2019.12.31_CCO.p16_ChemoursCorrectiveActionPlan-AppendixD

TR0795 December 2019
APPENDIX D
Southwestern Offsite Seeps Assessment
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430 Raleigh, NC 27607 PH: 919.870.0576 FAX: [phone] www.geosyntec.com
Offsite Seeps Assessment Memo

Memorandum
Date: December 31, 2019
To: The Chemours Company FC, LLC
From: Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
Subject: Southwestern Offsite Seeps Assessment

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC (Geosyntec) has prepared this memorandum for The Chemours
Company FC, LLC (Chemours) for the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North
Carolina (the Site). The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the findings of the
Southwestern Offsite Seeps Assessment. Groundwater seeps are a common hydrogeological
feature in areas of sloping terrain. Onsite four groundwater seeps (Seeps A, B, C and D; Figure 1)
were identified in early 2019 (Geosyntec, 2019a). These onsite seeps informed the overall
conceptualization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mass transport from the Site to
the Cape Fear River. The assessment described in this memorandum was undertaken to identify
and sample the groundwater seeps located between the Old Outfall 002 and Georgia Branch Creek
to assess Table 3+ PFAS concentrations and Table 3+ PFAS signatures (i.e. aerial vs. process
water signatures).
METHODS
The southwestern offsite seeps were identified by observation from a boat along the west shore of
the Cape Fear River from the Old Outfall 002 to Georgia Branch Creek (Appendix A). The
shoreline was observed for any surface water runoff, ground water seeps or erosional features
indicative of flowing water. A total of ten seeps were identified on the western shore of the Cape
Fear River (Figure 1) along with one erosional feature which contained no flow of water. Nine of
the ten seep (E to M) were sampled. Chemours obtained verbal agreement for sampling the seeps
to the exception of the Lock and Dam Seep; Chemours is presently working towards obtaining a
written access agreement to sample the Lock and Dam Seep which is immediately adjacent a boat
launch ramp.
Once a seep was identified, it was sampled by submerging a 250 mL HDPE sampling bottle to
capture the water flowing from the seep, facing into the direction of flow. Two bottles were
Offsite Seeps Assessment Memo December 31, 2019
Page 2
Offsite Seeps Assessment Memo

collected for each location and were composited together at the laboratory. Seeps E, F, J and L did
not have enough flow to enable sampling by placing bottle in the flow of water; the seeps only had
drops of water seeping from bank. Instead, these seeps (Seeps E, F, J and L) were sampled by
collecting the trickle of water from a freshly cut section of the embankment. For Seep J, one bottle
was collected from the seep and another from the wetland area upstream that is believed to feed
the ground water of Seep J. While no above ground flow was observed between Seep J and the
wetland area there was a continuous area of wetland vegetation connecting the seep and the
wetland suggesting a hydrological connection. For Seep E and Seep F water was collected from
an upstream pool of water along the seep channel rather than directly at the mouth. The highest
flow was observed at Seep K which had clearly visible surface water flowing while low trickling
flow was observed at Seeps G, H, I and M (Appendix B).
Seep samples were analyzed by the following methods:
- EPA Method 537 Mod (includes Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid [HFPO-DA]) at
TestAmerica Sacramento; and
- Table 3+ Standard Operating Protocol (SOP) at TestAmerica Sacramento
Seep PFAS signatures were assessed using hierarchical cluster analysis as described in the
Corrective Action Plan (Geosyntec, 2019a).
DATA QUALITY
Analytical data were reviewed using the Data Verification Module (DVM) within the LocusTM
Environmental Information Management (EIM) system, which is a commercial software program
used to manage data. Following the DVM process, a manual review of the data was conducted.
The DVM and manual review results were combined in a data review narrative report for each set
of sample results, which were consistent with Stage 2b of the EPA Guidance for Labeling
Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use (EPA-540-R-08-005 2009).
The narrative report summarizes which samples were qualified (if any), the specific reasons for
the qualification, and any potential bias in reported results. The data usability, in view of the
project’s data quality objectives (DQOs), was assessed and the data were entered into the EIM
system. The data were evaluated by the DVM against the following data usability checks:
• Hold time criteria;
• Field and laboratory blank contamination;
• Completeness of QA/QC samples;
• MS/MSD recoveries and the relative percent differences (RPDs) between these spikes;
Offsite Seeps Assessment Memo December 31, 2019
Page 3
Offsite Seeps Assessment Memo
•Laboratory control sample/control sample duplicate recoveries and the RPD between
these spikes;
•Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses; and
•RPD between field duplicate sample pairs.
The analytical results for the offsite seeps are presented in Table 1. Results are presented with all
validation flags. The “J” and “UJ” flagged results indicate usable data, which should be considered
as quantitatively estimated. The results are not necessarily within the laboratory’s criteria for
accuracy and precision of the test method employed, but in the reviewer’s professional judgment
are usable. Laboratory reports and data review narratives are provided in Appendix C. One field
blank sample was analyzed for Table 3+ and Mod 537 PFAS compounds. All analytes were non-
detect indicating there was no cross-contamination in the field blank.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Total Table 3+ PFAS concentrations at the offsite seeps ranged from 2,600 ng/L at Seep J to 6,800
ng/L at Seep F (Table 1). The highest single compound measured was PMPA at Seep J with a
concentration of 2,800 ng/L. The seeps with the highest concentration of total Table 3+ (Seep E
and Seep G; 6,200 and 6,800 ng/L respectively) are located on the northern part of the study area,
about 500 feet south of Old Outfall 002 (Figure 2). The other seeps have lower total Table 3+
concentration with the lowest (Seep J; 2,600 ng/L) is located in the middle of the study area, half
a mile south of Old Outfall 002. The data gathered here shows an overall decreasing trend in total
Table 3+ PFAS concentration while moving southward towards Georgia Branch Creek. The
sample collected from Georgia Branch Creek in September 2019 (Geosyntec, 2019b) had a total
Table 3+ concentration of 2,100 ng/L, similar to the concentrations found at Seep H through M.
Compared to the onsite seeps and Old Outfall 002 the offsite seeps have lower concentrations of
Total Table 3+ PFAS by one to two orders of magnitude (Figure 2).
Similar to Georgia Branch Creek, all of the offsite seeps exhibited an aerial PFAS signature (Figure
3). These results indicate that the PFAS in these offsite seeps likely originated from aerial PFAS
deposition. The PFAS then subsequently infiltrated to groundwater and eventually discharged
from these seeps to the Cape Fear River.
REFERENCES:
Geosyntec, 2019a. On and Offsite Assessment. September 30, 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019b. Corrective Action Plan. 2019.
*****
Offsite Seeps Assessment Memo December 31, 2019
Page 4
Offsite Seeps Assessment Memo
Enclosures:
-Tables
-Figures
- Appendix A: Field Logs
- Appendix B: Field Photo Logs
- Appendix C: Data Review Narratives and Laboratory Reports
TR0795
TABLES
TABLE 1
Southwestern Offsite Seeps Analytical Results
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID SEEP-E SEEP-F SEEP-G SEEP-H SEEP-I SEEP-J SEEP-K SEEP-L SEEP-M FBLKField Sample ID SEEP-E-0930 SEEP-F-0923 SEEP-G-0911 SEEP-H-0905 SEEP-I-0856 SEEP-J-0843 SEEP-K-0835 SEEP-L-0825 SEEP-M-0818 FIELD-BLANK-1-20191021-1050Sample Date 22-10-19 22-10-19 22-10-19 22-10-19 22-10-19 22-10-19 22-10-19 22-10-19 22-10-19 21-10-19QA/QC ------------------Field BlankSDG320-55576-1 320-55576-1 320-55576-1 320-55576-1 320-55576-1 320-55576-1 320-55576-1 320-55576-1 320-55576-1 320-55576-1Lab Sample ID 320-55576-1 320-55576-2 320-55576-3 320-55576-4 320-55576-5 320-55576-6 320-55576-7 320-55576-8 320-55576-9 320-55576-10
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA 1,200 1,100 700 550 570 580 640 520 570 <4
PFMOAA 480 J 900 190 140 130 180 J 160 130 100 <5
PFO2HxA 800 810 470 350 300 350 J 320 220 190 <2
PFO3OA 170 130 57 28 17 120 J 41 18 15 <2
PFO4DA 83 7.3 9 <2 <2 58 11 2.7 <2 <2
PFO5DA 46 <2 <2 <2 <2 20 J 4.8 <2 <2 <2
PMPA 2,300 2,800 1,500 1,200 1,200 810 J 1,300 1,200 1,300 <10
PEPA 710 870 490 360 390 260 400 350 410 <20
PFESA-BP1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFESA-BP2 90 9.6 22 16 12 37 70 44 28 <2
Byproduct 4 220 J 92 79 J 39 J 53 J 110 J 130 J 120 J 78 J <2
Byproduct 5 2.1 J <2.9 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Byproduct 6 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
NVHOS 15 12 5.4 4.3 4.4 8.1 J 5.2 5.9 5.6 <2
EVE Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Hydro-EVE Acid 7.7 2 <2 <2 <2 2.7 3.5 <2 <2 <2
R-EVE 76 60 39 21 J 23 J 16 46 J 44 J 26 J <2
PES <2 <2.3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFECA B <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFECA-G <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
11Cl-PF3OUdS <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <35 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <20 86 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
9Cl-PF3ONS <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
ADONA <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
NaDONA <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 UJ <2 UJ <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2.2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorobutanoic Acid 18 15 13 11 11 8.8 9.9 9.7 7.5 <2
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorodecanoic Acid 8.3 <2 <2 <2 <2 4.1 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorododecane Sulfonic Acid (PFDoS)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorododecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroheptane Sulfonic Acid (PFHpS)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2.7 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid 5.5 <2 <2 <2 <2 13 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorohexadecanoic Acid (PFHxDA)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid 4.3 <2 <2 <2 <2 8.2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorohexanoic Acid 5.4 4.5 3.4 2.7 2.8 8.4 3.8 2.4 2.3 <2
Perfluorononane Sulfonic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorononanoic Acid 6 <2 <2 <2 <2 20 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorooctadecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoropentane Sulfonic Acid (PFPeS)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoropentanoic Acid 20 18 15 13 11 12 12 9.4 8.1 <2
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid <2.3 <2.6 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid 4.9 <2.2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)15 <2 <2 <2 <2 55 3.7 <2 <2 <2Perfluorooctanoic Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)160 <2 <2 <2 4.4 270 7.6 4.1 2.7 <2
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limitB - analyte detected in an associated blankJ - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or preciseng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SDG - Sample Delivery Group
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
TR0795 December 2019Page 1 of 1
TR0795
FIGURES
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Cape Fear RiverSeep E
Seep F
Seep G
Seep H
Seep I
Seep K
Seep L
Seep M
Seep J
Lock-Dam Seep
GBC-1
OLDOF-1
SEEP-A-1
SEEP-A-3
SEEP-A-4
SEEP-A-TR1
SEEP-B-1
SEEP-B-2
SEEP-B-TR1
SEEP-B-TR2
SEEP-C-1
SEEP-D-1
WC-1
Old Outfall 00
2
Willis Creek
Georgi
a

B
r
a
n
c
h

C
r
e
e
k
Figure
1Raleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Corrective Action Plan\TR0795_Offsite_Seep_Locations.mxd Last Revised: 12/13/2019 Author: TIpDecember 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,000 0 1,000500 FeetLegend
!(Location of Offsite SeepMouth at Cape Fear River
!(Onsite Seep Location
!(Tributary and Old OutfallLocation
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Shoreline Surveyed forOffsite Seeps
Notes:1. Seep E to M samples were collected where the seeps enteredthe Cape Fear River. Their locations on this figure have beenslightly adjusted to facilitate interpretation so that they do notappear to be in the Cape Fear River.2. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydro shapefile).3. Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Onsite Seep, Offsite Seep, and Tributary Sample Locations
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Cape Fear RiverSeep E6,200
Seep F
6,800
Seep G3,600
Seep H2,700
Seep I2,700
Seep J2,600
Seep K3,100
Seep L2,700
Seep M2,700
Lock-Dam Seep
NS(Note 6)
GBC-1
2,100
OLDOF-1
120,000
SEEP-A-1340,000
SEEP-A-3360,000
SEEP-A-4170,000
SEEP-A-TR1
120,000
SEEP-B-1380,000
SEEP-B-2
430,000
SEEP-B-TR1130,000 SEEP-B-TR2290,000
SEEP-C-1
350,000
SEEP-D-1170,000
WC-12,600
Old Outfall 00
2
Willis Creek
Georgi
a

B
r
a
n
c
h

C
r
e
e
k
Onsite Seep, Offsite Seep, and Tributary Total Table 3+ Results
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
2Raleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Corrective Action Plan\TR0795_Offsite_Seep_TotalTable3.mxd Last Revised: 12/13/2019 Author: TIpDecember 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
!(Location of Offsite SeepMouth at Cape FearRiver
!(Onsite Seep Location
!(Tributary and OldOutfall Location
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:NS = not sampled1. All results are in ng/L (nanograms per liter).2. Offsite seep samples were collected on Oct 22, 2019. All other samples were collected onSept. 17, 2019.3. HFPO-DA (hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid) is included in the total Table 3+ result,including HFPO-DA results evaluated by EPA Method 537 Mod.4. Non-detect values were not included in the sum of total Table 3+ results.5. Total Table 3+ results include J-qualified data.6. Chemours is arranging for offsite access to sample this location due to the need to be nearthe active boat ramp to collect the sample.7. Seep E to M samples were collected where the seeps entered the Cape Fear River. Theirlocations on this figure have been slightly adjusted to facilitate interpretation so that they do notappear to be in the Cape Fear River.8. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on open data from ArcGISOnline and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydroshapefile).9. Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Old Outfall 002 CapeFearRiverW i l l i s C reek
GeorgiaBranchCreek
WC-2
Seep E
Seep H
Seep G
Seep L
WC-4
Seep K
WC-3
GBC-6
Seep F
Seep J
GBC-1
Seep I
Seep MGBC-5
GBC-2GBC-3
CFR-MILE-76
GBC-7
CFR-04
CFR-07
WC-1
PFAS signatures in the vicinity of the Site
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3Raleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Corrective Action Plan\TR0795_PFAS_Signatures.mxd Last Revised: 12/13/2019 Author: TIpDecember 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,000 0 1,000500 FeetLegend
Signature
Aerial - Mixture of PFAS
Aerial - Predominant PMPAor HFPO-DA
Combined Process Water -Predominant PFMOAA
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:ng/L - nanograms per liter
1. The size of the symbol denotes the relative magnitude of Total Table 3+ concentrations and the color of the symbol denotes the proposed PFAS signature.2. Total Table 3+ concentrations were calculated using the 11 PFAS compounds listed in Attachment C of the Consent Order.3. Non-detect values were not included in the sum of total Table 3+ results.4. Total Table 3+ results include J-qualified data.5. Seep E to M samples were collected where the seeps entered the Cape Fear River. Their locations on this figure have been slightly adjusted to facilitate interpretation so that they do not appear to be in the river.6. Basemap source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
10
1,000
100
Reference Scale (Note 1)
(Total Table 3+, ng/L)
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
TR0795
APPENDIX A
Field Logs
TR0795
APPENDIX B
Field Photo Log
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, NC
Photograph 1
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: Facing West; Collector
coordinates: 34.814662, -78.821366;
Sample not collected; Site identified
as Georgia Creek
Photograph 2
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West; Collector
coordinates: 34.816773, -78.820992;
Sample ID: “Seep M”
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, NC
Photograph 3
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View Southwest;
Collector coordinates:34.817228, -
78.820863; Sample ID: “Seep L”
Photograph 4
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West; Collector
coordinates: 34.819482, -78.820947;
No sample collected because seep
was dry. Possibly caused by erosion
but maybe water upland.
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, NC
Photograph 5
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.820384, -78.820955; Sample
ID: “Seep K”
Photograph 6
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.823835, -78.821307; Sample
ID: “Seep J”; Samples are
composite of multiple slow
flowing holes and uphill there
is a pool of water. Coordinates
on picture are incorrect.
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, NC
Photograph 7
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.823835, -78.821307; Sample
ID: “Seep J”; Samples are
composite of multiple slow
flowing holes and uphill there is
a pool of water.
Photograph 8
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View Southwest;
Collector coordinates:
34.823835, -78.821307; Sample
ID: “Seep J”; Samples are
composite of multiple slow
flowing holes and uphill there is
a pool of water.
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, NC
Photograph 9
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.823835, -78.821307; Sample
ID: “Seep J”; Samples are
composite of multiple slow
flowing holes and uphill there is
a pool of water.
Photograph 10
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.824900, -78.821701;
Sample ID: “Seep I”.
Coordinates on pictures are
incorrect.
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, NC
Photograph 11
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.825611, -78.821655; Sample
ID: “Seep H”
Photograph 12
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.825611, -78.821655;
Sample ID: “Seep H”
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, NC
Photograph 13
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.826967, -78.821884;
Sample ID: “Seep G” .
Coordinates on picture are
incorrect.
Photograph 14
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View West;
Collector coordinates:
34.829940, -78.822158; Sample
ID: “Seep F”; Sample collected
~20ft uphill in channel
positioned parallel to the Cape
Fear River.
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, NC
Photograph 15
Date: 10/22/2019
Comments: View Northwest;
Collector coordinates:
34.830635, -78.822418; Sample
ID: “Seep E”. Sample collected
~10ft uphill in iron pool.
Coordinates on picture are
incorrect.
TR0795
APPENDIX C
DATA REVIEW NARRATIVES AND
LABORATORY REPORTS
TR0795
Data review narratives are included in this attachment. Due to file size limits, analytical laboratory
reports will be provided separately with the hard copy of the report.
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY 2019 OFFSITE SEEP SAMPLING.doc 1 of 2
ADQM DATA REVIEW NARRATIVE
Site Chemours FAY – Fayetteville
Project 2019 OFFSITE SEEP SAMPLING
Project Reviewer Michael Aucoin, AECOM as a Chemours contractor
Sampling Dates October 21 - 22, 2019
Analytical Protocol
Laboratory Analytical Method Parameter(s)
TestAmerica - Sacramento 537 Modified PFAS1
TestAmerica - Sacramento Cl. Spec. Table 3 Compound SOP Table 3+ compounds
1 Perfluoroalkylsubstances, a list of 37 compounds including HFPO-DA.
Sample Receipt
The following items are noted for this data set:
All samples were received in satisfactory condition and within EPA temperature guidelines on October 23, 2019
Data Review
The electronic data submitted for this project was reviewed via the Data Verification Module (DVM) process.
Overall the data is acceptable for use without qualification, except as noted below:
•Some analytical results have been qualified J as estimated, and non-detect results qualified UJindicating an estimated reporting limit, due to a poor surrogate or laboratory matrix spikerecovery and poor lab replicate precision. See the Data Verification Module (DVM) Narrative
Report for which samples were qualified, the specific reasons for qualification, and potential biasin reported results.
Attachments
The DVM Narrative report is attached. The lab reports due to a large page count are stored on an AECOM network shared drive and are available to be posted on external shared drives, or on a flash drive.
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY 2019 OFFSITE SEEP SAMPLING.doc 2 of 2
Data Verification Module (DVM)
The DVM is an internal review process used by the ADQM group to assist with the determination of data usability. The electronic data deliverables received from the laboratory are loaded into the Locus EIM™ database and processed through a series of data quality checks, which are a combination of software (Locus EIM™ database Data Verification Module (DVM)) and manual reviewer evaluations. The data is evaluated against the following data usability checks:
•Field and laboratory blank contamination
•US EPA hold time criteria
•Missing Quality Control (QC) samples
•Matrix spike(MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD) recoveries and the relative percent differences
(RPDs) between these spikes
•Laboratory control sample(LCS)/control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and the RPD
between these spikes
•Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses
•RPD between field duplicate sample pairs
•RPD between laboratory replicates for inorganic analyses
•Difference / percent difference between total and dissolved sample pairs.
There are two qualifier fields in EIM: Lab Qualifier is the qualifier assigned by the lab and may not reflect the usability of the data. This qualifier may have many different meanings and can vary between labs and over time within the same lab. Please refer to the laboratory report for a description of the lab qualifiers. As they are lab descriptors they are not to be used when evaluating the data.
Validation Qualifier is the 3rd party formal validation qualifier if this was performed. Otherwise this field contains the qualifier resulting from the ADQM DVM review process. This qualifier assesses the usability of the data and may not equal the lab qualifier. The DVM applies the following data
evaluation qualifiers to analysis results, as warranted:
Qualifier Definition B Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field blanks. R Unusable result. Analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
J Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ Not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
The Validation Status Code field is set to “DVM” if the ADQM DVM process has been performed. If the DVM has not been run, the field will be blank.
If the DVM has been run (Validation Status Code equals “DVM”), use the Validation Qualifier.
DVM Narrative ReportOnly one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Nondetects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 OFFSITE SEEP SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-I-085610/22/2019 320-55576-5N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0020 UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLSEEP-H-090510/22/2019 320-55576-4N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0020 UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPage 1 of 5
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may be biasedhigh.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 OFFSITE SEEP SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-H-090510/22/2019 320-55576-4R-EVE0.021 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-H-090510/22/2019 320-55576-4R-EVE0.021 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-H-090510/22/2019 320-55576-4Byproduct 40.039 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-H-090510/22/2019 320-55576-4Byproduct 40.040 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-E-093010/22/2019 320-55576-1Byproduct 40.22 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0032PQLSEEP-E-093010/22/2019 320-55576-1Byproduct 50.0021 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-G-091110/22/2019 320-55576-3Byproduct 40.079 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-G-091110/22/2019 320-55576-3Byproduct 40.074 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-I-085610/22/2019 320-55576-5R-EVE0.023 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-I-085610/22/2019 320-55576-5R-EVE0.022 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-I-085610/22/2019 320-55576-5Byproduct 40.053 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-I-085610/22/2019 320-55576-5Byproduct 40.051 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6Byproduct 40.11 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6Byproduct 40.10 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-K-083510/22/2019 320-55576-7R-EVE0.046 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-K-083510/22/2019 320-55576-7Byproduct 40.13 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 2 of 5
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may be biasedhigh.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 OFFSITE SEEP SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-L-082510/22/2019 320-55576-8R-EVE0.044 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-L-082510/22/2019 320-55576-8R-EVE0.042 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-L-082510/22/2019 320-55576-8Byproduct 40.12 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-L-082510/22/2019 320-55576-8Byproduct 40.12 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-M-081810/22/2019 320-55576-9R-EVE0.026 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-M-081810/22/2019 320-55576-9R-EVE0.027 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-M-081810/22/2019 320-55576-9Byproduct 40.078 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-M-081810/22/2019 320-55576-9Byproduct 40.079 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 3 of 5
Quality review criteria exceeded between the REP (laboratory replicate) and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 OFFSITE SEEP SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-E-093010/22/2019 320-55576-1Byproduct 40.19 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0032PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6NVHOS0.0081 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6NVHOS0.0069 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-K-083510/22/2019 320-55576-7R-EVE0.053 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-K-083510/22/2019 320-55576-7Byproduct 40.16 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 4 of 5
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above the rejection limit. Thereported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 OFFSITE SEEP SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-E-093010/22/2019 320-55576-1PFMOAA0.48 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLSEEP-E-093010/22/2019 320-55576-1PFMOAA0.43 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PMPA0.81 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PMPA0.80 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PFO2HxA0.35 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PFO2HxA0.35 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PFO3OA0.12 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PFO3OA0.12 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PFO5DA0.020 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PFO5DA0.022 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PFMOAA0.18 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLSEEP-J-084310/22/2019 320-55576-6PFMOAA0.17 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLPage 5 of 5