions for themselves and their families.
Should I consider other sources for my drinking water?
Possible health impacts of these compounds — which are currently unknown -- should be
balanced against the health risks of using water from unregulated sources that are not regularly
tested for known toxins like lead, mercury and arsenic.
Can the health goal for GenX be applied to the compounds in the EPA's report?
There is not enough information to know whether the health goal for GenX is appropriate for any
of the other compounds included in the EPA report. Our staff are working closely with federal
agencies to help answer this question, and we will share information as soon as it's available.
Would you drink the water? If not, why?
We have not changed any of our recommendations. This is an individual decision and our goal is
to provide information so you can make an informed decision for yourself and your family.
Is it safe for me to give my pet water? What are the long-term impacts for them of
drinking the water?
We are not advising pet owners to refrain from giving water to theirpets.
I'm a livestock farmer, is it safe to give the water to my [chickens, turkeys, hogs]?
We are not advising that farmers not give water to their chickens, turkeys or hogs. We do not
have any information to suggest that these compounds will get into the food supply.
DEQ-CFW 00074618

Is it safe for me to mix my baby's formula with the local water?
We don't have enough scientific information to be able to set a health goal for the non-GenX
compounds. This is an individual decision. Possible health effects should be balanced against the
health risks of using water from unregulated sources that could contain known toxins like lead,
mercury and arsenic.
What other compounds are in the water that we should be worried about?
DEQ and DHHS are working with the EPA and the CDC to learn everything we can about these
compounds. It is likely that little will be known for the near future, but we will let you know any
developments in this area ASAP.
Do any of these compounds cause cancer?
We examined the cancer rates as reported in the state's Central Cancer Registry to determine if
there are existing patterns of increased cancer rates in counties that receive drinking water from
the lower Cape Fear River. Overall the results were not concerning. The rates were what we
would expect to see looking at multiple types of cancer in multiple counties, with some rates
below and above the state rate.
Should I purchase a water filtration system for my house to remove the GenX from my
water?
We are not recommending that you purchase a water filtration system. Although preliminary
studies suggest that certain types of filtration are more effective than others for removal of GenX
and related compounds from drinking water, these findings have not yet been published or
reviewed.
Did DEQ or DHHS ask the EPA to analyze the water samples for these two compounds? If
not, why did the EPA include these two chemical compounds in their report?
DEQ and DHHS requested that the EPA report on all of the compounds identified in Dr.
Knappe's study. The EPA made the decision to report on these five most prevalent compounds,
based on its own analysis — three of which were in the Knappe Study.
Who participated/attended Monday's meeting with the EPA?
Staff from DEQ and DHHS participated with staff from the Environmental Protection Agency
and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.
What steps have been taken by DEQ and DHHS since Monday's meeting?
Since meeting with EPA, DEQ this week urged Chemours to stop discharging chemical
compounds that were identified in an EPA analysis of the company's waste stream and shared
with the state this week. DEQ also again called on the company to provide the state with a
complete inventory of all chemicals included in the waste stream at its Fayetteville facility.
DEQ made its requests in two letters issued this week after a meeting in which EPA shared
preliminary results of its analysis of water samples collected at Chemours' wastewater discharge
outfall in Fayetteville and finished drinking water at the Sweeney plant in Wilmington.
DEQ-CFW 00074619

One letter requests that Chemours stop the release of chemicals identified by the EPA as Nafion
byproducts 1 and 2, which the federal agency estimated to be elevated in the company's waste
stream. Concentrations of the three other perfluorinated chemicals identified by the EPA have
dropped significantly similar to the way GenX levels fell after the company stopped discharging
GenX. For that reason, state and federal officials believe the three perfluorinated compounds
were part of the same wastewater discharge that included GenX and was stopped.
In the second letter, DEQ amplified its previous request that Chemours provide the state agency
with a complete inventory, sampling data and test results for all chemicals included in the
company's waste stream. DEQ made those requests in a letter the state agency issued to
Chemours Tuesday and in previous requests the state sent to Chemours on Aug. 16 and Aug. 18.
DHHS is working with the EPA, CDC and other scientists to get more information about these
compounds as quickly as possible.
What are the uses of Nafion?
The Chemours facility provided the following description in their wastewater discharge permit
application:
"The Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works' Fluoromonomers / Nafion® Membrane
manufacturing area produces several final products. ChemoursTM Nafion® Membrane is a
plastic film used in the chloroalkali industry and in electrochemical fuel cells. ChemoursTM
Nafion Polymer Dispersions are used in the fabrication of thin films and coating formulations for
fuel cells membranes, catalyst coatings, sensors, and a variety of electrochemical applications.
The HFPO monomer and the Vinyl Ether monomers are used to manufacture various
fluorochemical products such as ChemoursTM Teflon®."
Do we know how long Chemours or it's predecessor, Dupont, has been manufacturing
Nafion?
DEQ's records show that DuPont started the Nafion facility for manufacturing fluorocarbons in
1977.
What can you tell us about the two Nafion byproducts: what are their chemical names and
molecular structure, and are they chemically similar to GenX?
The two byproducts have Chemical Abstract Numbers: 66796-30-3 and 749836-20-2. Molecular
structures are:
CAS No. 66796-30-3:
DEQ-CFW 00074620

F F >V�r-
F
F0 F
O F F
F_ !
HQ F Molecular Formula: CTHF1,05S
-s Monoisotopic Mass: 443.9337 Da
f! ,- F IM-Hj-.: 442,9264 mfz
CAS No. 749836-20-2
F F F F.XF
F
O FF F
F
HO F Molecular Formula: CTH F1405S
© A F Monolsotoplc bass: 463.9399 Da
'""' jM-Hj : 4629326 mtz
a
At this time, EPA has indicated their research leads them to believe the two above chemicals are
associated with the Nafion manufacturing process at the Chemours Plant.
When did Naflon byproduct 1 or 2 appear on the radar screen for either DEQ or
DHHS? How about the EPA?
The Nafion byproducts were not included in the 2016 Sun et.al. report. The state asked EPA to
conduct the same evaluation as the Sun study. However, the EPA also included the Naflon
byproducts because of their earlier work undertaken in 2015 in the Cape Fear region which
indicated the presence of these compounds.
The EPA identified the two chemicals in its analysis as Nafion byproducts because the chemicals
are believed to originate at Chemours' Nafion process area. The EPA estimated that these two
compounds were present in concentrations equivalent or greater than the GenX compounds, so
the agency elected to include these compounds in the preliminary work on the other compounds.
How long did DEQ give Chemours to stop discharging the Nafion byproducts into the Cape
Fear River? And what will be the State's next step if Chemours refuses to do so?
DEQ urged Chemours to stop discharging compounds to the Cape Fear River immediately.
Did the EPA give an estimate on how long it will take to complete any of its next steps?
No.
DEQ-CFW 00074621

Roy Cooper, Governor
Environmental
Quality
Michael S. Regan, Secretary
Release: IMMEDIATE Contact: Jamie Kritzer; Chris Mackey
Date: August 31.2017 Phone: [phone]
State seeks to stop additional chemical discharges into the Cape Fear River
DEQ looking. at all legal options to end discharge, again demands Chemours provide complete list of chemicals in waste stream
RALEIGH — As part of its ongoing investigation, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality this week urged
Chemours to stop discharging two additional chemical compounds into the Cape Fear River. The compounds were
identified in the company's waste stream by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency preliminary analysis shared with the
state this week.
DEQ is looking at all legal options including going to court to get the company to stop the discharge.
At a meeting on Monday, EPA scientists told the state they have identified two compounds they are calling Naf on
byproducts 1 and 2 in Chemours' waste stream and that estimated concentrations of these compounds are not decreasing.
The new information prompted DEQ to write Chemours on Tuesday urging the company to stop the release of the two
compounds. DEQ also repeated its demand for Chemours to provide the state agency with a complete inventory, sampling
data and test results for all chemicals included in the company's waste stream.
Details on the EPA's findings are included in a report shared by the federal agency with DEQ today.
"Our top priority is to protect the state's citizens," said Michael Regan, secretary of the N.C. Department of Environmental
Quality. "Until we know more about the health effects of these byproducts, the company needs to stop discharging them.
We're also repeating our demand that Chemours give us information about all other chemicals in its waste stream."
The new information is the result of the EPA's analysis of water samples submitted by DEQ to the EPA's lab in Research
Triangle Park. Information about the presence of the Nafion byproducts comes from preliminary analysis of water samples
gathered by DEQ at Chemours' wastewater discharge outfall near Fayetteville and finished drinking water at the Sweeney
Water Treatment Plant in Wilmington. Scientists at the EPA lab are conducting further analysis of the water samples.
Preliminary results shared by the EPA this week also include three perfluorinated compounds that along with GenX were
?reviously identified in the Cape Fear River by a 2016 study by the EPA and N.C. State University. Estimated
;oncentrations of these three perfluorinated compounds dropped significantly, similar to GenX levels after the company
,topped discharging GenX. For that reason, state and federal officials believe the three perfluorinated compounds were part
)f the same wastewater discharge that included GenX and was stopped.
[he accuracy of the laboratory analysis for the five chemicals included in the EPA's preliminary results is more uncertain
han those available for GenX because calibration standards for these chemicals are not commercially available. EPA is
tsing new non -targeted screening methods to develop concentration estimates for these five chemicals. With non -targeted
creening, researchers are able to test for and identify chemicals present, rather than testing to see if a particular chemical is
resent. This is different from the more commonly known targeted screening, which is when researchers identify what they
re looking for in the water and then test for those specific things.
(more)
acebook: hltp://www.facebook.com/ncdenr
501 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 RSS feed: http://portal.ncdenr.or /g web/opa/news-releases-
s
Twitter: http://twitter.com/NCDENR
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DEQ-CFW 00074622

P. 2 1 .
State officials began investigating the presence of GenX in the river in June. That ongoing investigation along with
pressure from residents and local officials prompted Chemours to stop discharging GenX from its Fayetteville facility.
DEQ is now asking Chemours to stop discharge of the Nafion byproducts, which preliminary results indicate come from
the company's wastewater but are unchanged since the GenX discharge ended.
Little is known about the health effects of any of the five compounds—Nafion byproducts 1 and 2 or the three other
perfluourinated compounds — included in this week's analysis from the EPA.
Public health experts with DHHS used available studies to establish a health goal for GenX. Since the GenX discharge
stopped, concentrations of GenX have dropped well below the state health goal of 140 parts per trillion. No similar health
studies have been identified for the Nafion byproducts or the other three perfluorinated compounds analyzed by the EPA,
so DHHS is unable to establish a health goal for them at this time.
DHHS reiterated its health guidance that the public can continue to drink the water, based on ongoing testing for GenX and
other compounds for which health information is available. This guidance has not changed following the preliminary
results shared by the EPA this week.
"I know how frustrating it is to all of us that we have very little scientific information about these unregulated, emerging
compounds," said Mandy Cohen, secretary of the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. "We continue to work
with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientists to get more
information as quickly as possible."
As part of the ongoing investigation, DEQ requested that the EPA analyze water samples for GenX and other unregulated
chemical compounds included in the 2016 study conducted by the EPA and N.C. State University. Among those chemicals
are the perfluorinated compounds the EPA reported this week. The EPA also chose to analyze the water samples for the
Nafion byproducts based on a separate prior study by the federal agency. Specialists with the EPA's lab in Research
Triangle Park conducted the analysis using new technology and methodology and looked at water samples collected by
DEQ over a six -week period starting June 19.
DEQ will review all this information as part of its investigation and the agency's review of Chemours' application for a
new wastewater discharge permit.
The EPA informed state officials this week that it is working on a report that will include concentrations of other
compounds at multiple sampling locations over multiple weeks.
As with the results for GenX, DEQ will make public test results for all the compounds when final data is available.
Facebook: htti)://www.facebook.com/ncdenr
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 RSS feed: http://Dortal.ncdenr.org/web/opa/news-releases-
rss
Twitter: http://twitter.com/NCDENR
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DEQ-CFW 00074623

Water Resources
Environmental Quality
August 29, 2017
Mr, Ellis H. McGaughy
Plant Manager
The Chemours Company
22828 NC Highway 87W
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28306-7332
Subject: Request for Additional Information
NPDES Application NCO003573
Fayetteville Works
Dear Mr. McGaughy:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
The Environmental Protection Agency has provided the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) with analytical results that include estimated concentrations for
two PFESA chemicals in samples collected at the Chemours outfall 002. EPA has reported that
these chemicals have formulas of C7HF1305S and C7H2F1405S with respective CAS Numbers
66796-30-3 and 749836-20-2. DEQ notes that these chemicals were included in the DEQ
August 16, 2017 request to Chemours for information.
Due to the estimated values for the two chemicals, DEQ is requesting that Chemours
immediately explore any and all options to reduce or eliminate the release of these chemicals
into the Cape Fear River until the State of North Carolina can review available information
related to these chemicals and properly evaluate potential health effects.
Please notify me of your intended actions in response to our request.
Sincerely,
( ► '
Linda Culpepper
Deputy Director
Division of Water Resources
ec: Michael Johnson, Chemours
�—Nothing Compares
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707-9000
DEQ-CFW 00074624

�sr� s
r UNITED VATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PR.OTECiiON AGENCY
W NATiONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LASOM I CRY
August 3 1.; 2017
MEQUM
SUBJECT Laboratory PEAS ReIts for NC DEQ Cape Fear Watershed Sampling:
Preliminary Non -Targeted Ana ysi
FROM: Timothy J. Buckley, Dire " or
Exposure. Methods' and - surerrments Division
THRUt Jennifer Onne-Zavaieta; Director
,National. Exposure Research La..o
Linda ulpepper,,Dep_utyDirector
Division of WaterResources.
:North. Carolina Department of Environmental. (Quality
Enclosed please find our fourth:report of PEAS concentrations in Cape Fear River water
samples collected under the direction ofNC PW This report iucludes,preliminary in ings
from our non -targeted ana..lyses.- These results were presenied and d sc4ssed during your visit
August 28, 2D17 to -our Laboratory in Research Tri gle Park-, K.
Thank you for inviting us to be -a partof this. eff0tt.that addresses: a very`important public
health; concern: in,rth Carolina. These results xepreseut the; effort of any within our lab, but l
would especially pke to ackno ledge Drs Mark Stryhu' Andy .Lindstrom; James McCord, and
Seth Newton.ih conducting the laboratory analyses, Dr. Myriam M. dinar ?era who provided-
invaluable support and coordination, and Ms SWa Tang Argao who supported and oversaw
quality, assurance.
f you have any questions or concerns; do not hesitate to contact ine at (919) 54i-2454 of
email bucklev.timothy &,epa.goy: I look forward to our continued work together.
Enclosure
CC: Becky $. Allenbacha USIEPA ReOn 4
Jeff Morris, USEPA. 0PPT.
Betsy Behl,, USE PA, O
Peter Grevatt; USEP:A., OW
DEQ-CFW 00074625

August 31, 2017
.summary of Resull%_
Our PreHminary non -targeted results are limited to samples from the Chemoursoutfall
and finished Wter from, the Swe'eney Water Treatment Plant for- weeks .1 — 6. We chose thes
e
site§ because we believe the-b6nedntratibns obtervedbound this portion of the watershed.
Furthermore, we did not want. wdelay our repo Ling e to the add -required to do itional time
assemble and interpret resultsfirom.the other locations. We are continuingtowork on a
comprehensive, reportthat will'inelude targetedtAd Acin-targeted analysis results st-all1ocations
.over the seven weeps of swnpjing..
Weincludefive analytes in this; initial non -targeted analysis,repori (Table 1). An
important limitation to non -targeted analysis results is that these resorts considered semi-
�our non -tar t res . s are conslO
.quantitative. 'We -cannot lwo-W, the -exact coicentrailon because no authentic. standards,are
available for these chemicals, Up we are very confident of the chemical identity based on
the high resolution mass spectrometry and knowledge of Chemours' chemical products.
T.Ablel. AnAlytqMeasin
'Short Name Chemical Xame
PFESA pdiflotb
Byproduct I 17-octeno,
PF030A
[di ftp*(1,2j2�Z-
AnaMis
Formula I CAS no.
CJIF-IiO�2931147-9 1443.9337
tetrafluor . thoxy4ssj .7-4993206--
oe )mothyfl-1,2� C7H�Fi
I
�2 #63.9399
2,2 tetraffefh* .2.2-
tetrafluoro
'179.984 -6
C3HFsO3, 674-13-6
ni-
'&ffluoro-3' . .3-dioxahexanoic 245.9761
acid C:4W!04 39402-89- I
,
perfiuoro
3,57
acid. CsBF90s, 39492-99:4 3,11.9680
-
Wepro�idesemi --qua ntitative' concen ations.;int.W.6f0rms;(Table:!). 'I he first is the
peak area that is associa#e4l with 'ak each.
Pompound.3hete amis
generally proportional to the analyse concentration iih it is useful in interpreting changes in
concentration over time and,between locations for a given analyte. Forex -e, f
... .example, QrPFMQAA
d' S Finished­it ,measure in . weeneywater, we seethe peak,areachange ftom-45 million -to 3,000
�counts from week Ito 6. P& can b -
we, e interpreted as roughly- a 1,50 .0 7f6!d decrease in
.concentration Withoilt: knw%dn exact cone w wepro"d- asemi_
:the concentration,. The second -ay
quantitative -estimate of conciantrationis- to :scale the n=4 . argetod. analyte based on.the measured
-concentration of GenX
[NTA], —_ [GenX]
'hTAPA
GenJfpA
Where: [NTA
ere is the concentration of the non -targeted analyte (hgQ
2
DEQ-CFW-00074626

A4gust 31,2017
[GenX] is the concentration of OenX (ng/L)
NTAPA is the integrated peak area for the .non- targeted anal
GenXPA is the integrated peak area for GenX
In essence, we are:,assuming that -the mass spectrometer responds to the nor -targ6ted
.analyt as it.were GenX e in be we nger:resulting
.0; Hi The actual instrument response, ay- ,weaker or stro,
in an under 6j,: over� estftnation of the nonAargpthd etincentra#ion. Our experience with this, clgss
of . analytPS suggests that estimates of this fashiow.are accurate to;-vdthin A 0-Bbld of the estimated.
Value.
The non -targeted analyte estimated concentrations are particularly uncertain at the
Chemours.butfall daring weeks 1-3. Concentrations high -that even- r'sarwleswere
w�so 9
-.diluted 20X, w eexceeded otw Calibration curve GenX and were also likely saturating the
mass spectrometer for both. GenX ganon-targeted analytes. The. semi -quantitative esth nate for.
the non-targetbd analytes are particularly uncertain and likely underestimated. These results are
Shown in Table 2 and.have been flagged accordingly.
Wheth0r: considering peak area or.ostimated.concentratiOr4 the non, -targeted results show
two very.1; . fOrent t moffles:. For three an4jytes, concentrations at the:ou" and
Sweeney finishedwater show aprecipitous drop very similar towhawas observed for GenX
(Figures 1-4). These..rrsu suggest that whatever,mifig on,strategy reduce.-G-enX, was
jts,�sugg gy used
also effective �)r these three chemicals. The second time profile is for, two perApar-pethe#ulf'o
acid. OTE"yproducts. Wtbelieve these, chemicals are a byproduct -of Naflon production. In
cpntrast :to the G .. enx _rebated chemicals, for *K two cherriicais, We do mot observe a clear
decreasingtrend -ift concentration (Figures. 5 & 6),. These results suggest the disdOge of these
chemicals was` vnaMctedby whatever strategies : were used io.-mitigate G .discharge:
.Concentrations of the PFES As range from 2,9 0036 73,940. ng/L at the Chemqurs.. outfitll and. 53
to: 1,860 Ag./L inSweeney fibsh, d. drink mt ter. Nptethat g, wat Iconcentrations­­.'areinihe-same
m e these .
range asGehX originallynotedin Sim et al, 2016.
In 7 theplots show thetwo different types of tim M_s six
e :for 4. 11 andlytes.
q prof
Each analyte.ib: graphed as:a:-td1AfiVe..peraehta0 of its maximiIin'intensity over the sampling
ti, iddle of inc-
perio.4, the -WE this ma�imumperiqd -occurred in the-nii sampli:
For 3S.As b3`PPDdUq
while for'the oilier analyte the-n axiMum. d first week.
WAS I unng,: , the
AS with GenX o&,Q Cresul&for the non -targeted ., results are W'l
tolerances.: Wi did not detect . ,any:of analytes7'mfield blanks, ihdicating.that no.h.ad or lab
contaminatiowtook place. Because there: are no standards for these
we 40e no
,assessment ofaccuracy, but duplicate analyses: were within 2.0,perceiit. The I oratory -methods
,for theresults, reported here. are described CP i Sun et, 4, 20.
1 sun M- Arevalp IE;Str sop�M-Kearns P; Pickett A; Snaith.Q.K Appe DkU,, Lcga
C)r W n To, ag,
Perflu pc
Fc ar River Water Wfedo61j CirdH1; a,,Environrnental
Science & I echnolog, Letters. 2016'.
E McMillan L 11 tTan M, feMr 1, 13WI C. Identification ofNvel
PcrA . uoroali-�l .Ether (Iiboxy]ICM6 (Plltt,&.5)and Sutffinic.Acids (PFESAs) in N`iat�u: iatuWaters Using Accurate.Mass Time -of Flight Mass
),Rnvirowsdi'kphnol., 29.15
3
DEQ-CFW-00074627

August 31, 2017
Table 2 Serni=Q aanitita#lue Esi~ mates of GertX and Nan -Targeted A _a yte Concentrations
(ng/L) Measureo. at Chemaurs autfail and Sweeney P nished br niiing Water Dur ng Sampling
Weeks '1- 6.
�;an=large
Aralyte
a lvcatr�rrr
- -
5a`rrPI.ie
Week
£ IOTA Ikrea .
'en3fArPa "
. GenX C�nsF "-
(/i~j
_ NTA.Conc...
In/}
Flag;
PFMOAA.
Che, nQurs Outfall 002
1
63,712,2787
10,363 496
121j760,
134,000
1
PF02HxA.
Chemours outfail 0.t}2
`1
192,599,647
10,363,496:
2M60
3.83-jOM
.1
PF030A
Cheiriours:©utfall 662
1
5040;394
10,363,496
23;760 :
109,000:
1
GenX
ehernaurs Outfall 002
1
10,363,496-
10 363,456
21.,760
21,800
1
PFEM Byproduct 1
CliemoursQutfall O02
1
1,380,791.
1D,363,496
21,760:.
2,900
1
PFESA Byproduct 2
Chemours outfali 002
1
14,039 048'
1%163,496
21,760.
29,500
1
PFNEDAA
Sweeney
=4,56U,543
- 293,854
726
_. 11,3D0
2.
PFQ2+#xA "
Sweeney"
3,s94341
293,854
726.
'PFfl3QA,
Sweeney
1
'*1,265,:760
c` 293,�54 _
_ 726
3,33D
2
54
F?FESA Byproduct 1
' Snreeney� _,Y"a.hr1
__s.
: x 2
293F8a4726
F. ,
53�
2
PFVIDAA"
Chemours Qutfail 602
2.
37,373%I
8,345;860
15 25D:
6SX0 =
1
PFOIxA
Chemours Qutfall 00
2
71,3849.53:
$,345,860
115,250
130,QOO
1
PF030A
C4 rri i )Putfall (log
z
19,111355:
8,345 860
15,250.
34;900
I
Ge x
Chem'odi ©utfa11-002
'2
81345,860
8,34SA60
15,250
15;300
_I
PFESA.ByProduct 1.
Cherriours Outfa11002 .
2
1,895 4442
8,345,860
15,250 :
3,460
1
PFESk:B +product 2
ehemours (lutfai1002
2
13,23f3 V2
8,345,8E�`
15,250
24;200
1
PFttiRAk
Sweeney
2
1,059,09
t ff.?_
PF02HStA"
_
Sn►eeney
_
�2
�38t?2 j
10;129„
1Q0
7,t3
10>�
Genf 3
SweY.r�
10,19
10�
}1{3Q
300
...........
i?EESA Byproduct 2
veene �_ ,_
_
437;285,
z�k1t�2
r41flT3
4,320
PFNIQA-A
CherrioW$-Outfall 002
Il,265' 308
9,390,564
2L530
25,8.00_
1
PFQ2HxA;
Chemaurs .- u .. 002
:3
1U,284 5Q2
9,390;564
21,530
23.,oOO
1
PR030A
Chemours;Qutfall 90
3
1,545;961
9,39 ,5f ?i
Z1,530
3 540
1
GenS
Chem. ours Qutfall 002 '
3
;9,390 564:
9,390,S64_
21,530 `
21,500
1
P.F8A 8ypzoduct l
Chernours duffaH 4102
3
$j721468
9,39:0,564
21,536
13,100
1
PFESA.Bypidduq 7
CheMOVtt, 3.utfall ti02
3
17,252 514.
9,390 5"64
21,530
39,6.00
1
DEQ-CFW 00074628

Au—auA 31 2017
Atari target;;
t
OCa-' IGf
T
c
00fix done.
N' T TiF-I
RR
NOTE: For week#3, theM was insufficient sample available fora Sweeny finished water analysis.
For webk#4,
there. Was ffisufficientsarriple.
available for a:Chernouft outfall.002 water analysts:
PFNf-77==
"b
w
4,
4,
P -3
S
A
4
-4
GenX
Sweeney;-4
lu,
4"
110
wee n0y,
2:622,
PPMoAA
Opmours Outfill 002
5
558,3137
"2871302
713;
1,390
3
PF02HxA
Chemours-b.utfal[002
5
366,86
ZWj302
713:
916
3
PF030A
Cheinours Outfall 002
5
175,874
287,302
713,
436
3
GenX.
Che . mours-OwWFQW
5:
287'302'
287392
.723:
713
31
PFESAIByorddUctI
Ch-denours.Outfall.002
5
1,797349
287,302
713
4,460
3
PFESA..BVoroduct.2
Chomourt:Mtfill 002
5,
2871302
713
8
5
7--V
5
7 Po
PFMOAA.
zbem- ours Outfall 002
6
113,443w-
16,637
102:
696
PFOZHkA
T-h-mbdrs O.utfAll:002
.6
7%333
16,6397
102.
431
PF030A
-
Ch-emours. dutfAl 1002
6
14,038
16,637
1E32
86
Geo
Cj.m.ours outfO 002-
6
16,637
I6,637
Ip
192.
PFES-A Sproduct
Cbemours outfall,6O2
6.
2569 9
16,687
lox
PFESA ffyproduct 2
Ch ipurs�.O l tf6l:66.2
-!em, u .
12,05
_5 _j574
16,6a7
102
73,500
AA
Svtireeny
6-;
112
Sweeney,
Sweeney
3C
-A 78
n X
A, Sweeney7
PFES.,.
Flag
1 SamplewasdifutedIOXand diluted sample exceeded, tlhe:calibratloo curvelor GenX
2 Sarqple was diluted 5X
3 Sample was diluted 20X
5
DEQ-CFW-00074629

August 31, 2017
lgu� I.
GouX. Concelttra#ion-(u&l) Pic file -
oo'
25000
700:
Ix
#
200A0.
600
u Sweeney o c ern6uts .
500
e-
15006 =
a
400
r
---
a
300
-
10000 0
E
3
_
n;
2AD
,y
5000
100
!
;0
6
r
9
u§ u$
S
2
3 4 5 6
Sample Week
�ignre 2. �T.CouO-Oration (ngtL) Pr9f le
12000
. 40000
19.0 A
w Sweeney t Gherrtout s
1.2000Q
bD
6000
_. .. -.
BQOoD
O
N
C
y
�
"-
N
400D
-
6AAOQ
O
y
40000.
V
200A
-
20000
2
7 4- 5
sample Week
b
DEQ-CFW 00074630

A 4gmt. 31. , 2017
Figure 3 PFfl211.*A Comcintration (sigh:) Prolito
10060
_ __-._- __
-.__ ___._ _-
_-__._-__-
450000
9000 .
R00000
aSwe ney
LChemours
350000
7000.
_
oaooa
6000-
250000
5040
_ _ _
_
Q
2p0000
3
E
150000 m
ja00
100a00
2a00
_• .
1000
1 2 3 4
5
6
sample Weep
-e1 tra, itio- 1 d g/L) Profde
gttra , PF03 A Cone
3500
- - - - - ---
- - __
n0000
:3000
- — -
mSw!eney
v chemours
10a0(7o
7
DEQ-CFW 00074631

August 31, 2017
Fig5. Pi SA $ypxodu -t 1 Con�centlration (nglL) Pro file
1s{7
ES
#!aoney t�� (hemou
160
160.00
140
_ - -
- -- - --
14000.
12000
�r y
100
-
- V
10004
a 86
_ _
$0 0012
60
- -
6000 v
�
U
40
-
��
4000
1
2 3 4 5. 6
Sample Week.
guM 6.. PSAS Byproduct 2 C€inceAtration:(ug/ L) Profile
9000
_.
Sa000
8oaa
7aaao
is Sweeney P Chemou..rs.
7000
60000
DO
50000::�
n :3000
4ao0o 0
Qi :4000ILn
L
...
�-
y _
2000
- - - _
-i-,.._ _ _. __ -e-_
20000-
100n
llyj`.--.
Y+
i Q 3
fi
10000
1
2_ 3. 4 S 6.
Sample Week
8
DEQ-CFW 00074632

Auaust 31, 2017
7. Reilative change (so mpared'to,)hlglte�t,ipeas uredv4lue):non PEAS coopentration
over weeks 1 4 for.-GenX AAd NTA§IAt the Chernouit qu anti S*eenq F. bed
Drinking Water. GenX and As in Panels AME, & IT show a cojasistent, decr.easing
prof ilei. The PFESA Byproduct concentrations are variable: and dohot show a. clear trend.
io.0i
m
50
75
,so
26
2 .4
Sam" Oling wbok
91
DEQ-CFW-00074633