2019.07.31_CCO.p11.b_PFASCharacterizationQuarterlyReport1

CHARACTERIZATION OF PFAS IN
PROCESS AND NON-PROCESS
WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER
Quarterly Report #1

Prepared for
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
22828 NC-87
Fayetteville, NC 28306

Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607
Geosyntec Project Number TR0795

July 31, 2019

TR0795 ii 31-July-19

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Activities Completed in Quarter 2 2019 ...................................................... 1
1.3 Report Organization .................................................................................... 2
2. METHODS ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Sample Locations ........................................................................................ 3
2.2 Field Methods .............................................................................................. 3
2.2.1 General Field Methods .................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Decontamination Methods .............................................................. 4
2.2.3 Grab Sampling Methods ................................................................. 4
2.2.4 Temporal Composite Sampling Methods ....................................... 5
2.2.5 Sample Shipping, Chain of Custody, and Holding Times .............. 5
2.2.6 Field QA/QC Samples .................................................................... 5
2.2.7 Documentation ................................................................................ 6
2.3 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Analytical Methods ......................................................................... 6
2.3.2 Laboratory and Field QA/QC.......................................................... 6
3. RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS .................................................................... 7
3.1 Data Quality ................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Data Management and Reporting.................................................... 8
3.1.2 QA/QC Samples .............................................................................. 8
3.2 Results – April 2019 Event .......................................................................... 8
3.3 Reporting Limits .......................................................................................... 9
3.4 Observations – April 2019 Event ................................................................ 9
4. SAMPLING PROGRAM STATUS ................................................................... 12
4.1 Activities Planned for Next Quarter .......................................................... 12
4.2 Supplemental Sampling Activities in Progress ......................................... 12
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 14
5.1 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 14
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 16

TR0795 iii 31-July-19

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Paragraph 11(b) Proposed Sample Location Summary
Table 2: Implemented Sample Location Summary
Table 3: PFAS and Associated Analytical Methods
Table 4: Analytical Results – April 2019 Event
Table 5: Total Daily Precipitation – 2019 Quarter 2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Paragraph 11(b) Sample Locations
Figure 3A: HFPO-DA and PFMOAA Concentrations – Locations that Reach
Outfall 002 – April 2019 Event
Figure 3B: HFPO-DA and PFMOAA Concentrations – Locations for Offsite Disposal –
April 2019 Event

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Parameters
Appendix B: June 18, 2019 Letter re. Laboratory Analyses for MTP, MMF, DFSA, and
PPF Acid, and Supporting Technical Summaries from TestAmerica and Lancaster
Appendix C: Laboratory Reports and Data Review Narrative Whitebook

TR0795 iv 31-July-19

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
COC – Chain of Custody
DEQ – The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
DFSA – Difluoro-sulfo-acetic acid
DO – Dissolved oxygen
DQO – data quality objectives
DVM – Data Verification Module
EIM – Environmental Information Management
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
HDPE – High Density Polyethylene
HFPO-DA – Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
mg/L – Milligrams per liter
mL – Milliliter
MMF – Difluoromalonic acid
MS – Matrix spike
MSD – Matrix spike duplicates
MTP – Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid
mV – Millivolts
ng/L – Nanograms per liter
NTU – Nephelometric turbidity units
ORP – Oxidation/Reduction Potential
PFAS – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFMOAA – 2,2-difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acid
PFO5DA – Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic) acid
PPF Acid – Pentafluoropentionic acid
QA/QC – Quality assurance/ quality control
RPD – Relative percent difference
SC – Specific conductance
SOP –Standard Operating Procedure
TestAmerica – TestAmerica Sacramento
WWTP – Wastewater treatment plant
oC – Degrees Celsius
µmho - micromhos

TR0795 v 31-July-19
“I certify that I am personally familiar with the information contained in this submittal,
including any and all supporting documents accompanying this report, and that the
material and information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
true, accurate and complete.”
Adrienne Nemura, North Carolina Licensed Professional Engineer 038141
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC is licensed to practice engineering in North Carolina.
The certification number (Firm’s License Number) is C-3500.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC is licensed to practice geology in North Carolina. The
certification number (Firm’s License Number) is C-295.
July 31, 2019

TR0795 1 31-July-19

1. INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared by Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C. (Geosyntec) for The
Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours) to provide a quarterly update on the
identification and concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in
process wastewater, non-process wastewater, and stormwater at the Chemours
Fayetteville Works, North Carolina site (the Facility, Figure 1). This report is prepared
pursuant to Paragraph 11(c) in the executed Consent Order entered February 25, 2019
between Chemours and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
with the Cape Fear River Watch as intervenor.
The objective of this report and subsequent quarterly reports, as stated in the PFAS
Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019), is to characterize the concentrations
of PFAS in the raw water intake, process wastewater, non-process wastewater, and
stormwater, including water that is discharged through Outfall 002.
1.1 Background
Chemours submitted an Updated PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan (the Plan) to
DEQ on May 6, 2019 (Geosyntec, 2019) based on comments received on the draft plan
submitted on December 30, 2018. On June 19, 2019, DEQ provided written approval of
the Plan to Chemours.
1.2 Activities Completed in Quarter 2 2019
This is the first quarterly report for this program. The activity period for this quarterly
report includes April, May and June 2019. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed
sample locations for wastewater samples to be collected at the Facility. In this reporting
period, process wastewater and non-process wastewater samples were collected for the
first bimonthly PFAS characterization sampling event on April 24, 2019 (the April 2019
event). These samples were collected as outlined in the PFAS Characterization Sampling
Plan (Geosyntec, 2019) and to address requirements specified in Paragraph 11(b) in the
executed Consent Order.
In this reporting period, process wastewater and non-process wastewater samples were
also collected for the second bimonthly PFAS characterization sampling event on June
27, 2019 (the June 2019 event). While there was a suitable storm event on June 5, 2019,
the project team elected to collect a set of 24 stormwater grab samples for total and
dissolved PFAS concentrations to support a Consent Order Paragraph 12 deliverable

TR0795 2 31-July-19

assessing stormwater contributions to PFAS concentrations at Outfall 002. After the June
5, 2019 rainfall event, there were no suitable subsequent storm events in June to meet the
stormwater sampling criteria, so stormwater locations with no water were not sampled.
Data for both the June 5, 2019 grab sampling event and the June 27, 2019 bimonthly
sampling event are both pending. The June 5, 2019 data will be reported in the Paragraph
12 submission and the June 27, 2019 bimonthly sampling data will be reported in the next
quarterly report.
Four supplementary sampling activities, based on initial observations from the April
sampling event, were also conducted in 2019 Quarter 2. Data from these activities are
pending and will be reported in the next quarterly report. These activities are described
in Section 4.2
1.3 Report Organization
The remainder of this document is organized as follows:
 Section 2 – Methods: this section describes the methods employed for sample
collection and analysis;
 Section 3 – Results and Observations: this section describes the PFAS
concentrations in investigative samples and quality control samples;
 Section 4 – Sampling Program Status: this section describes planned sampling
activities and supplemental sampling activities that support PFAS
characterization at the facility;
 Section 5 – Summary and Recommendations: this section summarizes
activities conducted, observations of results, recommended supplemental
sampling activities, and any recommended changes to the sampling plan.
 Section 6 – References: this section lists the documents referenced in the report.

TR0795 3 31-July-19

2. METHODS
This section describes the methods implemented for data reporting in this 2019 Quarter
2 report. Activities conducted in Quarter 2, where data is not yet available for reporting,
will be described in future reports alongside data for these activities.
2.1 Sample Locations
Proposed sample locations outlined in the PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan
(Geosyntec, 2019) to meet the requirements of Paragraph 11(b) of the executed Consent
Order are described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2. Twenty-three (23) investigative
samples were collected in the April 2019 event, and are described in Table 2. Some
locations identified in the PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan (Locations 2, 3, 4, 5, 11,
12 and 13; Geosyntec, 2019) were not sampled this quarter. These locations were dry
during the sampling event; there was no precipitation in the 72 hours leading up to sample
collection. As specified in the PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019),
sample collection will be conducted bimonthly, and if there are no suitable storm events,
locations with water will still be sampled.
2.2 Field Methods
2.2.1 General Field Methods
All equipment was inspected by the field program supervisor and calibrated daily prior
to use in the field according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Field parameters
were measured with a water quality meter prior to sample collection and then recorded.
Field parameters include the following:
 pH;
 Temperature (degrees Celsius; °C);
 Specific conductance [SC] (micromhos, μmho);
 Dissolved oxygen [DO] (milligrams per liter; mg/L);
 Oxidation/Reduction Potential [ORP] (millivolts; mV);
 Turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units, NTU);
 Color; and
 Odor.
Samples were collected in 250 milliliter (mL) high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles
with a wide-mouth screw-cap. Sample bottles were filled and caps were securely fastened

TR0795 4 31-July-19

after sample collection. Each sample was labelled with a unique sample identification
number, date, time and location of sampling, and the initials of the individual collecting
the sample. A field notebook was used to record information regarding additional items
such as quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC), sample identifications, color, odor,
turbidity, and other field parameters.
2.2.2 Decontamination Methods
Sample containers were new and used only once for each sample. Disposable equipment
(e.g., gloves, tubing, etc.) was not reused, therefore; these items did not require
decontamination.
All non-dedicated or non-disposable sampling equipment (i.e., the autosampler reservoir
and dip rod) was decontaminated immediately before sample collection in the following
manner:
 De-ionized water rinse;
 Scrub with de-ionized water containing non-phosphate detergent (i.e.,
Alconox®); and
 De-ionized water rinse.
If there was a delay between decontamination and sample collection, decontaminated
sampling equipment was covered with PFAS-free plastic until it was ready for use.
2.2.3 Grab Sampling Methods
Grab samples were collected during the April 2019 event from locations where temporal
variability over the course of one day was not expected. These locations include non-
process wastewater and process wastewater samples and are identified in Table 2 and
shown on Figure 2. Location 7B was also collected as a grab sample during the April
2019 event due to limited autosampler availability. All grab samples were collected by
directly filling the HDPE bottle with sample. Prior to grab sample collection, field
parameters were measured using a flow through cell for all grab sample locations except
Chemours Process Water samples at Locations 16, 17A, and 17B. These locations were
not accessible by the sampling team and samples were collected by facility staff who were
not equipped with field instruments.

TR0795 5 31-July-19

2.2.4 Temporal Composite Sampling Methods
Temporal composite samples were collected during the April 2019 event from locations
where variability was expected to potentially be significant within a short time frame
(e.g., one day). These locations, identified in Table 2 and shown on Figure 2, include
those within the Facility drainage ditches and the intake and outfall locations, since these
locations can have highly variable dissolved and suspended constituent loads over short
time periods. Temporal composite samples were collected using a dedicated Teledyne
6712C autosampler equipped with a rain gauge, HDPE tubing, silicon tubing, and an
HDPE sample reservoir. Field parameters were measured twice for temporal composite
samples: once during composite sampling (collected directly from the water stream), and
once after composite sampling (collected from the autosampler reservoir). At each
location, autosamplers integrated water over a four-hour sample collection period.
2.2.5 Sample Shipping, Chain of Custody, and Holding Times
Upon sample collection, each labelled, containerized sample was placed into a heavy
plastic bag inside an insulated sample cooler with ice. Prior to shipment of the samples
to the laboratory, a chain of custody (COC) form was completed by the field sample
custodian. Sample locations, sample identification numbers, description of samples,
number of samples collected, and specific laboratory analyses to be performed on the
samples were recorded on the COC form. The COC was signed by the field personnel
relinquishing the samples to the courier and was signed by the laboratory upon receipt of
the cooler.
2.2.6 Field QA/QC Samples
The following field QA/QC samples were collected and analyzed along with the April
2019 investigative samples:
 Two blind field duplicates;
 Three equipment blanks for the dip rod, peristaltic pump, and autosampler;
 One field blank; and
 One trip blank.

TR0795 6 31-July-19

2.2.7 Documentation
The project field team kept a daily record of field activities during the execution of field
work including sampling notes and observations, instrument calibration records,
measured field parameters, sample COC, and shipping records.
2.3 Laboratory Methods
2.3.1 Analytical Methods
Samples were analyzed for PFAS by the following methods:
 Table 3+ Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure (SOP); and
 EPA Method 537 Mod (Laboratory SOP).
PFAS reported under each of these methods are listed in Table 3.
2.3.2 Laboratory and Field QA/QC
Field sampling and laboratory analyses were performed in accordance with the PFAS
Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019). Samples were collected by the field
team and shipped to TestAmerica Sacramento (TestAmerica) under COC. Laboratory
analyses were performed within the guidelines specified by the laboratory SOPs. The
collection frequency of field duplicates, matrix spike / matrix spike duplicates
(MS/MSD), trip blanks, and equipment blanks was in accordance with the PFAS
Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019).

TR0795 7 31-July-19

3. RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
3.1 Data Quality
All 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 the 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 Labelling 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;
 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 manual review includes instrument-related QC results for calibration standards,
blanks, and recoveries. The data review process (DVM plus manual review) applied the
following data evaluation qualifiers to analysis results, as warranted:
 J – Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise;
 UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise; and
 B – Analyte detected in a blank sample. Reported value may have high bias.
The data review process described above was performed for all laboratory chemical
analysis data generated for the sampling events. The DQOs were met for the analytical

TR0795 8 31-July-19

results for accuracy and precision. The data collected are believed to be complete,
representative, and comparable.
3.1.1 Data Management and Reporting
Chemours’s Analytical Data Quality Management team currently uses the EIM system
for management of analytical data, xyz Site coordinate data, and field parameter data.
Validation and qualification of data are performed by AECOM who maintains the EIM
system for the Chemours Fayetteville Site. A whitebook consisting of the data review
narrative and the laboratory analytical report produced by AECOM summarizes the
findings of the DVM and manual review process.
3.1.2 QA/QC Samples
PFAS concentrations for all field QA/QC samples in the April 2019 event are reported in
Table 4. The following observations were noted for the QA/QC samples:
 The RPD for all field duplicate pairs was less than 30% for all PFAS, or less than
50% for PFAS detected within a factor of five of the associated reporting limits.
No qualification was required.
 No PFAS were detected above the associated reporting limits in the equipment
blanks with the exception of 2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
in each of the equipment blanks collected in the April 2019 event (780 to 850
nanograms per liter [ng/L], J qualified). This compound was detected in one
associated sample collected at Location 7B (900 ng/L J). This result was J-
qualified instead of being B-qualified due to low bias in the associated MS. All
other associated investigative samples were non-detected at the associated
reporting limits for this compound, so no further qualification was required.
 No PFAS were detected above the associated reporting limits in the April 2019
Trip Blank.
3.2 Results – April 2019 Event
PFAS concentrations for all sample locations in the April 2019 event are reported in Table
4. Figure 3A presents Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) and 2,2-
difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acid (PFMOAA) concentrations for locations in the
April 2019 event that reach Outfall 002. Figure 3B presents HFPO-DA and PFMOAA

TR0795 9 31-July-19

concentrations for locations in the April 2019 event where all water is shipped offsite for
disposal. Table 5 provides the total daily precipitation, for Quarter 2, in the area of the
Facility. Reporting limits listed in Table 4, Figure 3A, and Figure 3B are analytical
reporting limits set by the laboratories.
Field parameter data are provided in Appendix A. Appendix B includes a letter from
Chemours to DEQ dated June 18, 2019 along with supporting technical summaries from
TestAmerica and Lancaster. The letter describes why Difluoro-sulfo-acetic acid [DFSA],
Difluoromalonic acid [MMF], Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid [MTP], and
Pentafluoropentionic acid [PPF Acid] were removed from the Table 3+ list of analytes.
While these four compounds are included in the TestAmerica analytical reports, they are
not included in the evaluation for this Quarterly Report since their data are not considered
accurate or reliable using the currently available analytical methods. The TestAmerica
analytical reports and the data review narrative whitebook are provided in Appendix C.
3.3 Reporting Limits
Several PFAS shown in Table 4 were not detected but with elevated reporting limits. The
laboratories are going to re-run these samples for reanalysis of Table 3+ compounds at
low-level analysis to achieve lower reporting limits. All re-issued results will be provided
in subsequent quarterly reports.
3.4 Observations – April 2019 Event
The following observations were made for PFAS concentrations in the April 2019 event:
 Nine PFAS were detected in the sample collected at Location 1, the intake water
from the Cape Fear River, including HFPO-DA at 14 ng/L. These minimum
concentrations are observed in all other locations that derive water from the intake
water.
 The highest PFAS concentrations at the Facility were reported in samples
collected at Locations 16, 17A, and 17B (Figure 3B). These locations are process
wastewater that is taken offsite for disposal. Process wastewater at these sample
locations does not reach Outfall 002.
 Samples from non-process wastewater locations (6A, 6B, 24A, 24B, and 24C)
contained low levels of HFPO-DA (ranging from 13 to 41 ng/L) and non-detect
values below the 210 ng/L reporting limit for PFMOAA. As noted above, these

TR0795 10 31-July-19

will be re-analyzed at lower detection limits. All HFPO-DA concentrations for
Chemours non-process wastewater samples were within 5 ng/L of the intake water
at Location 1 (Figure 3A).
 The sample collected from Location 23A, the manhole on the Terra Cotta pipe
(Figure 3A), was reported to have concentrations of HFPO-DA at 270 ng/L and
PFMOAA at 1,300 ng/L. Supplemental sampling activity A listed in Section 4.2
was conducted to assess this observation in more detail.
 PFMOAA was not detected in the sample collected at Location 22, the influent to
the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), above the reporting limit of 210 ng/L,
while at Location 8, the effluent to the WWTP, PFMOAA was detected at 1,200
ng/L (J) (Figure 3A). Supplemental sampling activity A in Section 4.2 was
conducted to assess this observation in more detail.
 The highest non-process wastewater-related HFPO-DA concentration during the
April 2019 event was in the sample collected at Location 10 (320 ng/L), a
Chemours Monomers IXM Stormwater Discharge area. This section of the
channel receives stormwater from roof drainage and has sediment present in the
drainage ditch (Figure 3A). Supplemental sampling activities B and C listed in
Section 4.2 were conducted to assess this observation in more detail.
 The sample collected at Location 20 (Outfall 002) had detectable concentration
of HFPO-DA (61 ng/L) and was not detected above the reporting limit (210 ng/L)
for PFMOAA (Figure 3A). The Location 20 HFPO-DA concentration (61 ng/L)
was higher than the samples collected at the two streams of water that combined
to form the total flow at Location 20: Location 7B, Open Channel after the WWTP
(21 ng/L), and Location 15, Cooling Water Channel water before it joins the open
channel to Outfall 002 (34 ng/L). The drainage pathways from the DuPont areas
had no observed flow during this dry event. Supplemental sampling activity D in
Section 4.2 was conducted to assess this observation in more detail.
 Other PFAS concentrations were typically non-detect or detected at similar values
to the intake water at Location 1 in samples collected at all locations in the April
2019 event, with the following general exceptions (Table 4):

TR0795 11 31-July-19

o 2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol was detected in the
sample collected at Location 7B (900 ng/L J). This analyte was detected
at similar concentrations in the associated equipment blanks.
o The water samples collected at Locations 8, 10, and 23A each had several
PFAS detects greater than Location 1, the intake (Table 4). Chemours is
conducting supplemental sampling activities described later in Section 0
to assess these detections.

TR0795 12 31-July-19

4. SAMPLING PROGRAM STATUS
A description of ongoing supplemental sampling activities and recommendations for
updates to the sampling plan are provided below.
4.1 Activities Planned for Next Quarter
As described in the PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019), PFAS
characterization samples will be collected from the Facility on a bimonthly basis. The
June 27, 2019 sampling event data are pending and will be reported in the next quarterly
report. The next sampling event will occur during the first suitable storm event in August
2019. If there are no suitable storm events in the month of August, sampling will proceed
and samples will be collected from locations that contain water reaching Outfall 002. The
next quarterly report will be submitted in October 2019 and will provide results for any
Paragraph 11(b) samples described in Table 1 available at the time of reporting.
4.2 Supplemental Sampling Activities in Progress
Chemours has embarked on several sampling activities that will help support PFAS
characterization at the Facility. The activities were conducted based on a review of the
April 2019 event data. The purpose, scope, and data for these sampling activities will be
included as supplementary sampling summaries attached to future quarterly reports. The
supplemental sampling events conducted in 2019 Quarter 2 are described below:
A. WWTP sample event: 24-hour composite samples were collected at Locations
1, 8, 22, and 23A, as well as two locations upstream of 23A, one containing water
from Kuraray SentryGlas® to the north, and one containing water from the
Kuraray laboratory to the west. These samples will help inform PFAS detections
upstream and downstream of the WWTP.
B. Soil grain size sample event: Exposed soils throughout the Facility were
collected and analyzed for PFAS and grainsize analysis to evaluate the potential
contribution of soil erosion and transport to PFAS detections at Outfall 002.
C. Cooling water channel and open channel sediment sampling: Samples of
sediment from the cooling water channel and the open channel to the outfall were
sampled to evaluate the potential for desorption from these sediments to
contribute to observed PFAS concentrations.

TR0795 13 31-July-19

D. Open channel to Outfall 002 sample event: Four additional samples were
collected to assess the potential that perched groundwater in the area near the
open channel to Outfall 002 may infiltrate into the channel or sump of Outfall
002 and result in increases to PFAS concentrations.

TR0795 14 31-July-19

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to Consent Order Paragraph 11(c), Chemours conducted bimonthly
characterization sampling activities in 2019 Quarter 2 and these results are presented in
this report.
Below is a list of planned and supplemental activities conducted that will be reported
pending receipt of data:
 June 2019, Paragraph 11(c) bimonthly sampling conducted in June 2019 – to be
reported in 2019 Quarter 3 report;
 Supplemental WWTP connected locations sample event conducted in July 2019;
 Supplemental soil and soil grainsize sample event conducted in July 2019;
 Supplemental cooling water channel and open channel to Outfall 002 sediment
sample event conducted in July 2019; and
 Supplemental Open Channel to Outfall 002 sample event conducted in May 2019.
The results presented from the April 2019 event indicate that the intake water has PFAS
and as this water is distributed widely throughout the facility, all water samples analyzed
at the Facility contained PFAS. The highest concentration of PFAS were in Chemours
process water samples which are containerized and disposed of offsite. Sample locations
with water potentially contributing to PFAS observed at Outfall 002 were identified and
supplemental sampling activities were recommended to further assess the relative
contributions of these sample locations to the mass of PFAS in Outfall 002.
5.1 Recommendations
Based on the observations from the April 2019 event, four supplemental sampling
activities were recommended to Chemours and conducted in 2019 Quarter 2. The results
of these supplemental sampling activities will be reported upon receipt of the data.
Additionally, samples collected and analyzed from Locations 16, 17A, and 17B exhibited
elevated PFAS concentrations, as expected for Chemours process wastewaters that are
taken offsite for disposal. The process wastewater at these locations does not enter the
site drainage system, nor does it reach Outfall 002. Based on the present characterization

TR0795 15 31-July-19

and nature of these locations and pursuant to Paragraph 11(d), future Paragraph 11(c)
sample collection is not planned at these locations as part of Paragraph 11(c) sampling
and reporting activities.

TR0795 16 31-July-19

6. REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009. Guidance for Labelling Externally
Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. OSWER No. 9200.1-85, EPA-540-R-08-005
Geosyntec, 2019. PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan. May, 2019.
Parsons, 2019. Southeast Perched Zone Investigation Report. March, 2019.

Tables
TABLE 1PARAGRAPH 11(b) PROPOSED SAMPLE LOCATION SUMMARYChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Intake/ OutfallProcess waterNon-process wastewater Stormwater1Discharge point of excess river water (i.e., water drawn from the Cape Fear River, but not used as process water or NCCW) to characterize background levels of PFASTemporal Composite Intake2 Kuraray northern leased area stormwater discharge Temporal Composite3 Chemours PPA area stormwater discharge Temporal Composite4 Combined stormwater discharge from Kuraray northern leased area and Chemours PPA areaTemporal Composite5 Kuraray southern leased area stormwater Temporal Composite6A Kuraray southern leased area NCCW discharge - Vacuum CondenserGrab6B Kuraray southern leased area NCCW discharge - Resins AreaGrab7A Combined stormwater and NCCW discharge from western portion of the FacilityTemporal Composite7BCombined stormwater and NCCW discharge from western portion of the Facility and treated discharge from WWTPTemporal Composite8 Outfall 001 treated non-Chemours process wastewater discharge to open channel to Outfall 002 Temporal Composite9Chemours Monomers IXM NCCW and stormwater discharge including stormwater from Vinyl Ethers South and Vinyl Ethers NorthTemporal Composite10 Chemours Monomers IXM area stormwater dischargeTemporal Composite11 Stormwater discharge from portion of grassy field to north of decommissioned Chemours Teflon area. Temporal Composite12 DuPont area southern drainage ditch stormwater discharge and NCCWTemporal Composite13 DuPont area northern drainage ditch stormwater discharge and NCCWTemporal Composite14 DuPont area southeast stormwater and NCCW discharge Temporal Composite15 Combined stormwater and NCCW discharge from eastern portion of the FacilityTemporal Composite16 Chemours Monomers IXM Area combined process wastewater Grab17A Chemours PPA Area waste acid trailerGrab17B Chemours PPA Area waste rinse water trailerGrab18 Kuraray process wastewater Grab19A DuPont process wastewater, Plant 1Grab19B DuPont process wastewater, Plant 2Grab20 Outfall 002 pipe to Cape Fear River upstream of sumpTemporal Composite Outfall21A Sediment Basin SouthGrab21B Sediment Basin NorthGrab22 WWTP combined influentGrab23A Kuraray northern leased area combined process wastewater and NCCW; manhole on Terra Cotta PipeGrab23B Kuraray laboratory process wastewaterGrab24A Chemours Monomers IXM Vinyl Ethers South NCCWGrab24B Chemours Monomers IXM Line 3 and Line 4 Extruder NCCWGrab24C Chemours Monomers IXM Water Return Header NCCWGrabNotesSample numbers refer to locations identified in Figure 2.Temporal composite samples to be integrated over 4 hours.IXM - ion exchange membraneNCCW - non-contact cooling waterPFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PPA - polymer processing aid WWTP - Wastewater treatment plantSample NumberSample Location DescriptionSampling MethodSample CategoryJuly 2019
TABLE 2IMPLEMENTED SAMPLE LOCATION SUMMARYChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Intake/ OutfallProcess waterNon-process wastewater Stormwater Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q31Discharge point of excess river water (i.e., water drawn from the Cape Fear River, but not used as process water or NCCW) to characterize background levels of PFASTemporal Composite Intake2 Kuraray northern leased area stormwater discharge Temporal Composite--3 Chemours PPA area stormwater discharge Temporal Composite--4 Combined stormwater discharge from Kuraray northern leased area and Chemours PPA areaTemporal Composite--5 Kuraray southern leased area stormwater Temporal Composite--6A Kuraray southern leased area NCCW discharge - Vacuum CondenserGrab6B Kuraray southern leased area NCCW discharge - Resins AreaGrab7A Combined stormwater and NCCW discharge from western portion of the FacilityTemporal Composite7BCombined stormwater and NCCW discharge from western portion of the Facility and treated discharge from WWTPGrab*8 Outfall 001 treated non-Chemours process wastewater discharge to open channel to Outfall 002 Temporal Composite 9Chemours Monomers IXM NCCW and stormwater discharge including stormwater from Vinyl Ethers South and Vinyl Ethers NorthTemporal Composite10 Chemours Monomers IXM area stormwater dischargeTemporal Composite11 Stormwater discharge from portion of grassy field to north of decommissioned Chemours Teflon area. Temporal Composite--12 DuPont area southern drainage ditch stormwater discharge and NCCWTemporal Composite--13 DuPont area northern drainage ditch stormwater discharge and NCCWTemporal Composite--14 DuPont area southeast stormwater and NCCW discharge Temporal Composite15 Combined stormwater and NCCW discharge from eastern portion of the FacilityTemporal Composite16 Chemours Monomers IXM Area combined process wastewater Grab17A Chemours PPA Area waste acid trailerGrab17B Chemours PPA Area waste rinse water trailerGrab18 Kuraray process wastewater Grab19A DuPont process wastewater, Plant 1Grab19B DuPont process wastewater, Plant 2Grab20 Outfall 002 pipe to Cape Fear River upstream of sumpTemporal Composite Outfall21A Sediment Basin SouthGrab21B Sediment Basin NorthGrab--22 WWTP combined influentGrab 23A Kuraray northern leased area combined process wastewater and NCCW; manhole on Terra Cotta Pipe Grab 23B Kuraray laboratory process wastewater Grab--24A Chemours Monomers IXM Vinyl Ethers South NCCWGrab24B Chemours Monomers IXM Line 3 and Line 4 Extruder NCCWGrab24C Chemours Monomers IXM Water Return Header NCCWGrabNotesSamples collected 24 April 2019.Sample numbers refer to locations identified in Figure 2.Temporal composite samples were integrated over 4 hours.Locations 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 13 were not sampled in 2019 Quarter 2 (Q2) because they were dry.Location 21B was not sampled in Q1 because this sediment pond was not in use at the time of sampling.Location 23B was added to the Sampling Plan after the April 2019 event. A sample was not collected.-- - sample not collected* - Location 7B was collected as a grab sample for the first event due to limited autosampler availability. This location will be collected as a temporal composite sample for future sampling events.IXM - ion exchange membraneNCCW - non-contact cooling waterPFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PPA - polymer processing aid WWTP - Wastewater treatment plantSample NumberSample Location DescriptionSampling MethodSample Collected20192020Sample CategoryJuly 2019
TABLE 3
PFAS AND ASSOCIATED ANALYTICAL METHODS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
HFPO-DA* Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 13252-13-6 C6HF11O3
PEPA Perfluoroethoxypropyl carboxylic acid 267239-61-2 C5HF9O3
PFECA-G Perfluoro-4-isopropoxybutanoic acid 801212-59-9 C12H9F9O3S
PFMOAA Perfluoro-2-methoxyaceticacid 674-13-5 C3HF5O3
PFO2HxA Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid 39492-88-1 C4HF7O4
PFO3OA Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid 39492-89-2 C5HF9O5
PFO4DA Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid 39492-90-5 C6HF11O6
PMPA Perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid 13140-29-9 C4HF7O3
Hydro-EVE Acid Perfluoroethoxsypropanoic acid 773804-62-9 C8H2F14O4
EVE Acid Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid 69087-46-3 C8HF13O4
PFECA B Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid 151772-58-6 C5HF9O4
R-EVE R-EVE N/A C8H2F12O5
PFO5DA Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid 39492-91-6 C7HF13O7
Byproduct 4 Byproduct 4 N/A C7H2F12O6S
Byproduct 5 Byproduct 5 N/A C7H3F11O7S
Byproduct 6 Byproduct 6 N/A C6H2F12O4S
NVHOS Perfluoroethoxysulfonic acid 1132933-86-8 C4H2F8O4S
PES Perfluoroethoxyethanesulfonic acid 113507-82-7 C4HF9O4S
PFESA-BP1 Byproduct 1 29311-67-9 C7HF13O5S
PFESA-BP2 Byproduct 2 749836-20-2 C7H2F14O5S
PFBA Perfluorobutanoic acid 375-22-4 C4HF7O2
PFDA Perfluorodecanoic acid 335-76-2 C10HF19O2
PFDoA Perfluorododecanoic acid 307-55-1 C12HF23O2
PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic acid 375-85-9 C7HF13O2
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid 375-95-1 C9HF17O2
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 335-67-1 C8HF15O
PFHxA Perfluorohexanoic acid 307-24-4 C6HF11O2
PFPeA Perfluoropentanoic acid 2706-90-3 C5HF9O2
PFTeA Perfluorotetradecanoic acid 376-06-7 C14HF27O2
PFTriA Perfluorotridecanoic acid 72629-94-8 C13HF25O2
PFUnA Perfluoroundecanoic acid 2058-94-8 C11HF21O2
PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 375-73-5 C4HF9SO
PFDS Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid 335-77-3 C10HF21O3S
PFHpS Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid 375-92-8 C7HF15O3S
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 355-46-4 C6HF13SO3
PFNS Perfluorononanesulfonic acid 68259-12-1 C9HF19O3S
PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 1763-23-1 C8HF17SO3
PFPeS Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid 2706-91-4 C5HF11O3S
10:2 FTS 10:2-fluorotelomersulfonic acid 120226-60-0 C12H5F21O3
4:2 FTS 4:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid 757124-72-4 C6H5F9O3S
6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid 27619-97-2 C8H5F13SO3
8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid 39108-34-4 C10H5F17O3S
NEtFOSAA NEtFOSAA 2991-50-6 C12H8F17NO4S
NEtPFOSA NEtPFOSA 4151-50-2 C10H6F17NO2S
NEtPFOSAE NEtPFOSAE 1691-99-2 C12H10F17NO3S
NMeFOSAA NMeFOSAA 2355-31-9 C11H6F17NO4S
NMePFOSA NMePFOSA 31506-32-8 C9H4F17NO2S
NMePFOSAE NMePFOSAE 24448-09-7 C11H8F17NO3S
PFDOS Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid 79780-39-5 C12HF25O3S
PFHxDA Perfluorohexadecanoic acid 67905-19-5 C16HF31O2
PFODA Perfluorooctadecanoic acid 16517-11-6 C18HF35O2
PFOSA Perfluorooctanesulfonamide 754-91-6 C8H2F17NO2S
Notes:
*Depending on the laboratory, HFPO-DA may also appear on the EPA Method 537 Mod analyte list
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
PFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
CASN Chemical Formula
Table 3+ Lab SOP
EPA Method 537
Mod
Analytical Method Common Name Chemical Name
July 2019
TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID 1 6A 6B 7A 7B
Field Sample ID DSTW-LOC1-042419 DSTW-LOC6A-042419 DSTW-LOC6B-042419 DSTW-LOC7A-042419 DSTW-LOC7B-042419
Date Sampled 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019
QA/QC ----------
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
PEPA <47 <47 <47 <47 <47
PFECA-G <41 <41 <41 <41 <41
PFMOAA <210 UJ <210 <210 <210 UJ <210
PFO2HxA <81 <81 <81 <81 <81
PFO3OA <58 <58 <58 <58 <58
PFO4DA <79 <79 <79 <79 <79
PMPA <570 <570 <570 <570 <570
Hydro-EVE Acid <28 <28 <28 <28 <28
EVE Acid <24 <24 <24 <24 <24
PFECA B <60 <60 <60 <60 <60
R-EVE <70 <70 <70 <70 <70
PFO5DA <34 <34 <34 <34 <34
Byproduct 4 <160 <160 <160 <160 <160
Byproduct 5 <58 <58 <58 <58 <58
Byproduct 6 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15
NVHOS <54 <54 <54 <54 <54
PES <46 <46 <46 <46 <46
PFESA-BP1 <27 <27 <27 <27 <27
PFESA-BP2 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA 14 13 41 14 21
Perfluorobutanoic Acid 7.1 7.6 7.1 7 5.2
Perfluorodecanoic Acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluorododecanoic Acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid 7 7.4 7.4 7.4 7
Perfluorononanoic Acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluorooctanoic acid 8.1 8.6 9.3 8.8 7.9
Perfluorohexanoic Acid 9.2 9.2 9.3 8.3 8.2
Perfluoropentanoic Acid 7 7.4 7.2 6.5 7.2
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.5
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 12 14 14 14 14
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <37 <37 UJ <37 UJ <37 <37 UJ
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <60 <60 <60 <60 900 J
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <35 <35 UJ <35 UJ <35 <35
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <110 <110 <110 <110 <110
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2 <2.0
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
ADONA <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
NaDONA <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
F-53B Major <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
F-53B Minor <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Page 1 of 6 July 2019
TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Date Sampled
QA/QC
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
PEPA
PFECA-G
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE
PFO5DA
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6
NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA
NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
8 9 10 14 15
DSTW-LOC8-042419 DSTW-LOC9-042419 DSTW-LOC10-042419 DSTW-LOC14-042419 DSTW-LOC15-042419
04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019
----------
<47 <47 47 <47 <47
<41 <41 <41 <41 <41
1,200 J <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ
480 <81 94 <81 <81
150 <58 <58 <58 <58
<79 <79 <79 <79 <79
<570 <570 570 <570 <570
<28 <28 <28 <28 <28
<24 <24 <24 <24 <24
<60 <60 <60 <60 <60
<70 <70 70 <70 UJ <70
51 <34 <34 <34 34
<160 <160 <160 <160 UJ <160
690 <58 92 <58 UJ <58
<15 <15 <15 <15 <15
<54 <54 <54 <54 <54
<46 <46 <46 <46 <46
<27 <27 84 <27 <27
240 <30 <30 <30 <30
120 29 320 12 34
5.7 6.9 10 4.7 6.5
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
3.7 7.5 8.4 3.1 7.5
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
8.2 8.9 10 5.8 8.5
4.9 9 9.3 4.4 7.9
4.2 8.6 17 3.8 8.2
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
2.4 2.2 2.1 <2.0 2.3
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
3.1 3.3 3.5 3 3.5
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 14 12 11 14
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<37 <37 <37 <37 <37
<60 <60 <60 <60 <60
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<35 <35 <35 <35 <35
<110 <110 <110 <110 <110
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Page 2 of 6 July 2019
TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Date Sampled
QA/QC
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
PEPA
PFECA-G
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE
PFO5DA
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6
NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA
NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
16 17A 17B 18 19A
DSTW-LOC16-042419 DSTW-LOC17A-042419 DSTW-LOC17B-042419 DSTW-LOC18-042419 DSTW-LOC19A-042419
04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019
----------
<35,000 110,000 47,000 <47 <47
<31,000 <41,000 <41,000 <41 <41
160,000 <210,000 1,770,000 <210 <210
133,000 <81,000 <81,000 <81 <81
44,000 <58,000 <58,000 <58 <58
<59,000 <79,000 <79,000 <79 <79
539,000 <570,000 <570,000 <570 <570
95,000 <28,000 <28,000 <28 <28
787,000 <24,000 <24,000 <24 <24
<45,000 <60,000 <60,000 <60 <60
1,590,000 <70,000 <70,000 <70 <70
<25,000 <34,000 <34,000 <34 <34
2,410,000 <160,000 <160,000 <160 <160
330,000 <58,000 <58,000 <58 <58
54,000 <15,000 <15,000 <15 <15
259,000 <54,000 <54,000 <54 <54
<34,000 <46,000 <46,000 <46 <46
1,445,000 <27,000 <27,000 <27 <27
248,000 <30,000 <30,000 <30 <30
2,100,000 860,000,000 550,000,000 59 30 J
30,000 <4,400,000 <8,800 5.3 4.3 J
240 <3,900,000 28,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<51 <6,900,000 <14,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
13,000 <3,100,000 <6,300 3 <2.0 UJ
7,500 <3,400,000 <6,800 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
440 <11,000,000 1,800,000 6.7 2.6 J
1,700 <7,300,000 <15,000 4.3 <2.0 UJ
53,000 <6,100,000 <12,000 3.7 2.6 J
<27 <3,600,000 <7,300 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
300 <16,000,000 <33,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
1,900 <14,000,000 <28,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<18 <2,500,000 <5,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<29 <4,000,000 <8,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<18 <2,400,000 <4,800 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<16 4,100,000 <4,300 2.1 <2.0 UJ
<15 <2,000,000 <4,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<50 <6,800,000 <14,000 7.3 <2.0 UJ
<28 <3,800,000 <7,500 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
170 <2,400,000 <4,800 <2.0 <2.0
<480 <65,000,000 <130,000 <20 <20
<370 <25,000,000 <50,000 <20 <20 UJ
<370 <25,000,000 <50,000 <20 <20
<180 <24,000,000 <48,000 <20 <20
<28,000 <37,000 <37,000 <37 UJ <37 UJ
<45,000 <60,000 <60,000 <60 <60
<290 <39,000,000 <78,000 <20 <20
<26,000 <35,000 <35,000 <35 UJ <35 UJ
<82,000 <110,000 <110,000 <110 <110
<41 <5,600,000 <11,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<82 <11,000,000 <22,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<42 <5,800,000 <12,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<32 <4,400,000 <8,800 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<18 <2,400,000 <4,800 <2.1 <2.1 UJ
<18 <2,400,000 <4,800 <2.1 <2.1 UJ
900 <3,000,000 <6,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
<29 <4,000,000 <8,000 <2.0 <2.0 UJ
Page 3 of 6 July 2019
TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Date Sampled
QA/QC
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
PEPA
PFECA-G
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE
PFO5DA
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6
NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA
NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
19B 20 20 21A 22
DSTW-LOC19B-042419 DSTW-LOC20-042419 DSTW-LOC20-042419-D DSTW-LOC21A-042419 DSTW-LOC22-042419
04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019
----Blind Field Duplicate ----
<47 <47 <47 <47 <47
<41 <41 <41 <41 <41
<210 <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 <210
<81 <81 <81 <81 <81
<58 <58 <58 <58 <58
<79 <79 <79 <79 <79
<570 <570 <570 <570 <570
<28 <28 <28 <28 <28
<24 <24 <24 <24 <24
<60 <60 <60 <60 <60
<70 <70 <70 <70 UJ <70 UJ
<34 <34 <34 <34 <34
<160 <160 <160 <160 <160
<58 <58 <58 <58 UJ <58 UJ
<15 <15 <15 <15 <15
<54 <54 <54 <54 <54
<46 <46 <46 <46 <46
<27 <27 <27 <27 <27
<30 <30 <30 <30 <30
22 61 63 33 170
4.4 6.5 5.9 5 <3.5 UJ
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <3.1
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <5.5
2.2 7.1 7 3 7.1
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.7
4.9 8.7 8.5 5.6 <8.5
3.4 7.8 7.7 4.4 <5.8
3.6 6.7 7.6 4.8 20
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2.9
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <13
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <11
<2.0 2.2 2.2 2 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <3.2
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 3.5 3.5 3 4.5
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
3.2 13 13 9.1 <5.4
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <3.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<20 <20 <20 <20 <52
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<37 UJ <37 <37 <37 UJ <37 UJ
<60 <60 <60 <60 <60
<20 <20 <20 <20 <31
<35 UJ <35 <35 <35 UJ <35 UJ
<110 <110 <110 <110 <110
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <4.5
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <8.9
<2.0 <2.0 UJ <2.0 <2.0 <4.6
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <3.5
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.4
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <3.2
Page 4 of 6 July 2019
TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Date Sampled
QA/QC
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
PEPA
PFECA-G
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE
PFO5DA
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6
NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA
NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
23A 24A 24A 24B 24C
DSTW-LOC23A-042419 DSTW-LOC24A-042419 D DSTW-LOC24B-042419 DSTW-LOC24C-042419
04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019
----Blind Field Duplicate ----
<47 <47 <47 <47 <47
<41 <41 <41 <41 <41
1,300 <210 <210 <210 UJ <210 UJ
480 <81 <81 <81 <81
140 <58 <58 <58 <58
<79 <79 <79 <79 <79
700 <570 <570 <570 <570
32 <28 <28 <28 <28
65 <24 <24 <24 <24
<60 <60 <60 <60 <60
<70 <70 UJ <70 <70 <70
<34 <34 <34 <34 <34
180 <160 <160 <160 <160
2,200 <58 UJ <58 UJ <58 <58
<15 <15 <15 <15 <15
<54 <54 <54 <54 <54
<46 <46 <46 <46 <46
2,700 <27 <27 <27 35
140 <30 <30 <30 <30
270 16 J 14 14 19
160 6.3 5.8 5.5 4.7
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <16 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
3.6 7 7.3 6 5.9
<2.0 2 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
20 9.5 9.7 7.7 7.3
6.6 8.5 8.8 8 7
13 7 6.7 6.2 6.4
<2.0 <5.9 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <14 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 2.3 2.3 2.2 2
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
2 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.4
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
2.9 25 21 12 15
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<37 <37 UJ <37 UJ <37 <37
<60 <60 <60 <60 <60
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<35 <35 UJ <35 UJ <35 <35
<110 <110 <110 <110 <110
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Page 5 of 6 July 2019
TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Date Sampled
QA/QC
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
PEPA
PFECA-G
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE
PFO5DA
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6
NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA
NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
EQBLK EQBLK EQBLK FBLK TBLK
DSTW-EB-01-042419 DSTW-EB-02-042419 DSTW-EB-03-042419 DSTW-FB-042419 DSTW-TB-042519
04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019 04/25/2019
Equipment Blank - Dip
Rod
Equipment Blank -
Peristaltic Pump
Equipment Blank -
Autosampler Field Blank Trip Blank
<47 <47 <47 <47 <47
<41 <41 <41 <41 <41
<210 <210 <210 <210 UJ <210
<81 <81 <81 <81 <81
<58 <58 <58 <58 <58
<79 <79 <79 <79 <79
<570 <570 <570 <570 <570
<28 <28 <28 <28 <28
<24 <24 <24 <24 <24
<60 <60 <60 <60 <60
<70 <70 <70 <70 <70
<34 <34 <34 <34 <34
<160 <160 <160 <160 <160
<58 <58 <58 <58 <58
<15 <15 <15 <15 <15
<54 <54 <54 <54 <54
<46 <46 <46 <46 <46
<27 <27 <27 <27 <27
<30 <30 <30 <30 <30
<4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<37 UJ <37 UJ <37 <37 <37
820 J 850 J 780 J <60 <60
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<35 <35 <35 <35 <35
<110 <110 <110 <110 <110
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Page 6 of 6 July 2019
TABLE 5
TOTAL DAILY PRECIPITATION -
2019 QUARTER 2
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Total Precipitation
(inches)
4/1/2019 --
4/2/2019 1.0
4/3/2019 --
4/4/2019 --
4/5/2019 1.0
4/6/2019 --
4/7/2019 --
4/8/2019 --
4/9/2019 0.03
4/10/2019 --
4/11/2019 --
4/12/2019 1.1
4/13/2019 1.2
4/14/2019 0.23
4/15/2019 --
4/16/2019 --
4/17/2019 --
4/18/2019 --
4/19/2019 0.48
4/20/2019 --
4/21/2019 --
4/22/2019 --
4/23/2019 --
4/24/2019 --
4/25/2019 --
4/26/2019 0.05
4/27/2019 --
4/28/2019 --
4/29/2019 --
4/30/2019 --
5/1/2019 --
5/2/2019 --
5/3/2019 --
5/4/2019 0.16
5/5/2019 0.39
5/6/2019 --
5/7/2019 --
5/8/2019 --
5/9/2019 --
5/10/2019 --
5/11/2019 --
5/12/2019 0.13
5/13/2019 --
5/14/2019 --
5/15/2019 --
5/16/2019 --
5/17/2019 --
July 2019
TABLE 5
TOTAL DAILY PRECIPITATION -
2019 QUARTER 2
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Total Precipitation
(inches)
5/18/2019 --
5/19/2019 --
5/20/2019 0.24
5/21/2019 --
5/22/2019 --
5/23/2019 --
5/24/2019 --
5/25/2019 --
5/26/2019 --
5/27/2019 --
5/28/2019 --
5/29/2019 --
5/30/2019 --
5/31/2019 0.1
6/1/2019 --
6/2/2019 --
6/3/2019 --
6/4/2019 --
6/5/2019 0.8
6/6/2019 --
6/7/2019 --
6/8/2019 --
6/9/2019 2.2
6/10/2019 0.8
6/11/2019 0.1
6/12/2019 0.4
6/13/2019 --
6/14/2019 --
6/15/2019 --
6/16/2019 --
6/17/2019 --
6/18/2019 --
6/19/2019 --
6/20/2019 0.1
6/21/2019 --
6/22/2019 0.2
6/23/2019 --
6/24/2019 --
6/25/2019 --
6/26/2019 --
6/27/2019 --
6/28/2019 --
6/29/2019 --
6/30/2019 --
Notes:
-- - below USGS measurement threshold
Precipitation data obtained from USGS rain gauge at
W.O. Huske Dam.
72 hour period prior to sample collection date
Sample collection date
USGS - United States Geological Survey
July 2019
Figures
Kuraray AmericaLeased Areas
ChemoursPPA Area
Chemours Monomers IXM Area
WastewaterTreatmentPlant
Dupont / DowLeased Area
Former DuPontPMDF ProductionArea
Site Location
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
1Raleigh
750 0 750375 Feet
³Path: E:\TR0726\Site_Locations_2019\SiteLocation_2019.mxd; JK; 07/25/2019July 2019
Notes:BasemapSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
LegendDrainage NetworkSite BoundaryAreas at SiteChemours Monomers Ion Exchange Membrance (IXM) AreaChemours Polymer Processing Aid (PPA) AreaDupont / Dow Leased AreaFormer DuPont PMDF Production AreaKuraray America Leased AreasWastewater Treatment Plant
23B
1
2 3
4
5
6 A 6 B
7A 8
9
10
11
12
13 14
15
16
17 A
17 B
18
20
21 A
21 B23A23A 24B 24C
24A
7B
Du Po nt A re aWoodLinedTrench
Op en C ha nn el t o O utfal l 00 2
C o o lin g Wa te r C h an ne l
Paragraph 11(b) Sample Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
2Raleigh
500 0 500250 Feet
July 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
NC License No.: C-3500Consultants of NC, PC
Legend
Temporal Composite Sample
Grab Sample
Sample Location Category
Outfall
Intake
Stormwater
Discharge Areas
Wood Lined Trench
Cooling Water Channel
Open Channel to Outfall 002
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge
Non-process wastewater
DuPont Area
Process wastewater
23B
22
19A19A
19B19B 22
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge
July 2019
NC License No.: C-3500Consultants of NC, PC
7B
2219A19A19B19B22
16 A 6 B
8
9
10
14
15
18
20
21 A
24B 24C
24A
Du Po nt A r e aWoodLinedTrench
Op en C ha nn el t o O utfal l 00 2
C o o lin g Wa te r C h an ne l
HFPO-DA and PFMOAA Concentrations -
Locations that Reach Outfall 002
April 2019 Event
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3ARaleigh
500 0 500250 Feet
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
Temporal Composite Sample
Grab Sample
Sample Location Category
Outfall
Intake
Stormwater
Discharge Areas
Wood Lined Trench
Cooling Water Channel
Open Channel to Outfall 002
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge
Non-process wastewater
DuPont Area
Process wastewater
Notes:
Samples collected 24 April 2019
All concentrations are in nanograms per liter
Location 20 collected from channel upstream of sump
Temporal composite samples collected over 4 hour interval
J – estimated value
UJ - Estimated reporting limit
Wastewater
TreatmentPlant Discharge
Wastewater
TreatmentPlant Discharge
7A
23A
HFPO-DA 14
PFMOAA <210 UJ
HFPO-DA 270
PFMOAA 1,300
HFPO-DA 13
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 41
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 59
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 33
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 320
PFMOAA <210 UJ
HFPO-DA 29
PFMOAA <210 UJ
HFPO-DA 16 J
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 61
PFMOAA <210 UJ
HFPO-DA 14
PFMOAA <210 UJ
HFPO-DA 30 J
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 22
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 170
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 120
PFMOAA 1,200 J
HFPO-DA 21
PFMOAA <210
HFPO-DA 34
PFMOAA <210 UJ
HFPO-DA 12
PFMOAA <210 UJ
HFPO-DA 14
PFMOAA <210 UJ
HFPO-DA 19
PFMOAA <210 UJ
July 2019
NC License No.: C-3500Consultants of NC, PC
Du Po nt A r e aWoodLinedTrench
Op en C ha nn el t o O utfal l 00 2
C o o lin g Wa te r C h an ne l
HFPO-DA and PFMOAA Concentrations -
Locations for Osite Disposal -
April 2019 Event
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3BRaleigh
500 0 500250 Feet
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
Grab Sample
Sample Location Category
Discharge Areas
Wood Lined Trench
Cooling Water Channel
Open Channel to Outfall 002
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge
DuPont Area
Process wastewater
Notes:
Samples collected 24 April 2019
All concentrations are in nanograms per liter
Wastewater
TreatmentPlant Discharge
Wastewater
TreatmentPlant Discharge
17 B
16HFPO-DA 2,100,000
PFMOAA 160,000
17 A HFPO-DA 550,000,000
PFMOAA 1,770,000
HFPO-DA 860,000,000
PFMOAA <210,000
Appendix A: Field Parameters
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607
31 July 2019
APPENDIX A: FIELD PARAMETERS
Field parameters recorded during the April 2019 event are provided in Table A1 and Table A2 for
grab samples and temporal composite samples, respectively. Field parameters were measured
using a Horiba U-52 model. The water quality meter was calibrated at the start of every sampling
day.
For grab samples, field parameters were measured once prior to sampling using a flow through
cell. For temporal composite samples, field parameters were measured twice using a flow through
cell: once during composite sampling (collected directly from the water stream), and once after
composite sampling (collected from the autosampler reservoir).
Recorded field parameter data are generally in line with expectations for the sample locations, with
the following exceptions:
pH at Location 23A, Kuraray SentryGlas® process water and non-contact cooling water
flowing to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), had the lowest measured pH at 3.51.
The treated effluent pH from the WWTP at location 8 was between 8 and 8.5.
pH at Location 22, the combined influent to the WWTP, had the highest measured pH at
11.1. The treated effluent pH from the WWTP at location 8 was between 8 and 8.5.
Initial dissolved oxygen (DO) collected from the water streams at Locations 10 (Cooling
Water Channel stormwater ditch) and 15 (combined Cooling Water Channel flow to Open
Channel to Outfall 002) were elevated at 25.7 milligrams per liter [mg/l] and 29.0 mg/L,
respectively. These values are above 100% saturation and potentially represent
instrumental error. In each case, the DO reading collected from the autosampler reservoir
after sample collection was less than 10 mg/L. The DO readings of water taken directly
from Location 20, the Outfall 002, was 12.1 mg/L.
TABLE A1GRAB SAMPLE FIELD PARAMETERSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.LocationpH Temperature (°C)Specific Conductivity (mS/cm)Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)ORP (mV)Turbidity (NTU) 6A 7.92 20.52 0.061 9.05 380 150 6B 7.75 20.01 0.055 9.13 490 707B N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A16 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A17A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A17B N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A18 6.18 23.42 0.074 6.97 150 31 19A 6.35 34.45 0.053 6.85 170 630 19B 7.18 23.11 0.16 10.8 170 5.9 21A 7.77 24.88 0.088 10.1 160 3.022 11.1 26.81 0.31 6.51 -14 11023A 3.51 21.86 0.22 8.72 300 1.1 24A 9.81 23.33 0.058 11.3 330 62 24B 8.10 23.42 0.088 11.2 170 0.7 24C 8.49 27.33 0.093 6.48 170 2.2Notes:°C - degrees Celsiusmg/L - milligrams per litermS/cm - milliSiemens per centimetermV - millivoltN/A - no data reportedNTU - nephelometric turbidity unitsORP - oxidation reduction potentialJuly 2019
TABLE A2TEMPORAL COMPOSITE SAMPLE FIELD PARAMETERSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Initial Reading Final Reading Initial Reading Final Reading Initial Reading Final Reading Initial Reading Final Reading Initial Reading Final Reading Initial Reading Final Reading1 8.00 7.64 25.19 19.15 0.064 0.053 16.3 7.16 470 200 100 577A 7.65 8.20 20.98 21.89 0.071 0.056 11.3 13.6 350 100 55 588 8.08 8.22 26.39 23.23 1.7 0.95 8.08 7.33 32 150 24 2.79 7.81 7.78 27.46 22.41 0.074 0.057 9.90 6.06 240 160 100 5910 7.45 8.23 27.62 22.16 0.097 0.069 25.7 6.94 230 130 77 31014 8.89 8.05 27.59 23.06 0.16 0.09 12.9 6.91 45 200 3.1 1.215 8.04 7.33 28.76 21.76 0.027 0.061 29.0 6.24 37 220 210 4820 8.82 7.43 25.60 22.11 0.11 0.087 12.1 7.14 43 210 230 46Notes:Initial reading collected at the start of sampling directly from the water stream.Final reading collected after sampling was complete, from autosampler reservoir.°C - degrees Celsiusmg/L - milligrams per litermS/cm - milliSiemens per centimetermV - millivoltNTU - nephelometric turbidity unitsORP - oxidation reduction potentialTurbidity(NTU)LocationpHTemperature (°C)Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)ORP(mV)July 2019
Appendix B: June 18, 2019 Letter re.
Laboratory Analyses for MTP, MMF, DFSA,
and PPF Acid, and Supporting Technical
Summaries from TestAmerica and Lancaster
The Chemours Company
Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306
June 18, 2019
Linda Culpepper
Interim Director, Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
[e-mail]
Re: Laboratory Analyses for MTP, MMF, DFSA, and PPF Acid
Dear Ms. Culpepper,
I am writing to follow up on our June 10 letter and June 12 conference call with DEQ in
regard to the four PFAS compounds shown below:
Acronym Name Molecular
Formula
CASN Chemical Structure
MTP Perfluoro-2-
methoxypropanoic
acid
CH3-O-
CF2-CF2-
COOH
93449-
21-9
MMF Difluoromalonic
acid
HOOC-
CF2-
COOH
1514-
85-8
DFSA Difluoro-sulfo-
acetic acid
HOOC-
CF2-
SO3H
422-67-
3
PPF Acid Perfluoropropionic
acid
CF3-CF2-
COOH
422-64-
0
2
As we noted in our letter and discussed on our conference call, the laboratory analytical
methods for these four compounds are new and not refined (and previously did not exist), and
the resulting data quantifications are not accurate. Our external testing laboratories, Eurofins
Lancaster Laboratories (“Lancaster”) and TestAmerica, have prepared summaries of the
technical issues they have encountered, and these summaries are enclosed.
Accordingly, to prevent the collection and dissemination of inaccurate and misleading
data, we have instructed Lancaster and TestAmerica to stop analyzing and reporting for these
four compounds under their current laboratory analytical methods (referred to as “Table 3+”).
We will continue to work with these labs on analytical method development and finding an
appropriate testing methodology for these four compounds, and we will keep you apprised of our
progress.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brian D. Long
Plant Manager
Chemours – Fayetteville Works
Enclosures
Lancaster Technical Summary
TestAmerica Technical Summary
3
Cc:
Sheila Holman, DEQ
William F. Lane, DEQ
Francisco Benzoni, NC DOJ
Michael Abraczinskas, DAQ
Michael Scott, DWM
David C. Shelton, Chemours
John F. Savarese, WLRK
Kemp Burdette, CFRW
Geoff Gisler, SELC
MEMORANDUM
Date: 6/14/2019
To: Dr. Lam Leung, Chemours
CC: Mike Aucoin, AECOM
From: Eric Redman, Director of Technical Services
Subject: LC/MS/MS Method Performance for DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid
This technical memorandum addresses questions regarding observed variability in the
determination of 4 analytes (DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid) by Eurofins TestAmerica’s current
LC/MS/MS methodology known as the ‘Table 3+’ analytical method.
DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid are very small molecules by LC/MS/MS standards,
consisting of just one or two fully fluorinated carbons with one or two terminal acidic
moieties (carboxylic and/or sulfonic).
The size, structure, and highly polar nature of these molecules create a variety of technical
challenges for LC/MS analysis. Due to the size and structure of DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid
there are relatively few characteristic mass fragments or mass transitions that can be used to
identify them in the LC/MS/MS methodology, and the identification elements that exist are not
unique to DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid. These analytes are therefore prone to a large range of
chemical interferences that can adversely impact the performance of the analytical method.
The small and highly polar nature of DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid also means that these
analytes are not easily retained under the usual LC/MS/MS chromatographic conditions. Poor
retention in turn means that these analytes cannot be chromatographically separated or resolved
from physical or chemical interferences, and are therefore more susceptible to adverse impacts
from these co-eluting interferences. These can be manifest as discreet interferences that mimic the
MS/MS response of DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid and either obscure their presence (false
negatives) or impart a positive bias (false positives). Additionally, non-discreet or bulk interferences
such as dissolved solids, high ionic content, and naturally occurring organic and ionic compounds
(humic acid or NOM) can create severe ion suppression and enhancement effects in the LC/MS/MS
analysis. DFSA and MMF are further prone to variable impacts from ionic substances (including pH
differences) due to their unusual di-acidic character.
The combination of multiple properties that can adversely impact analytical performance means that
current ‘Table 3+’ analytical procedures will generate variable and potentially unreliable results for
DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid in samples. Analytical performance for DFSA, MMF, MTP, and
PPF Acid has been demonstrated to be reliable in the absence of matrix interferences, but a
growing body of empirical evidence including sample duplicate and matrix spike results indicates
that matrix effects have a significant adverse impact in field samples.
1
From:Charles Neslund <[e-mail]>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 2:49 PMTo:Leung, Lam-Wing HSubject:⚠Performance of Selected Table 3+ AnalytesAttachments:ATT00001.txtExternal email. Confirm links and attachments before opening.
Lam,
As we have discussed several times over the last several weeks, there are 4 compounds within the list of Table 3+
analytes that have proven to be very problematic for analysis under the conditions of the Table 3+ method. Those 4
compounds are;
a. DFSA - CAS #422-67-3
b. MMF – CAS #1514-85-8
c. MTP – CAS #93449-21-9
d. PPF Acid – CAS #422-64-0
The challenges that are presented by these 4 compounds under the analysis conditions of the Table 3+ are several.
a. Chromatographically, DFSA and MMF are not retained well and in fact elute essentially in the void volume of the
column and column introduction system. MTP and PPF acid elute a little past the void volume but not by very
much. The reason this is important is that due to the short carbon chain length of the compounds, the range of
options for product ion masses and transition ion masses to monitor for detection is limited. Therefore, without
good chromatographic separation, the mass spectrometer struggles to differentiate these compounds from
background. This then has a direct impact on the sensitivity that one is able to achieve and has as a direct impact
on the ruggedness of the analysis.
b. In attempts to improve the chromatography to improve detection of these compounds, we have adjusted the
mobile phase composition so that upon injection of sample, the mobile phase is essentially 100% water. This has
the effect of causing chromatography columns with a C18 functionality to collapse which negatively impacts the
chromatography of all of the other Table 3+ compounds, while only marginally improving the performance of these
4 compounds. If and when we have tried to change to a column chemistry that might be more accommodating of
high aqueous content, then the performance of the other Table 3+ compounds is significantly impacted.
In summary, it would be our suggestion to develop a technique that uses a completely separate separation and analysis
for these 4 compounds so that more reliable detection and analysis con be performed.
Regards,
Chuck
Charles Neslund
Scientific Officer
Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC
2425 New Holland Pike
Lancaster, PA 17601
USA
Phone: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
www.EurofinsUS.com/LancLabsEnv