2019.12.31_CCO.p16_ChemoursCorrectiveActionPlan-AppendixG

TR0795 December 2019
APPENDIX G
Ecological Screening Level Exposure
Assessment of Table 3+ PFAS
ECOLOGICAL SCREENING LEVEL
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT (SLEA) OF
TABLE 3+ PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Prepared for
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
22828 NC Highway 87 Fayetteville, NC 28306
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430 Raleigh, NC 27607
Geosyntec Project Number TR0795
December 2019
TR0795 ii December 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Ecological Exposure and Risk Assessment ................................................. 3
1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................... 4
2 SITE SETTING .................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Site Description ........................................................................................... 6
2.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 6
2.2.1 Climate ............................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Topography ...................................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Land Uses and Habitats ................................................................... 7
2.2.4 Cape Fear River and Tributaries ...................................................... 7
2.3 Threatened & Endangered Species .............................................................. 9
2.4 Conceptual Site Model .............................................................................. 10
2.4.1 Table 3+ PFAS............................................................................... 10
2.4.2 Ecological Exposure Units ............................................................. 12
2.4.2.1 Onsite Terrestrial EU ....................................................... 12
2.4.2.2 Offsite Terrestrial EU ...................................................... 12
2.4.2.3 Cape Fear River EU ......................................................... 13
2.4.3 Potentially Complete Ecological Exposure Pathways ................... 13
3 ECOLOGICAL SLEA METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 15
3.1 Field Investigation ..................................................................................... 15
3.2 Calculation of EPCs................................................................................... 20
3.3 Receptor Identification .............................................................................. 21
3.4 Exposure Assessment ................................................................................ 24
3.4.1 Direct Exposures ............................................................................ 24
3.4.2 Calculation of Receptor Intakes ..................................................... 24
3.5 Hazard Assessment for HFPO-DA ............................................................ 26
4 ECOLOGICAL SLEA RESULTS ..................................................................... 29
4.1 Data Analysis and QA/QC ........................................................................ 29
4.2 Empirical Data Trends ............................................................................... 30
4.2.1 Detection Frequencies of Table 3+ PFAS in Media ...................... 30
4.2.2 Spatial Patterns of Table 3+ PFAS in Media ................................. 33
4.2.3 Bioaccumulation Potential of Table 3+ PFAS ............................... 35
TR0795 iii December 2019
4.2.4 Summary of Observations from Empirical Data: .......................... 36
4.3 Quantification of Exposure ........................................................................ 37
4.3.1 Exposure Point Concentrations ...................................................... 37
4.3.2 Onsite Terrestrial ........................................................................... 38
4.3.3 Offsite Terrestrial ........................................................................... 38
4.3.4 Aquatic EU .................................................................................... 39
4.3.5 Summary of Observations from Quantification of
Exposures ....................................................................................... 39
4.4 Hazard Assessment of HFPO-DA ............................................................. 40
4.5 Additional Data Evaluations and Lines of Evidence ................................. 41
4.5.1 WET Testing to Evaluate Risks to Aquatic Life ........................... 41
4.5.2 Additional Regional Environmental Data ...................................... 42
5 UNCERTAINTIES ............................................................................................. 44
6 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 47
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 48
TR0795 iv December 2019
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Regional Listed Species
Table 2-2 Table 3+ PFAS
Table 2-3 Physical and Chemical Properties for relevant Table 3+ PFAS
Table 3-1 Ecological SLEA Dataset - Offsite Soil
Table 3-2 Ecological SLEA Dataset - Offsite Vegetation and Invertebrates
Table 3-3 Ecological SLEA Dataset - Offsite, Onsite and Cape Fear River Surface
Water
Table 3-4 Ecological SLEA Dataset - Onsite Soil and Co-located Soil and
Earthworm
Table 3-5 Ecological SLEA Dataset - Cape Fear River Sediment
Table 3-6 Ecological SLEA Dataset - Cape Fear River Invertebrates and Vegetation
Table 3-7 Ecological SLEA Dataset - Fish Tissue
Table 3-8 Wildlife Exposure Factors for Terrestrial Receptors
Table 3-9 Wildlife Exposure Factors for Aquatic Receptors
Table 3-10 Toxicity Reference Values for HFPO-DA
Table 4-1 Summary Statistics – Onsite Soil
Table 4-2 Summary Statistics – Offsite Soil
Table 4-3 Summary Statistics – Onsite Surface Water
Table 4-4 Summary Statistics – Offsite Surface Water
Table 4-5 Summary Statistics – Terrestrial Vegetation
Table 4-6 Summary Statistics – Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrates
Table 4-7 Summary Statistics – Onsite Terrestrial Invertebrates
Table 4-8 Summary Statistics – Sediment
Table 4-9 Summary Statistics – Cape Fear River Surface Water
Table 4-10 Summary Statistics – Aquatic Vegetation
Table 4-11 Summary Statistics – Fish
Table 4-12 Biota Soil Accumulation Factors
Table 4-13 Fillet to Whole-body Ratio Calculations
Table 4-14 Exposure Point Concentrations – Onsite Terrestrial
Table 4-15 Direct Contact Exposures – Onsite Terrestrial
Table 4-16a-d Total Daily Intake by Receptor – Onsite Terrestrial
Table 4-17 Exposure Point Concentrations – Offsite Terrestrial
Table 4-18 Direct Contact Exposures – Offsite Terrestrial
Table 4-19a-d Total Daily Intake by Receptor – Offsite Terrestrial
Table 4-20 Exposure Point Concentrations – Aquatic
TR0795 v December 2019
Table 4-21 Direct Contact Exposures – Aquatic
Table 4-22a-f Total Daily Intake by Receptor – Aquatic
Table 4-23 Summary of Hazard Quotients for HFPO-DA
Table 4-24 Summary of WET Testing Results
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Site Location Map
Figure 2-2 Regional Topographic Map
Figure 2-3 Ecological SLEA Exposure Units
Figure 2-4 Ecological Conceptual Site Model
Figure 3-1 Offsite Soil Sampling Locations
Figure 3-2 Offsite Vegetation Sampling Locations
Figure 3-3 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Sampling Locations
Figure 3-4 On and Offsite Pond Sampling Locations
Figure 3-5 Cape Fear River Surface Water, Sediment and Aquatic Vegetation
Sampling Locations
Figure 3-6 Onsite Soil and BSAF Sampling Locations
Figure 3-7 Cape Fear River Fish and Invertebrate Sampling Locations
Figure 4-1 Detection Frequency by Media – Onsite Terrestrial Exposure Unit
Figure 4-2 Detection Frequency by Media – Offsite Terrestrial Exposure Unit
Figure 4-3 Detection Frequency by Media – Aquatic Exposure Unit
Figure 4-4 Total Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations in Offsite Media
Figure 4-5 Total Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations in Onsite and Aquatic Media
Figure 4-6 Exposure Point Concentrations by Media for All Exposure Units
Figure 4-7 Total Daily Intake of Table3+ PFAS – Onsite Terrestrial EU
Figure 4-8 Total Daily Intake of Table3+ PFAS – Offsite Terrestrial EU
Figure 4-9 Total Daily Intake of Table3+ PFAS – Aquatic EU
TR0795 vi December 2019
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Sampling SOPs
Appendix B: Data Summary Tables
Appendix C: Representative Photo Log
Appendix D: ProUCL Output
Appendix E: Lab Reports and Data Validation Reports
TR0795 vii December 2019
LIST OF ABBREVIAIONS
°F degree Fahrenheit
95UCL 95% Upper Confidence Limit
µg/kg microgram per kilogram
AUF Area use factor
BAF bioaccumulation factors
BCF bioconcentrations factors
bgs below ground surface
BSAF biota-soil accumulation factor
BW Body weight
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CFR Cape Fear River
CO Consent Order
CSM Conceptual Site Model
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
dw dry weight
Ecological SLEA Ecological Screening Level Exposure Assessment
EPC exposure point concentration
EPCsoil Exposure Point Concentration in soil
EPCdiet Exposure Point Concentration in diet items
EPCsw Exposure Point Concentration in surface water
ERA Ecological Risk Assessment
EU Exposure Unit
FIRww Daily food ingestion rate
FIRdw Daily food ingestion rate
FOD frequency of detection
HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
HFPO-TA hexafluoropropylene oxide trimer acid
HH-SLEA Human Health Screening Level Exposure Assessment
TR0795 viii December 2019
LIST OF ABBREVIAIONS (CON’T)
HQ Hazard Quotient
ISM Incremental Sampling Methodology
kg kilogram
log KOC log10-based organic carbon-water partitioning co-efficient
L/kg liter per kilogram
log KOA log10-based octanol-air partitioning co-efficient
log KOW log octanal-water partitioning coefficient
logP log partitioning coefficient
mg/L milligram per liter
mg/kg bw-day milligram per kilogram body weight per day
MSL mean sea level
NC North Carolina
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ng/kg nanogram per kilogram
NOAEL No observed adverse effect level
NOEC no effect concentration
NOEL no effect level
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NVHOS Sodium 1,1,2,2-Teatrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane-1-sulfonate
P Proportion of diet composed of the individual food source
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PEPA perfluoroethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
PES perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid
PFAA perfluoroalkyl acids
PFAS per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances
PFCA perfluorocarboxylic acid
PFECA B perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid
PFESA-BP1 perfluoro-3,6-dioxa-4-methyl-7-octene-1-sulfonic acid
TR0795 ix December 2019
LIST OF ABBREVIAIONS (CON’T)
PFESA-BP2 perfluoro-2-{[perfluoro-3-(perfluoroethoxy)-2 propanyl]oxy}ethanesulfonic acid
PFMOAA perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
PFO2HxA perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
PFO3OA perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
PFO4DA perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid
PFO5DA perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid
PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate
PMPA perfluoro-2-(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
PNEC Probable No Effects Concentrations
RL reporting limit
SLERA Screening-level ecological risk assessments
SMDP Scientific Management Decision Point
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
T&E Threatened and endangered
TDI totally daily intake
TDIdiet Total daily dietary intake
TDIsoil Total daily soil intake
TRV Toxicity Reference Value
USGS United States Geological Survey
WB:F whole-body to fillet ratios
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity
ww wet weight
TR0795 1 November 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Geosyntec prepared this Ecological Screening Level Exposure Assessment (Ecological
SLEA) on behalf of The Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours) in support of
developing a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the Chemours Fayetteville Works Site
(the Site). The overall goal of the Ecological SLEA was to refine the ecological
Conceptual Site Model in support of CAP development, quantify and assess exposures to
ecological receptors onsite, offsite and in the Cape Fear River, and to evaluate the
potential for hazards related to exposure to hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
(HFPO-DA). Field investigations included collection of onsite and offsite soils,
invertebrates and offsite vegetation, and sediment, vegetation, fish and clams from the
Cape Fear River for analysis of Table 3+ per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
These data were used to evaluate the presence of Table 3+ PFAS in environmental media,
identify spatial patterns, quantify mammalian and avian exposures to Table 3+ PFAS,
and to evaluate the potential for adverse effects to wildlife from current exposures to
HFPO-DA.
Overall, 17 out of 20 Table 3+ PFAS were detected in one or more samples from the field
investigation. Environmental media with the highest number of positively detected Table
3+ PFAS included site invertebrates (15 out of 20), onsite soils (13 out of 20), terrestrial
vegetation (13 out of 20), aquatic vegetation (11 out of 20), and fish (7 out of 20).
However, some environmental media had very few or no detections of Table 3+ PFAS,
including sediment (in which only HFPO-DA was detected), offsite soil (2 out of 20 Table
3+ PFAS were detected) and benthic invertebrates from the Cape Fear River (in which
no Table 3+ PFAS were detected). Because the sediment in the Cape Fear River and soil
in the offsite areas do not appear to have accumulated widely detectable concentrations
of Table 3+ PFAS, they are not likely to act as long-term exposure sources for ecological
receptors, although uncertainties regarding partitioning to porewater and analytical
sensitivities remain.
Estimated total daily intake (TDI) indicated that the highest Table 3+PFAS exposures are
for vertebrates that consume terrestrial and aquatic plants in both onsite, aquatic and
offsite areas. In general, herbivores demonstrated a higher estimated TDI for Table 3+
PFAS, followed by piscivores and invertivores. Estimated total exposures (i.e.,
cumulative exposure to all Table 3+ PFAS) were generally highest in the onsite area,
exceeding those in the Cape Fear River and offsite terrestrial areas by up to 3 times. The
predominant Table 3+ PFAS contributing to herbivore exposures included perfluoro-2-
methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA), sodium 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane-1-sulfonate (NVHOS), perfluoro-2-(perfluoromethoxy)-
propanoic acid (PMPA) and perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid (PFO2HxA). Piscivores
TR0795 2 December 2019
in the Cape Fear River were exposed to a high proportion of PFMOAA and
perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid (PFO4DA). Exposure to invertivores included
PFMOAA, PMPA, Byproduct4, Byproduct5, and HFPO-DA.
Hazard quotients (HQs) for HFPO-DA ranged from 0.00000008 to 0.24, indicating that
current exposures in these Exposure Units (EUs) are not expected to pose a hazard to
ecological receptors.
Although there are several inherent sources of uncertainty in ecological evaluations, the
primary source of uncertainty in the Ecological SLEA is attributed to the lack of toxicity
reference values (TRVs) for many Table 3+ PFAS, as TRVs are a key element of
quantitative hazard evaluations. Chemours is presently undertaking a process to provide
additional toxicity data for five additional compounds (PMPA, PEPA, PFMOAA,
PFO2HxA, and PFESA-BP2), which will be useful in the development of TRVs in the
future. Tests are presently anticipated to be completed in late 2022. Overall, this
Ecological SLEA presents a screening-level evaluation of Table 3+ PFAS detected in
environmental media. Results indicate that current exposures to ecological receptors from
HFPO-DA are not expected to pose a hazard to ecological receptors in the study area.
TR0795 3 December 2019

1 INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec prepared this Ecological Screening Level Exposure Assessment (Ecological
SLEA) on behalf of The Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours) in support of
developing a Corrective Action Plan (CAP; Geosyntec, 2019a) for the Chemours
Fayetteville Works Site (the Site) pursuant to the February 25, 2019 Consent Order (CO)
among the Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours), the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and the Cape Fear River Watch. While inclusion of
this Ecological SLEA is not a requirement of the CO, Chemours has performed this
evaluation of exposure to ecological receptors for Table 3+ per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) to support the CAP.
This Ecological SLEA evaluated exposures of Table 3+ PFAS to ecological receptors and
the hazard potential for hexafluoropropylene dimer acid (HFPO-DA), as toxicological
data are only available for HFPO-DA. The remainder of this section focuses on a brief
overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) process, as well as specific goals and
objectives for this assessment.
1.1 Ecological Exposure and Risk Assessment
This subsection contextualizes the data and analyses described herein within the ERA
process. The purpose of performing an ERA is to identify and characterize the current
potential risks to ecological receptors from potentially hazardous substances.
Additionally, ecological risk assessments can be used to establish cleanup levels
protective of ecological receptors and evaluate various remedial approaches (USEPA,
1994; NCDEQ, 2003). USEPA guidance on performing ERAs includes an 8-Step process
concluding with a Scientific Management Decision Point (SMDP). Screening-level
ecological risk assessments (SLERA) consistent with standard ecological risk assessment
practice and guidance (USEPA, 1993; NCDEQ 2003), are reflective of the first two steps
of this 8-Step ERA framework. A SLERA applies conservative assumptions, often using
more limited data sets, to evaluate the potential hazards to ecological receptors. SLERAs
include the following key steps:
•Problem Formulation and Toxicity Evaluation: In this first step of the SLERA
process, information regarding the Site is compiled. Information evaluated in
this step can include on and offsite habitats, identifying potentially exposed
receptors including state or Federally listed species, and identifying
potentially complete exposure pathways. Additionally, toxicity benchmarks
are selected, typically in the form of conservative screening levels developed
by State or Federal agencies. These screening levels are typically based on
TR0795 4 December 2019
highly conservative assumptions and are reflective of concentrations in the
environment below which no adverse impacts to receptors are expected.
•Screening-level Exposure Assessment and Risk Calculations: In this second
step of the SLERA, the exposure to receptors is estimated using conservative
assumptions. For example, maximum concentrations of constituents may be
selected over measures of central tendency to reflect exposure point
concentrations. The estimated exposure is compared to the toxicity benchmark
selected in Step 1 to evaluate the potential for risk. If exposure is below the
toxicity benchmark, it can be confidently concluded that adverse impacts are
not likely to occur. If exposure is greater than the toxicity benchmark, then
additional refinement of assumptions and quantification of risk levels should
be considered.
Due to the emerging nature of Table 3+ PFAS and the wider class of PFAS there are
limited toxicity benchmarks to be applied to evaluate risks. For this reason, this report
reflects a Screening Level Exposure Assessment rather than a SLERA. This Ecological
SLEA includes the Problem Formulation and Exposure Assessment steps of a typical
SLERA and evaluated hazard where sufficient toxicity data are available to do so. For
Table 3+ PFAS, toxicity data are available for HFPO-DA. Under Paragraph 14 of the CO,
Chemours is working to address many of the toxicity data gaps related to other Table 3+
PFAS (Chemours, 2019). The results of this Ecological SLEA may be refined as
additional information on toxicity of these compounds becomes available.
1.2 Objectives
The objective of this Ecological SLEA was to refine the ecological Conceptual Site
Model (CSM) in support of developing the Corrective Action Plan (CAP). Prior to this
Ecological SLEA, minimal data on the presence of Table 3+ PFAS in biotic media in the
vicinity of the Site were available, resulting in limited understanding of the magnitude of
exposure for ecological receptors to Table 3+ PFAS. While the current understanding of
the toxicity of Table 3+ PFAS limits the ability to evaluate hazards, this Ecological SLEA
followed standard SLERA methodologies with respect to Problem Formulation and
Exposure Assessment and applied appropriately conservative assumptions at this stage.
Specifically, the objectives of this Ecological SLEA are:
•Evaluate the presence/absence of Table 3+ PFAS in abiotic and biotic media;
•Quantify exposure to Table 3+ PFAS for terrestrial plants, invertebrates and
wildlife, and aquatic life (pelagic fish, invertebrates, vegetation), benthic
invertebrates and aquatic-dependent wildlife;
TR0795 5 December 2019
•Refine the CSM and understanding of fate of Table 3+ PFAS in the foodweb;
•Evaluate hazards related to exposure to HFPO-DA where sufficient
understanding of toxicity is available; and
•Evaluate additional lines of evidence to refine understanding of the CSM.
TR0795 6 December 2019

2 SITE SETTING
2.1 Site Description
The Site is located within a 2,177-acre property at 22828 NC Highway 87, approximately
15 miles southeast of the city of Fayetteville, NC along the Bladen-Cumberland county
line. Figure 2-1 presents an overview of the Site. The Site is bounded by NC Highway 87
to the west, the Cape Fear River to the east, and by undeveloped areas and farmland to
the north and south. Willis and Georgia Branch Creeks, which are tributaries of the Cape
Fear River, are located near the northern and southern property boundaries respectively,
with the Georgia Branch Creek being offsite for its entire course (Geosyntec, 2019b). Of
the 2,177-acre property, approximately 400 acres is developed land for manufacturing
activities, with the remainder generally undeveloped. The Site is zoned for industrial use
but includes land specifically designated for conservation and provides habitat for deer,
turkey, and other wildlife. A more robust Site history and other operations on Site are
described in the Site Assessment Report (Geosyntec, 2019b).
2.2 Environmental Setting
2.2.1 Climate
The climate in Bladen County is characterized by relatively mild winters, hot summers,
and abundant rainfall. According to the National Weather Service, average monthly
temperatures range from a high of 91 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in July to a low of 33°F in
January. Average monthly rainfall ranges from a high of 5.92 inches in July to a low of
2.65 inches in December (Parsons, 2014).
2.2.2 Topography
The developed portion (manufacturing area) of the Site is located on a relatively flat
topographic plateau at an approximate elevation of 145 feet above mean sea level (MSL)
and approximately 70 feet above the Cape Fear River floodplain (Figure 2-2). Surface
topography generally remains flat to the west with a gentle increase of about 5 feet to a
topographic divide near NC Highway 87. However, ground surface elevations decrease
from the topographic plateau at the manufacturing area towards the Cape Fear River to
the east as well as its tributaries, Willis Creek to the north and Georgia Branch Creek to
the south. Topographic relief from the main manufacturing area decreases by
approximately 100 feet in elevation towards the Cape Fear River bank to the east. Inclined
topographic relief combined with overland flow and groundwater seeps have created
natural drainage networks into the Cape Fear River (Geosyntec, 2019b).
TR0795 7 December 2019

2.2.3 Land Uses and Habitats
The Site is situated along the Bladen and Cumberland county line and is within the
Coastal Plain eco-region in North Carolina (NC) (NCWC, 2019). This region is
classified by the prevalence of large rivers, reservoirs and impoundments, natural lakes,
and stream swamp systems.
The Cumberland County Land Use Plan Map indicates that the county is predominantly
comprised of undeveloped lands with clusters of residential or manufactured homes.
Based on the 2016 land use plan (CCJPB, 2016), Cumberland County is largely zoned
for agricultural production due to the large proportion of land designated as either prime
farmland (rich soil requiring little input of resources like chemicals or energy) or soil of
state and local importance (capable of crop production with modern farming technology).
These areas largely produce crops for food, fiber, feed, forage, and oilseed crops.
Approximately 24,000 acres of land in Cumberland County were considered to be a part
of working farms, either large commercial farms producing one crop (i.e. tobacco, grain
crops, peanuts, cotton) or small, multiuse farms with both crops and livestock. There are
also a number of working farms that identify as woodlands, or tree farms for future
harvesting. This county also features wildlife species that are considered endangered,
threatened, significantly rare, or of special concern as discussed below.
Bladen County features many of the same attributes of Cumberland County. Bladen
largely includes undeveloped land, land with agricultural use, and clusters of residential
use. There are three rivers in the county, and it is bisected by the Cape Fear River which
is the largest. Fishing, as well as deer and squirrel hunting are prominent recreational
activities in the county. Bladen County includes the habitat for many of the same species
as Cumberland County.
2.2.4 Cape Fear River and Tributaries
The Cape Fear River and its entire watershed are located in the state of NC. The Cape
Fear River drains about 9,164 square miles and empties into the Atlantic Ocean near the
city of Wilmington, NC, and hosts a diverse ecosystem. Including tributaries, the
Cape Fear River watershed extends over 200 miles in length, beginning in the
Piedmont and ending in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Wilmington (NC Office
of Environmental Education and Public Affairs, 2019). Habitats present over the course
of the Cape Fear River include forests, wetlands, riparian areas, and estuaries.
Endemic to the Cape Fear River is an endangered species known as the Cape Fear
shiner, a minnow that lives in shallow, rocky areas. Historically, the Cape Fear River
also has hosted healthy populations of sturgeon, bass, and American shad.
TR0795 8 December 2019
However, the three lock-and-dam structures, historically used along the lower Cape Fear
River to allow the larger vessels to navigate through shallow waters, may block passage
of anadromous fish species. Along with overfishing and declining water and habitat
quality, some species have recently been in decline (Cape Fear River Partnership, 2019).
Other biota inhabiting the Cape Fear River include cypress trees, alligators, and otters,
and many estuarine organisms are found along the 35 miles of the river between
Wilmington and the Atlantic Ocean which also serves as a nursery for shrimp, crabs, and
fish.
The Site is situated on the western bank of the Cape Fear River and it draws water from
the Cape Fear River for use primarily as non-contact cooling water. Three lock and dam
systems with United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauges are located
downstream of the Site: (1) W.O. Huske Lock and Dam, located 0.5 river miles from the
Site; (2) Cape Fear River Lock #2 near Elizabethtown and (2) Cape Fear Lock and Dam
#1, located 55 river miles downstream. There are three perennial surface water features
that are tributaries to the Cape Fear River at or adjacent to the Site. To the north of the
Site is Willis Creek, in close proximity to the water intake for the Site. To the south of
the Site is Georgia Branch Creek which discharges to the Cape Fear River approximately
7,500 feet south of the W.O. Huske Dam. Old Outfall 002 discharges a mixture of surface
water and groundwater into the Cape Fear River approximately 1,350 feet south of the
W.O. Huske Dam (Geosyntec, 2019b). Additionally, in 2019 four groundwater seep
features were identified on the hillside leading from the Site to the Cape Fear River
between Willis Creek and Old Outfall 002. These seeps represent groundwater exiting
the aquifer and forming channelized flows of water to the Cape Fear River.
In the vicinity of the Site, livestock operations have the greatest effects on the natural
resources and habitat quality along the river (Cahoon et al., 1999). The majority of swine
are found in the Cape Fear River basin; large numbers of the total population of turkeys,
chickens, and cattle are also found in the Cape Fear River basin. The result of livestock
production is the introduction of large amounts of nutrients which has led to algal blooms,
increased biological oxygen demand, and the threat of eutrophication.
In addition to livestock, large industries lining the lower part of the Cape Fear River have
impacted water quality via industrial discharges and stormwater runoff in this area.
Particular to potential impacts from PFAS, both Fort Bragg in Fayetteville and Seymour
Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, NC have been identified as potential PFAS related
impacted sites (EWG, 2019). Multiple studies (Nakayama et al. 2007; Sun et al. 2016;
Lindstrom et al., 2015) have reported elevated concentrations of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and other ‘legacy’ PFAS in the Cape Fear River watershed well
upstream of the Cape Fear River and the Site, including the Haw River and Cane Creek
Reservoir, resulting from a series of inputs regionally. While the majority Table 3+ PFAS
TR0795 9 December 2019
enter the Cape Fear River adjacent to the Site, concentrations of ‘legacy’ PFAS, including
perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluorosulfonic acids (PFSAs), are generally
consistent upstream and downstream of the Site (Geosyntec, 2018).
2.3 Threatened & Endangered Species
Threatened and endangered (T&E) species are receptors that receive special
consideration in ecological risk and exposure assessments (USEPA, 1997). Populations
of T&E species may be more vulnerable than other species to site-specific constituents,
if present at a site, as smaller populations are less resilient to additional stressors. A
comprehensive search for Federal- and state-listed species of special concern was
conducted and included the following sites:
-U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and
Candidate Species, Cumberland County and Bladen County, NC.
(https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/cumberland.html and
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/bladen.html)
-Center for Biological Diversity, Map: U.S. Threaten and Endangered Species by
County; Bladen County and Cumberland County considered
(https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/T_
and_E_map/)
-U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Consultation tool
(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index)
Table 2-1 presents a list of threatened, endangered, or otherwise at-risk species identified
in Bladen and Cumberland Counties. This includes 10 vertebrates, 3 invertebrates and 9
vascular plant species. Table 2-1 also includes an evaluation of the preferred habitat for
each species and an indication of whether these species are likely to be found within the
Site, based on their habitat preferences. Many of the species identified as T&E species in
Cumberland County are found only in the Northwestern portion of the county, distant
from the Site, in an area called the Sandhills, which is near the Fall line. Based on this
assessment, 4 vertebrates (i.e., Bald eagle, red cockaded woodpecker, Southern hognose
snake, and wood stork), 2 invertebrates (Atlantic pigtoe [mussel], and variegated clubtail
[sanddragon]), and 7 plant species (bog spicebush, Boykin's lobelia, Carolina bogmint,
Michaux's sumac, pondberry, rough-leaved loosestrife, Venus’ fly-trap) are considered
T&E or at risk and may potentially be found within the Site boundaries; a biological
survey would need to be conducted to confirm the presence or absence of these species
and/or their preferred habitat. As described in the following section, with the exception
of the Southern hognose snake, Table 3+ PFAS exposure to each of these species is
TR0795 10 December 2019
represented by a sensitive receptor from the same group of organisms (i.e., plant,
terrestrial invertebrate, aquatic invertebrate, invertivorous terrestrial bird, piscivorous
bird).
2.4 Conceptual Site Model
2.4.1 Table 3+ PFAS
The primary PFAS of concern is HFPO-DA and the other Table 3+ PFAS that are formed
in the manufacturing process at the Site. The list of Table 3+ PFAS is provided in Table
2-2 and Table 2-3 presents physical and chemical properties for each Table 3+ PFAS.
This section primarily focuses on HFPO-DA as more is currently known on the physical
and chemical properties, but inferences from the available data on the other Table 3+
PFAS are discussed below.
HFPO-DA is a human-made chemical produced at the Site. HFPO-DA is a six carbon,
branched PFAS containing an ether bond (i.e., an oxygen atom linking two carbon atoms).
HFPO-DA is a clear, colorless liquid that exhibits a low octanol-water partitioning
capacity (reported log Kow values range from 3.6 [Hopkins et al., 2018] to 4.26
[Geosyntec, 2019a])1 and is completely miscible with water (i.e., high solubility in
surface water, groundwater, rainwater, leachate). Under normal environmental
conditions, HFPO-DA exists as an anionic acid (2.8 acid dissociation constant [pKa])2
(Hoke et al., 2016).
Similar to other environmentally persistent compounds, HFPO-DA has a relatively long
half-life in environmental matrices (> 6-months) and does not readily undergo photolysis,
hydrolysis, or biotransformation/degradation (USEPA, 2018; DuPont, 2008b; DuPont,
2009a). Due to a combination of high solubility in water and low affinity for
sediment/soil, HFPO-DA is expected to rapidly partition to, and remain in aqueous
environmental compartments (e.g., groundwater and surface water) (USEPA, 2018,
DuPont, 2008a, Hoke et al., 2016, Beekman et al., 2016, Pan et al., 2018). However, the
vapor pressure of HFPO-DA does not exclude some volatilization to air; dissolution in
aerosolized water droplets or binding to suspended particulate matter has also been
reported (USEPA, 2018). HFPO-DA present in air is deposited via wet and dry deposition
(USEPA, 2018; Hoke et al., 2016; Beekman et al., 2016; Xiao et al., 2017). Once present
1 Kow is the octanol-water partitioning coefficient, the ratio of the equilibrium concentration of a dissolved chemical in a two-phase system of n-octanol and water. n-Octanol serves as a surrogate to biota lipids and Kow values are used as an indicator of a chemical’s tendency to bioaccumulate, or to be taken-up by organisms from the environment. 2 The pKa predicts that HFPO-DA will be in acid form (as a negative ion, or an anion) at pH levels at or
above a pH of 2.8.
TR0795 11 December 2019
in terrestrial systems, HFPO-DA is expected to rapidly partition to aqueous matrices via
leaching and/or runoff (USEPA, 2018; Beekman et al., 2016; DuPont, 2008c).
Structural analyses indicate a low bioaccumulative potential for both HFPO-DA anion
and its ammonium salt relative to longer chain PFAS (e.g., PFOS and PFOA) (USEPA,
2018). These findings are supported by a limited number of bioaccumulation and
bioconcentration studies in which aquatic biota are exposed to HFPO-DA (USEPA, 2018;
DuPont, 2009b; DuPont, 2007; Hoke et al., 2016; Beekman et al., 2016, Xiao, 2017).
Multiple fish studies have confirmed bioconcentration factors (BCFs) of less than 30
liters per kilogram (L/kg) wet weight (ww) (DuPont, 2009b; Hoke et al., 2016; Goodband,
2019). Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), calculated for carp, were 7.2 L/kg ww for blood,
3.2 L/kg ww for liver and 4.0 L/kg ww for muscle (Pan et al., 2017). BCFs and BAFs
greater than 5,000 L/kg ww are considered indicative of high bioaccumulation potential
in aquatic food webs; BAFs and BCFs for HFPO-DA are well below this benchmark.
Recent research has also shown rapid elimination (< 24 hours) and a lack of
bioaccumulation of HFPO-DA in the benthic fish Blue spot gobies (Pseudogobius sp.) as
no HFPO-DA was detected in fish tissue in either the uptake or elimination phases of this
study (Hassell et al. 2019).
While there are limited studies on the fate and transport of other Table 3+ PFAS, some
general inferences can be drawn from the available understanding of PFAS as a class of
compounds and the physical and chemical properties for each specific Table 3+ PFAS
(Table 2-3):
•Due to the strong nature of the C-F bond, while some compounds may degrade
to daughter products, many compounds will be persistent in the environment
or transform into persistent compounds.
•Log10-based organic carbon-water partitioning co-efficient (log KOC) values
range from 0.89 to 2.56 L/kg (Table 2-3; Geosyntec, 2019a), with HFPO-DA
exhibiting a mid-range log KOC value of 1.69 L/kg (Table 2-3). The range of
log KOC values observed for Table 3+ PFAS indicate that some compounds
(e.g., Hydro-EVE Acid, EVE Acid) are more likely to partition to soils than
others (e.g., Difluoro(perfluoromethoxy)acetic acid [PFMOAA]). Relative to
compounds that strongly partition to organic matter in soils and sediments
(e.g. PCBs with log KOC values in the 4 to 7 L/kg range), the log KOC values
of Table 3+ are low, exhibiting values that are similar to less sorbtive
compounds (e.g., benzene [log KOC = 1.77] or trichloroethylene [log KOC =
2.22]).
•Predicted log10-based octanol-air partitioning co-efficient (log KOA) values
range from 2.59 to 7.17. Log KOA values in the 5 to 7 range may be indicative
TR0795 12 December 2019
of chemicals that exhibit potentially significant bioaccumulation potential in
terrestrial (air-breathing) food-webs (Kelly et al. 2007). HFPO-DA has mid-
range log KOA value of 3.74.
•Bioconcentration factors (L/kg, ww) ranged from 1.4 to 617 L/kg ww, all well
below the generally accepted benchmark of 5000 L/kg, ww indicative of high
bioaccumulation potential in aquatic food-webs (Gobas et al., 2009).
•Log partitioning coefficient (log P) is a commonly used measure of
lipophilicity and is the partition coefficient of a molecule between aqueous
and lipophilic phases. Log P is analogous to log octanol-water partitioning
coefficient (log KOW), but it is used for ionic rather than neutral compounds.
Log P values (at a pH of 8) ranged from 1 to 5.7 (Geosyntec, 2019a). For
traditional persistent organic pollutants [polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs),
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDTs)] where the primary mechanism for
bioaccumulation is the preferential partitioning of compounds in lipids and a
lack of metabolism, KOW can be a valuable metric to understand
bioaccumulation potential; PFAS do not bioaccumulate by this mechanism.
The current understanding of PFAS accumulation mechanisms relates to
preferential partitioning in proteins rather than lipids, therefore logP or log
KOW may not be a representative metric for bioaccumulation potential for
PFAS (Conder et al., 2008).
2.4.2 Ecological Exposure Units
For purposes of this Ecological SLEA, the Site and surrounding area where ecological
receptors may be exposed to Table 3+ PFAS was divided into three ecological exposure
units (EUs; Figure 2-3).
2.4.2.1 Onsite Terrestrial EU
The terrestrial onsite area includes the non-industrial portions of the Site which are
characterized by heavily forested habitats. The onsite terrestrial EU is generally bound
by Willis Creek to the north and Georgia Branch Creek to the south, the Cape Fear River
to the east and Highway 89 to the west. Terrestrial ecological receptors are expected to
use this area for foraging and habitat.
2.4.2.2 Offsite Terrestrial EU
The terrestrial offsite area includes the 12 EUs identified in the Human Health SLEA
workplan (Geosyntec, 2019c). Receptors in these EUs may be exposed to Table 3+ PFAS
TR0795 13 December 2019
that has been aerially deposited and accumulated in or on soil, plants or invertebrates.
While the Human Health SLEA has evaluated exposures at each EU, this Ecological
SLEA has combined these EUs based on similar habitat qualities and expected receptors.
The offsite terrestrial EU extends approximately 6 miles outward from the Site and is
characterized by mixed residential and farming land uses, patches of undeveloped
forested habitat and creeks, streams and other tributaries of the Cape Fear River.
2.4.2.3 Cape Fear River EU
The Cape Fear River or aquatic EU includes the Cape Fear River between Willis Creek
to the north and Georgia Branch Creek to the south. This EU includes the in-water portion
of the Cape Fear River and banks that would be used by aquatic-dependent birds and
mammals while foraging at the river. While the Human Health SLEA included samples
downstream of the Site, based on the current understanding of where ecological exposures
are expected to be greatest, this Ecological SLEA focused on the Site-adjacent area of the
Cape Fear River.
2.4.3 Potentially Complete Ecological Exposure Pathways
The ecological CSM (Figure 2-4) reflects the potential exposure of receptors to Table 3+
PFAS, including aquatic life in the Cape Fear River and tributaries, aquatic dependent
wildlife foraging in the Cape Fear River and banks, terrestrial plant and invertebrate
communities, and herbivorous and invertivore wildlife and carnivorous wildlife.
Exposures may potentially occur to Table 3+ PFAS via surface soil, surface water and
sediment, along with potential exposures via diet items if Table 3+ PFAS have
accumulated in plants, invertebrates and fish. The following receptors and exposure
pathways were assumed to be complete for purposes of the Ecological SLEA:
•Aquatic life includes benthic and pelagic invertebrates and fish in the Cape
Fear River. Pelagic fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants may potentially be
directly exposed to Table 3+ PFAS in the water column. Benthic invertebrates
may potentially be directly exposed to Table 3+ PFAS in sediments.
Exposures to aquatic life were estimated from the surface water and sediment
datasets.
•Aquatic-life dependent birds and mammals may potentially be exposed to
Table 3+ PFAS indirectly via consumption of plants, fish or benthic
invertebrates that have accumulated Table 3+ PFAS from water or sediment.
Exposures to these receptors will be estimated from concentrations in diet
items for each representative receptor. Birds and mammals may also be
exposed via the incidental consumption of sediment while foraging for food
and surface water as drinking water.
TR0795 14 December 2019
•Terrestrial plant and invertebrate communities may potentially be directly
exposed to Table 3+ PFAS present in surface soils or via air deposition in the
surrounding areas of the Site. Exposures to plant and soil communities were
evaluated using the surface soil dataset.
•Terrestrial avian and mammalian receptors may potentially be indirectly
exposed to Table 3+ PFAS from consumption of terrestrial plants or
invertebrates that may have accumulated Table 3+ PFAS. Exposures to these
receptors were estimated from concentrations in diet items for each
representative receptor. Birds and mammals may also be exposed via the
incidental consumption of soil while foraging for food or surface water as
drinking water.
•Terrestrial avian and mammalian carnivores may potentially be indirectly
exposed to Table 3+ PFAS from consumption of small mammals and birds
that may have accumulated Table 3+ PFAS from the food web. A tissue
sampling dataset sufficient to quantitatively evaluate this pathway was
determined to be infeasible for the time available to complete this Ecological
SLEA, however considerations such as bioaccumulation potential of Table 3+
PFAS and identification of the Table 3+ PFAS that are responsible for the
majority of exposure to herbivores and invertivores may be informative to
understand potential exposures to avian and mammalian carnivores. Exposure
to these receptors is discussed in the Uncertainties Section (Section 5).
TR0795 15 December 2019
3 ECOLOGICAL SLEA METHODOLOGY
The Ecological SLEA included multiple field efforts to characterize the magnitude and
extent of Table 3+ PFAS in various abiotic and biotic components of the foodweb, the
selection of representative receptors for each potentially complete exposure pathway,
estimating exposure point concentrations (EPCs), and performing foodweb exposure
modeling to calculate exposure to wildlife receptors. The methods used for each
component of this Ecological SLEA are described below and detailed further in Appendix
A.All analytical results for the Ecological SLEA field investigations are provided in
Appendix B.
3.1 Field Investigation
Offsite Terrestrial Soil, Vegetation and Insects
In July 2019, surface soils from each of the 12 Human Health SLEA EUs were sampled
using an Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM). Thirty (30) aliquots of surface soil
were collected from the top 0 to 1 foot of soil from publicly accessible sampling locations
within each EU (Figure 3-1). All aliquots were composited for each EU, resulting in 12
discrete samples analyzed for Table 3+ Compounds and Method 537 PFAS3 (Table 3-1).
The Offsite terrestrial surface soil dataset was used to quantify exposures to terrestrial
plant and soil invertebrate communities and incidental soil ingestion of terrestrial birds
and mammals.
In addition to the collection of surface soil from each EU, terrestrial plant samples were
collected as co-located aliquots of vegetation when present at a soil sampling ISM aliquot
location (Figure 3-2). Broadleaf plants with non-waxy leaves, berries or fruit within 1 to
2 feet of the ground surface seeded grasses (fescues, ryegrass, wheatgrass) were targeted
for sampling. A representative photo log is provided in Appendix C. Twelve (12) samples
of sufficient plant tissue mass were collected and analyzed for Table 3+ Compounds and
Method 537 PFAS (Table 3-2). Where sufficient mass was collected, samples were also
3 Samples collected under this effort were also analyzed for Method 537 PFAS and these data are presented along with the Table 3+ PFAS results in Appendix B. Table 3+ PFAS, including HFPO-DA, originate from air emissions and historical process water releases at the Site. Table 3+ PFAS were identified in non-targeted analytical studies conducted by Chemours and the method was developed to quantitate the presence of these PFAS. In most exposure media (terrestrial invertebrates, terrestrial and aquatic vegetation, and surface water) the Table 3+ PFAS were more frequently detected and at concentrations often an order of magnitude higher than Method 537 PFAS. The exception was the sediment and fish samples from the Cape Fear River, where Method 537 PFAS were frequently detected at elevated concentrations compared to the Table 3+ PFAS. Of the PFAS data available, the Ecological SLEA evaluated exposures to Table 3+ PFAS originating from releases at the Site to support developing Corrective Actions for these PFAS.
TR0795 16 December 2019
analyzed for percent moisture. The terrestrial plant dataset was used to quantity exposures
to terrestrial herbivores both onsite and offsite.
In addition to the collection of surface soil from each EU, terrestrial invertebrate samples
were collected as co-located aliquots of invertebrates when present at a soil sampling ISM
aliquot location (Figure 3-3). Earthworms were selected as the preferred invertebrates for
analysis due to high lipid and protein content compared to hard shelled invertebrates and
high degree of soil association. Since earthworms were not present in soil during soil
sampling activities the field team identified and sampled terrestrial insects when present
at a soil sampling aliquot location. Terrestrial invertebrates collected included primarily
grasshoppers, crickets, and dragonflies. Invertebrates were composited from all aliquots
in an EU; not all EUs resulted in the collection of an invertebrate sample of sufficient
sampling mass for analysis (Table 3-2). The collected terrestrial invertebrates along with
estimated concentrations in earthworms as discussed below were used to quantity
exposures to terrestrial invertivores offsite.
Surface Water
In July and September 2019, surface water samples were collected from the Pond
1/DERC Pond located on Site, Pond B located in the offsite EU-2 (Figure 3-4), and the
Cape Fear River (Figure 3-5). The Pond 1 samples were used to quantify exposure to
onsite terrestrial birds and mammals from drinking water intake. The Pond B samples
were used to quantify exposure to offsite terrestrial birds and mammals from drinking
water intake. There were additional Cape Fear River surface water samples that have been
collected from previous scopes of work, however only the most recent data from July
2019 were included in the Cape Fear River surface water datasets to reflect current
conditions following the interim measures taken at the Site. Additional details on surface
water sampling are included in the Human Health SLEA workplan and in Table 3-3. The
Cape Fear River dataset was used to quantify exposures to aquatic-life dependent birds
and mammals from drinking water and to quantify direct exposures to aquatic life
communities (plants, invertebrates and fish).
Onsite Soil and Biota-Soil Accumulation Factor Sampling
The invertebrate samples collected from the 12 EUs under the Human Health SLEA
program did not represent the targeted species of earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris),
which were targeted due to high protein and lipid contents and high association with soil
over their lifetime compared to other invertebrates. As an approach to estimate the
concentrations in earthworms in the offsite EUs, co-located surface soil and targeted
earthworm samples were collected from the forested area and seeps near the Site and used
to calculate soil-to-earthworm biota-soil accumulation factor (BSAFs) which are the ratio
of the concentration of Table 3+ PFAS in earthworm [microgram per kilogram (µg/kg)
TR0795 17 December 2019
wet weight (ww)] to the concentration of the same Table 3+ PFAS in soil [µg/kg dry
weight (dw)].
In September 2019, Parsons of NC (Parsons) staff collected soil and earthworm samples
from locations in the forested areas adjacent to each of Seeps A through D and near the
mouth of Willis Creek (Figure 3-6). Soil sub-samples were collected using a stainless-
steel shovel from 0 to 1-foot below ground surface (bgs) and sieved to isolate any
earthworms within the soil sample while collecting the soil beneath the sieve. For each
subsample where no earthworms were collected, the soil was discarded. If one or more
earthworms were collected in a sub-sample, that soil was retained for analysis. This
process was repeated at a sample location until sufficient earthworm tissue mass was
collected for analysis, in some locations requiring multiple composites. Additional details
are provided in Appendix A and Table 3-4. Soil and earthworm samples were analyzed
for all Table 3+ SOP compounds, Method 537 PFAS and percent moisture where
sufficient sample mass was available. Earthworms were allowed to depurate the ingested
soils from their digestive tracts for 24 hours prior to submitting to the laboratory so that
the samples represented primary earthworm tissue only rather than ingested soil and
tissue.
BSAFs were calculated with reporting limits (RLs) used to represent results below
detection limits; so if a Table 3+ PFAS was detected in earthworm tissue but not soils,
the soil RL was used to represent the concentration in soil, and similarly if a result was
detected in soil but not in earthworm tissues. If a Table 3+ PFAS was not detected in
either soil or earthworms, no BSAF was calculated. The BSAF were then applied to
measured concentrations of Table 3+ PFAS in offsite soil samples to estimate wet weight
concentrations in earthworm for the offsite EU. For the onsite terrestrial invertebrate
dataset, the empirically measured earthworm data were included in the calculation of
EPCs.
In addition to collecting co-located soil and earthworm samples, Parson staff also
collected 5-point composite soil samples from each of the Seeps A through D areas and
near the mouth of Willis Creek (Figure 3-6). Composite samples were selected to provide
better spatial coverage from the areas adjacent to seeps (i.e. not within the seep channel)
and along the Cape Fear River banks. Bank soil samples analyzed for all Table 3+ SOP
compounds and Method 537 PFAS. Additional details are provided in Appendix A and
Table 3-4. The bank soil data set was used as the onsite terrestrial surface soil dataset to
quantify exposures to terrestrial plant and soil invertebrate communities and incidental
soil ingestion of terrestrial birds and mammals foraging onsite.
TR0795 18 December 2019

Surface Sediment and Aquatic Vegetation
Characterization of Cape Fear River sediments near the Site will be completed under a
sampling program under CO paragraph 11.2. However, data were not expected to be
collected in time for inclusion in this report. Since sediment may be an important
exposure media for aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife, a smaller focused
sampling program was undertaken for this Ecological SLEA. In October 2019, Parsons
and Geosyntec staff collected 6 sediment samples from just upstream of Willis Creek to
the Old Outfall (Figure 3-5). Three-point composite sediment samples were collected
using a petite ponar sampler to collect surface sediment (0 to 4 inches) and homogenized
prior to delivery to the laboratory. At the same time, field staff collected aquatic emergent
and floating vegetation in the vicinity of the sediment samples. Samples included
duckweed (floating macrophyte) and rooted emergent vegetation along the banks. All
sediment and vegetations samples were analyzed for all Table 3+ SOP compounds and
Method 537 PFAS. Additional details are provided in Appendix A, Table 3-5 and Table
3-6. The sediment dataset was used to characterize direct exposure to benthic
invertebrates and to characterize incidental sediment ingestion by aquatic-dependent
wildlife. The aquatic vegetation dataset was used to characterize exposure to aquatic-
dependent herbivores.
Benthic Invertebrates
Benthic invertebrate sampling was undertaken to characterize exposure to invertivore
receptors. Initially in July 2019, crayfish/crawfish samples were targeted by placing
baited crawfish traps along the Cape Fear River adjacent to the Site, however sampling
was not successful; no crawfish were collected after multiple attempts. During fish
sampling in September 2019, a few sediment samples were collected with a petite ponar
sampler and sieved to evaluate the effectiveness of collecting benthic invertebrates using
this approach but was not highly successful as few invertebrates were typically returned
in the grab sample. Based on observations of field staff, it was determined that a targeted
collection of a highly common species would best allow the collection of sufficient
sample mass in the timeframe required for inclusion in this report. Asian clams
(Corbicula fluminea), a common invasive species in the region, were identified as being
highly abundant in sandy areas along the banks of the Cape Fear River adjacent to the
Site. Additionally, it is likely that wildlife invertivores are consuming the commonly
occurring invertebrates; therefore, targeted Asian clams were determined as an
appropriate exposure metric and deemed likely to be a successful sampling strategy. In
October 2019, Parsons and Geosyntec staff collected three discrete samples of Asian
clams from the Cape Fear River (Figure 3-7). Samples were collected by loosening the
clams from the sediment bed and collecting using a net; clams were sampled from
TR0795 19 December 2019
relatively shallow water near banks. Clam samples were submitted as whole body (in
shell) for processing at the laboratory. At the lab, soft body tissues were removed from
shells, homogenized and analyzed for Table 3+ SOP and Method 537 PFAS. Additional
details are provided in Appendix A and Table 3-6.
In addition to the targeted Asian clam sample, mixed benthic invertebrates were collected
for a composite sample as they were encountered in the field. Invertebrates other than
clams that were collected in nets during Asian clam collections, and invertebrates
collected in ponar samples near sediment sampling locations were compiled. One sample
of mixed invertebrates, consisting primarily of a leech, dragonfly larvae and other insect
larvae was collected and composited. These invertebrates were primarily collected from
shallow areas near banks during clam sampling. During the ponar sampling, the primary
invertebrate collected were additional Asian clam samples. These samples reflect much
deeper surface water depths and were a wider spatial composite than the target clam
samples, and so were submitted to the laboratory to better understand spatial and vertical
variability in the data.
The Asian clam and mixed benthic invertebrate samples comprise the benthic invertebrate
dataset and were used to characterize exposure to aquatic-dependent avian and mammal
invertivores.
Fish Tissue
From July through September 2019, two fish sampling events were undertaken by
Parsons and Geosyntec staff. The majority of fish sampling was to support the Human
Health SLEA and therefore all fish samples were processed at the laboratory for analysis
of skin-off fillet tissues only. Catfish (both channel and black) and largemouth bass were
targeted for sampling using rod-and-reel fishing under this scope of work from locations
in the Cape Fear River both upstream, adjacent and downstream of the Site and nearby
fish-bearing ponds (Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-4, respectively). Samples were collected
from the Cape Fear River adjacent to the Site and downstream to Bladen Bluffs. The
downstream samples are outside of the Ecological Aquatic EU and were not included in
EPC calculations. Additional details can be found in the Human Health SLEA work plan
(Geosyntec, 2019c).
As wildlife piscivores typically consume whole body fish, the use of fillet data may not
accurately estimate exposure to this group of receptors since internal organs may
accumulate PFAS differently than muscle (fillet) tissue (Conder et al., 2008). To better
utilize the Site-adjacent data collected under the Human Health SLEA, the laboratory also
weighed and analyzed the non-fillet carcass material (bones, organs, skin, blood) from
select samples. From the paired fillet and carcass samples, the whole-body concentrations
TR0795 20 December 2019
were estimated as the weighted average of fillet and carcass results. From the estimated
whole-body concentrations and measured fillet results, whole-body to fillet ratios were
calculated for all detected concentrations of Table 3+ PFAS. The whole-body to fillet
ratios were calculated for catfish and largemouth bass separately and applied on a species-
specific basis to the remaining measured fillet results to estimate whole-body
concentrations for those fish samples.
As the use of the whole-body to fillet ratios and the larger size of the fish sampled for the
Human Health SLEA adds uncertainty to the exposure estimates, a small whole-body
targeted fish sampling effort was also undertaken. Smaller whole-body fish were selected
as this is more representative of wildlife fish consumption. In September 2019, nine
samples of either single fish or single-species composites were collected from the Cape
Fear River adjacent to the Site (Figure 3-7). Fish were collected using electrofishing,
targeting fish of less than approximately 6 inches to represent a fish size class than can
be consumed whole-body by avian and mammal piscivores. Samples of redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), young-of-year largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), American
eel (Anguilla rostrate), dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae) and comely shiner (Notropis
amoenus) were collected. Where needed, single species composite samples were
collected for sufficient sampling mass. Additional details on fish tissue samples are
provided in Table 3-7. Most samples were collected from the Cape Fear River adjacent
to the Site, with one whole body sample collected downstream to provide a measure of
spatial variability.
All fish samples from within the Cape Fear River aquatic EU comprise the fish tissue
dataset and were used to characterize exposure to avian and mammal piscivores. As noted
above, some fish tissue samples were collected downstream of the Cape Fear River EU
for the Human Health SLEA. These samples were not included in the calculation of EPCs
but are discussed here qualitatively to evaluate spatial variability.
3.2 Calculation of EPCs
An EPC is an estimate of a constituent in a medium within some specified exposure point
and are applied to quantify exposures to specific receptors under specific conditions or
assumptions. EPCs for each detected Table 3+ PFAS in a given media were calculated
for use in the Ecological SLEA. Consistent with SLERA guidance, EPCs were selected
to be conservative estimates of exposure.
EPCs were calculated for each EU on a media specific basis including: onsite and offsite
terrestrial surface soil, Cape Fear River sediment, onsite and offsite surface water,
TR0795 21 December 2019
terrestrial 4 and aquatic vegetation, offsite terrestrial invertebrates, onsite and offsite
earthworms both as measured and estimated using BSAFs and surface soil EPCs, Asian
clams and benthic invertebrates, and for each fish species with Comely and Dusky shiners
combined. All primary and field duplicate samples were averaged prior to calculation of
EPCs.
Where a media specific dataset included greater than eight samples with at least four
detected results, EPCs were calculated by selecting the lower of the 95% Upper
Confidence Limit (95UCL) on the mean or the maximum detected concentration. In cases
where the number of samples was less than eight, the maximum detected concentration
was used. 95UCLs were calculated using USEPA’s ProUCL statistical software package
(version 5.1; USEPA, 2015). ProUCL outputs are provided in Appendix D. For the
estimation of intakes for invertivores and piscivores where multiple species-specific EPC
were available (i.e. terrestrial empirical results for insects vs estimated in earthworms;
different fish species EPCs) the highest species-specific EPC was selected to represent
exposure. Additionally, if a Table 3+ PFAS was detected in some media within an EU
but was non-detected above RLs in other media in the same EU, the RLs were used to
represent the EPC. These approaches are highly conservative and likely to result in
estimates of the highest potential exposures, but a high level of conservatism at this stage
is consistent with SLERA approaches.
3.3 Receptor Identification
Representative terrestrial and aquatic-life dependent avian and mammalian receptors for
the quantitative evaluation of ecological risks at the Site were selected in consideration
of the CSM, as presented below. All relevant exposure factors for wildlife receptors are
provided in Table 3-8 for all terrestrial wildlife and in Table 3-9 for all aquatic-dependent
wildlife. Selected representative terrestrial receptors are described below:
Bobwhite Quail
The bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) is a small quail with striped and speckled black,
brown, and white plumage. Bobwhite quails can be found in fields, rangelands and open
forests in southeastern North American but have experienced a sharp population decline
in the past half-century. They eat mainly seeds and leaves as well as insects during
breeding season. For the purposes of this SLEA, the Bobwhite quail was assumed to
consume 100% plants.
4 As onsite vegetation was not specifically sampled, the maximum of terrestrial or aquatic vegetation was
used to represent the onsite vegetation as a conservative approach.
TR0795 22 December 2019

Woodcock
The woodcock (Scolopax minor) is a small, plump bird with a brown-mottled plumage,
short legs and a long, straight bill. Woodcocks are found in forests and shrubby old fields
across eastern North America. Their long bill is used for probing earthworms and other
invertebrates (snails, millipedes, spiders, beetles etc.) in the soil. For the purposes of this
SLEA, the Woodcock was assumed to consume 100% terrestrial invertebrates.
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
The eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) is the most common cottontail that is
prolific from Canada to South America and throughout the United States. Cottontails are
small mammals with a distinct “cotton ball” tail and have a reddish brown to gray
coloring. They can commonly be found in fields, meadows and farms but are adaptable
to other habitats. The eastern cottontail consumes grasses and herbs and are known to
browse on garden vegetables (peas, lettuce etc.). For the purposes of this SLEA, the
Cottontail rabbit was assumed to consume 100% plants.
Southern Short-tailed Shrew
The southern Short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis) is a small, dark gray to sooty black
shrew with short legs and a long, pointed snout. It is found in the southeastern United
States in pine forests, meadows and even in wet, swampy areas. The shrews are social
animals that live in burrow systems beneath the soil. Their diet consists of a variety of
invertebrates including insects, annelids, snails, centipedes and spiders. For the purposes
of this SLEA, the Short-tailed shrew was assumed to consume 100% terrestrial
invertebrates.
Selected representative aquatic-life dependent receptors are described below:
Wood Duck
The wood duck (Aix sponsa) is an ornate patterned waterfowl with iridescent brown and
green patterns on each feather. They have an oblong shaped head, a bright belly and dark
underwings and chest. They are a common duck in North America and can be found in
wooded swamps, on the edges of streams, in overgrown beaver ponds or freshwater
marshes. Wood ducks eat seeds, fruits, and insects, and while their diet can vary greatly,
studies indicate plant materials comprise at least 80% of their diet (Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, 2019). For the purposes of this SLEA, the wood duck was assumed to
consume 100% plants, however as noted below may reflect a mixed diet similar to a
Mallard.
TR0795 23 December 2019

Mallard Duck
The mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) is a large duck with a flat bill and a rounded head.
They are one of the most common ducks found in wetland habitats in North America.
Mallards feed primarily on aquatic insects, earthworms, snails, and vegetation. While
they do not dive for their food, they are known to dabble for their food by tipping their
beak forward in the water. The mallard duck is expected to be a common bird in the Cape
Fear River watershed. Both the mallard duck and Wood duck have similar dietary habits
reflecting a mixed diet of plants and invertebrates. For the purposes of this SLEA, the
Wood duck was assumed to consume 100% plants and the Mallard duck was assumed to
consume 100% invertebrates.
Great Blue Heron
The great blue heron (Ardea herodias) is the largest North American heron with
characteristically long legs, a long, narrow neck, and a large pointed beak. Great blue
herons have blue-gray plumage with a black stripe over the eye. They live in freshwater
habitats and forage for their food including fish, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals,
and insects. For the purposes of this SLEA, the Great Blue heron was assumed to consume
100% fish. Although it does consume some invertebrates, avian invertivores were
represented by the Mallard duck.
Muskrat
The muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) is a large dark brown aquatic mammal with a flat, scaly
tail and large feet that are slightly webbed. They are found in ponds, swamps, marshes,
wetlands and other wet environments throughout North America. Muskrats mainly eat
green vegetation (~95% of diet) but can also eat small aquatic mammals (frogs, fish,
crayfish, etc.). For the purposes of this SLEA, the Muskrat was assumed to consume
100% plants.
Mink
The mink (Neovison vison) is a long and slender, dark-colored mammal. They prefer
forested areas that are close to water and are common in all states except for Arizona.
Mink have a varied diet and are opportunistic feeders. They are known to eat fish and
other terrestrial vertebrates (small mammals) when available. For the purposes of this
SLEA, the Mink was assumed to consume 100% benthic invertebrates.
River Otter
The river otter (Lontra canadensis) is a semi-aquatic mammal with short legs, long bodies
and a thick tail. They are dark brown to black and have a wide, round head and webbed
feet. River otters build dens in aquatic habitats including freshwater and coastal areas,
TR0795 24 December 2019
rivers, lakes, marshes, swamps and estuaries. The limiting factor for river otters is a
permanent food supply of aquatic organisms (amphibians, fish, turtles, crayfish etc.) and
occasionally small terrestrial mammals. They can be found throughout Canada and most
parts of the United States and are adaptable to various climates (cold, warm, high
elevations) but are sensitive to pollution. For the purposes of this SLEA, the river otter
was assumed to consume 100% fish.
3.4 Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment is the process of measuring or estimating the intensity, frequency,
and duration of ecological exposure to a chemical in the environment. This section
describes the mechanisms by which these receptors might potentially come in contact
with PFAS in environmental media, and the methods for quantifying the degree of contact
between potential representative receptors and Table 3+ PFAS.
3.4.1 Direct Exposures
Directly exposed communities include terrestrial plants and invertebrates exposed to
Table 3+ PFAS in soil; benthic invertebrates directly exposed to Table 3+ PFAS in
sediment; and aquatic life (pelagic plants, invertebrates and fish) directly exposed to
Table 3+ PFAS in surface water. The media-specific EPCs for terrestrial onsite and
offsite soils, Cape Fear River sediment and Cape Fear River surface water were used to
evaluate relative exposures for these receptors. EPCs for each detected PFAS in a given
media were calculated for use in the Ecological SLEA as discussed in Section 3.2. For
HFPO-DA, the media-specific EPCs were compared to the media-specific TRV discussed
in Section 3.5.
3.4.2 Calculation of Receptor Intakes
For this Ecological SLEA, Site-specific doses for all Table 3+ PFAS were calculated for
all terrestrial and aquatic-dependent wildlife receptors (birds and mammals). Ingested
doses are presented in daily dose rates per unit of body weight [milligram per kilogram
per day (mg/kg-day)] and referred to as total daily intake (TDI). Terrestrial wildlife was
assumed to be exposed to Table 3+ PFAS via incidental ingestion of soil during foraging,
consumption of surface water and consumption of food/prey items that have accumulated
Table 3+ PFAS. Aquatic wildlife receptors were assumed to be exposed to Table 3+
PFAS via incidental ingestion of sediment, consumption of surface water and
consumption of food/prey items that have accumulated Table 3+ PFAS. The estimated
TDI for each receptor was calculated using generic dose formulas from the Wildlife
Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 1993), as well as receptor-specific exposure factors
TR0795 25 December 2019
as provided in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9, and represents the sum of intake from diet, soil
and surface water: Total Daily Intake �TDI;mgkg−day�= TDI𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑+ TDI𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠+TDI𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑 𝑤𝑤𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠
TDI from diet items, soil and surface water are calculated from the concentrations of
Table 3+ PFAS in diet items, soil, and surface water, the proportion of each diet item in
the overall diet, the daily ingestion rates of these media, receptor body weights and the
area use factor which characterize the frequency that a receptors is expected to forage
from potentially impacted areas of the Site. For each, TDI is estimated as: TDI𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑= (∑(𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸) 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵TDI𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠= (∑(𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑑𝑤𝑤 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸) 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵TDI𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑤= (∑(𝐷𝐷𝐵𝐵𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑤) 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
TDIdiet = Total daily dietary intake (mg/kg-day)
TDIsoil = Total daily soil intake (mg/kg-day)
FIRww = Daily food ingestion rate (kg wet weight/day)
FIRdw = Daily food ingestion rate (kg dry weight/day)
DWI = Daily water ingestion rate (L/day)
EPCsoil = Exposure Point Concentration in soil (mg/kg dry weight)
EPCdiet = Exposure Point Concentration in diet items (mg/kg ww)
EPCsw = Exposure Point Concentration in surface water (mg/L)
P = Proportion of diet composed of the individual food source
AUF = Area use factor (fraction of time spent foraging at the Site)
BW = Body weight (kg)
Bioavailability of all Table 3+ PFAS were assumed to be 100%. As concentrations of
Table 3+ PFAS in soil and sediments were reported by the laboratory in dry weight, the
dry matter ingestion rates based on allometric equations in Nagy et al. (2001) were
applied for estimating TDIsoil. Tissue data (fish, plant and invertebrates) were reported by
the lab on a ww basis and so the wet or fresh matter ingestion rates based on allometric
equations in Nagy et al. (2001) were applied for estimating TDIdiet. Ingestion rates,
assumed diet items, body weights and home ranges are provided in Table 3-8 for all
terrestrial wildlife receptors and in Table 3-9 for all aquatic-dependent wildlife receptors.
TR0795 26 December 2019

3.5 Hazard Assessment for HFPO-DA
Typically for a SLERA, a conservative Toxicity Reference Value (TRV) for each receptor
would be selected for calculating receptor specific hazard quotients following the
estimation of exposures. Outside of HFPO-DA there are no TRVs for Table 3+ PFAS.
These compounds are byproducts of the manufacturing process rather than products
which are registered substances and consequently there are no available toxicity (hazard)
information for these PFAS. Though a limited number of toxicity tests have been
completed, the toxicity testing that has been performed on HFPO-DA is sufficient to
evaluate the potential hazard to the environment.
For the HFPO-DA assessment, the estimated exposures (as direct exposure or estimated
TDI from the exposure models) were compared to TRVs to calculate a Hazard Quotient
(HQ) as: HQ = Exposure (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑘𝑘𝑚𝑚,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐿𝐿 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑘𝑘𝑚𝑚−𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑)TRV (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑘𝑘𝑚𝑚,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑘𝑘𝑚𝑚−𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑)
A critical component of HQ calculation is the selection of a TRV that represents
appropriate receptors and endpoints (growth, reproduction or development). The
ecotoxicity of HFPO-DA and TRVs selected for HFPO-DA are described briefly below
and provided in Table 3-10.
Toxicity to Soil Plant and Invertebrate Communities
The TRV selected for the evaluation of hazards to soil plant and invertebrate communities
is the Probable No Effects Concentration (PNEC) of 0.066 mg/kg dw as reported in
ECHA (2019). This PNEC was calculated using an equilibrium partitioning approach
where a toxicity value based on exposure in water is converted to a soil or sediment basis.
For the soil PNEC reported by ECHA (2019), the PNEC aqua-freshwater was converted
using a KOC of 12 L/kg (log KOC of 1.08), and the appropriate equations from the REACH
Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment: Part B, Hazard
Assessment, and a correction factor of 1.13 for conversion to dry weight. As the value
was based on aquatic species, there is higher uncertainty related to the applicability of
this value to terrestrial invertebrate and plant communities.
Toxicity to Sediment Benthic Invertebrate Communities
The TRV selected for evaluation of hazards to benthic invertebrate communities is the
PNEC of 0.518 mg/kg dw as reported in ECHA (2019). Similar to above, the PNEC value
was calculated using the equilibrium partitioning approach with a KOC of 12 L/kg (log
KOC of 1.08), the PNEC aqua-freshwater, the appropriate equations from the REACH
TR0795 27 December 2019
Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment: Part B, Hazard
Assessment, p. 45, and a correction factor of 4.6 for conversion to dry weight. As this
value was based on aquatic species but not specifically sediment associated benthic
invertebrates, there is some uncertainty regarding the application of this value to evaluate
hazards to benthic invertebrates.
Toxicity to Aquatic Plants
The TRV selected for evaluation of hazards to aquatic plants is the no effect concentration
(NOEC) for algae reported in ECHA (2019) of 106 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The basis
for this NOEC is an acute 72-hour freshwater toxicity test with algae. Both growth rate
and cell count were measured over 72 hours of exposure with no adverse effects at 106
mg/L.
Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Pelagic Invertebrates and Fish)
The aquatic toxicity of HFPO-DA has been the most well studied exposure route. Both
acute and chronic toxicity tests on aquatic invertebrates and fish have been performed
under the ECHA Chemical Registration process, as summarized in Hoke et al. (2016),
and ECHA (2019).
Acute to toxicity to aquatic life was evaluated using acute toxicity tests for rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), rare gudgeon (Gobiocypris
rarus), a freshwater invertebrate (Daphnia magna), and a freshwater green alga,
(Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata). Chronic toxicity tests include a 21-day reproductive
test with Daphnia magna, and a 90-day early life stage test with Rainbow trout. All tests
were performed according to Good Laboratory Practices and in conformance with
appropriate OECD test guidelines (Hoke et al. 2016). Acute LC50 or EC50 values were
all greater than 96 mg/L. The 90-day early life stage test resulted in NOEC of 1.08 mg/L
based on statistically decreased hatching time. However, as noted in Hoke et al. (2016),
the empirical data indicated that the change in last hatching day in the highest tested
exposure group was only a single day less than controls, which is not considered an
ecologically significant endpoint. As no other effects were observed in the highest test
group, the unbounded NOEC was 8.89 mg/L. ECHA (2019) applied a 10X uncertainty
factor to the statistical NOEC of 1.08 mg/L to derive the reported PNEC of 0.108 mg/L
(ECHA, 2019). This Ecological SLEA applied the same 10X UF to the ecologically
relevant NOEC of 8.89 mg/L to develop a TRV of 0.889 mg/L for the calculation of
hazard quotients . In addition, surface water EPC were compared to the more conservative
PNEC of 0.108 mg/L as an additional line of evidence.
TR0795 28 December 2019

Toxicity to Birds
The TRV for avians is 84.5 mg/kg-day and is based on a chronic reproduction test on
Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) as reported in ECHA (2019). Adult
Bobwhite quail were fed HFPO-DA via spiked food in both a range finding and definitive
test. In the range finding test, Bobwhite quail were exposed to HFPO-DA via the diet at
nominal concentrations of 0, 100, and 1000 mg/kg for 6-weeks. No treatment related
effects on reproduction were observed at the 0 and 100 mg/kg exposure doses. Slight but
statistically significant reductions in viability of embryos and in numbers of hatchlings
and 14-day old survivors were observed in the 1,000 mg/kg exposure group. The ranging
finding test NOEC was 100 mg/kg and the test LOEC was 1,000 mg/kg.
In the definitive test, Bobwhite quail were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0, 100,
500, and 1,000 mg/kg in feed over 20 weeks. In this test, no adverse effects on growth or
reproductive endpoints were observed in any exposure group. Evaluated endpoints
included body weight, food consumption, eggs laid, viable embryos, hatching success,
14-day old survivorship and offspring weight; see ECHA (2019) for a complete list of
evaluated parameters. No differences in endpoints were observed among the dose levels.
The test resulted in an unbounded NOEC of 1,000 mg/kg, equivalent to a no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 84.5 mg/kg-day (ECHA, 2019). The definitive test
NOAEL was selected as the TRV over the range finding test NOEC due to the longer
exposure duration.
Toxicity to Mammals
For mammals, the chronic toxicity studies summarized in EPA (2019) and other literature
were evaluated to identify studies with appropriate endpoints for evaluation ecological
hazards focusing on growth, development and reproductive endpoints. These endpoints
are typically included in TRVs as these can be more directly associated with ecologically
meaningful adverse effects at the population level. Therefore, many of the reported
results in EPA (2019) were not appropriate for use as wildlife TRVs due to sub-organism
or subcellular endpoints.
Two chronic reproductive and development studies were performed in 2010 by DuPont
and are summarized in EPA (2019). From the first study, a NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg/day
was reported based on decreased F1 generation pup weights in mice at the next highest
dose (LOAEL, 5 mg/kg/day). In the second study, a NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day was
reported based on early delivery and decreased fetal weights in rats at the next highest
dose (LOAEL, 100 mg/kg/day). Consistent with EPA recommendations on wildlife
TRVs (USEPA, 2005), the highest NOAEL below the lowest reported LOAEL was
selected as the TRV – 0.5 mg/kg/day.
TR0795 29 December 2019

4 ECOLOGICAL SLEA RESULTS
4.1 Data Analysis and QA/QC
All 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, manual reviews of
the data were 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 Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical
Data for Superfund Use (USEPA, 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 RPDbetween these spikes;
•Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses; and
•RPD between field duplicate sample pairs.
All results of the Ecological SLEA sampling are provided in Appendix B. Results are
presented with all validator flags. Some results were rejected following data validation
due to very poor matrix spike recoveries. All rejected results were reported as non-
detected results and included results for Byproduct 4, Byproduct 5, PFECA-G,
FPMOAA, PFO4DA and R-EVE in in various on and offsite media. Laboratory reports
and data validation summaries are provided in Appendix E.
Under the scope of the Ecological SLEA, samples of soil, surface water sediment, insects,
earthworms, and fish tissue were collected. As is typically the case with tissue sampling,
some samples consisted of lower tissue mass resulting in some cases where only a single
analysis of Table 3+ SOP compounds was performed (i.e. MS/DUP samples that are run
per the SOP could not be run). RPDs for SLEA samples for which duplicate analysis were
performed were all within 50%, with the exception of one RPD of 57%, indicating that
the reproducibility of the sample analysis is very good. Matrix spike recoveries for SLEA
samples for which matrix spikes were performed showed 33% of the spike recoveries
TR0795 30 December 2019
were outside laboratory control limits, indicating that there may be some effect of the
SLEA matrices on the analytical results.
4.2 Empirical Data Trends
4.2.1 Detection Frequencies of Table 3+ PFAS in Media
Terrestrial Exposure Units
In soil samples collected onsite near seep areas the following Table 3+ PFAS were
detected, including:
•HFPO-DA,
•PFMOAA,
•Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid (PFO2HxA),
•Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid (PFO3OA),
•Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid (PFO4DA),
•Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid (PFO5DA),
•Perfluoro-2-(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid (PMPA),
•2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid (PEPA),
•Perfluoro-3,6-dioxa-4-methyl-7-octene-1-sulfonic acid (PFESA-BP1),
•Perfluoro-2-{[perfluoro-3-(perfluoroethoxy)-2-propanyl]oxy}ethanesulfonic
acid (PFESA-BP2),
•Byproduct 4,
•Sodium 1,1,2,2-Teatrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane-1-sulfonate
(NVHOS), and,
•Hydro-EVE Acid.
Meanwhile, Byproduct 5, Byproduct 6, EVE Acid, R-EVE, Perfluoro(2-
ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid (PES), Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid (PFECA B) and
(Perfluoro-4-isoproproxybutanoic acid) PFECA-G were not detected in onsite soil
samples. Detection frequencies ranged from 9% to 100% and are provided along with
summary statistics in Table 4-1. HFPO-DA, PFMOAA and PFO2HxA were the most
frequently detected. As discussed in Geosyntec (2019b), Table 3+ PFAS profiles of
combined process water and other process waters sources tend to reflect PFMOAA and a
TR0795 31 December 2019
mix of other Table 3+ PFAS, where air emissions tend to reflect PMPA, HFPO-DA and
PFO2HxA primarily. Onsite soil samples from the seep areas appear to reflect process
water sources consistent with the current CSM. The detection frequencies of each Table
3+ PFAS in the evaluated onsite media are provided in Figure 4-1. Data from the onsite
seeps were included in this figure to provide information regarding detection profiles but
was not considered an exposure media for wildlife.
A higher frequency of detections was observed for onsite soil samples compared to offsite
soil samples (Figure 4-2). In soil samples collected via ISM from each Human Health
SLEA EU, only HFPO-DA and PFO2HxA were detected (Table 4-2). The detection of
only HFPO-DA and PFO2HxA in surface soils supports air emissions as the primary
source of Table 3+ PFAS to this EU, however this is complicated by the varying
sensitivities of Table 3+ SOP methods between Table 3+ PFAS and between solid and
liquid media; it is possible additional Table 3+ PFAS are present in soil below RLs for
soil but may be detectable in other media (groundwater, plants) within the same EU.
Surface water samples collected from both onsite (Pond 1 or DERC pond) and offsite
(Pond B) resulted in a very similar set of detected Table 3+ PFAS (Figure 4-1 and Figure
4-2). HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, PFO2HxA, PFO3OA, PFO4DA, PFO5DA, PMPA, PEPA,
PFESA-BP2, Byproduct 4, NVHOS, Hydro-EVE Acid, and R-EVE were detected in
onsite pond surface water samples at detection frequencies of 100% (Table 4-3). These
same PFAS, with the exceptions of NVHOS and Hydro-EVE Acid were detected in
offsite Pond B with detection frequencies ranging from 66% to 100% (Table 4-4).
In vegetation samples collected from the offsite areas using an ISM approach, more Table
3+ PFAS were detected than were detected in the soil samples also collected from the
EUs (Figure 4-2). HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, PFO2HxA, PFO3OA, PFO4DA, PMPA,
PEPA, Byproduct 4, Byproduct 5, NVHOS, R-EVE, PES, PFECA B were detected at
detection frequencies ranging from 8% to 100% (Table 4-5). PMPA was the most
frequently detected compound, followed by HFPO-DA and PFO2HxA, which is
consistent with the expected profile of Table 3+ PFAS with air emissions as the primary
source (Geosyntec, 2019b).
Insect samples (primarily grasshoppers and crickets) collected from the offsite EUs
resulted in a detection profile more similar to the terrestrial vegetation samples compared
to offsite soil samples (Figure 4-2). HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, PMPA, PEPA, PFESA-BP1,
Byproduct 4, and R-EVE were detected in offsite insect samples with detection
frequencies ranging from 9% to 27% (Table 4-6). PMPA was the most frequently detected
compound, followed by HFPO-DA, which is consistent with the expected profile of Table
3+ PFAS with air emissions as the primary source (Geosyntec, 2019b).
TR0795 32 December 2019
Onsite earthworm samples collected from near the seep areas of the Site resulted higher
detection frequencies for more Table 3+ PFAS than in the offsite insect samples (Table
4-7). These results are consistent with the expectation that offsite invertebrates were
primarily exposed via air deposition, whereas the onsite earthworm samples near the
onsite groundwater seeps were more likely exposed higher concentrations of PFAS
originating from historic process water releases. The detection profile in earthworms
showed a high degree of similarity to the detection profile to seep groundwater samples,
more so than to surface soil samples, indicating the seep groundwater is potentially the
primary exposure media for invertebrates in this area (Figure 4-1). Based on detection
frequencies in earthworm samples, the predominant Table 3+ PFAS include HFPO-DA,
PFO3OA, PFO5DA. PEPA, PFESA-BP2, Byproduct 4, and R-EVE indicating a process
water source (Geosyntec, 2019b).
Byproduct 6, EVE Acid, Hydro EVE Acid and PFECA-G were not detected in any offsite
media and therefore were not included in the quantification of exposures. Similarly,
Byproduct 6, EVE Acid and PFECA-G were not detected in onsite media and were
therefore not included in the quantification of exposures for onsite receptors.
Aquatic Exposure Unit
The detection frequencies of each Table 3+ PFAS in the evaluated aquatic media are
provided in Figure 4-3. Only HFPO-DA was detected in one surface sediment sample
from the Cape Fear River in the Site-adjacent area evaluated (Table 4-8). No other Table
3+ PFAS were detected. The sampling program included in the Ecological SLEA was a
focused sampling event to provide input data to evaluate exposures. A surface sediment
sampling program for a larger extent of the Cape Fear River has been developed as per
the Sediment Characterization Plan (Geosyntec, 2019d). DEQ provided comments on
the plan on November 20, 2019 and at the time of writing Chemours was in the process
of responding to DEQ’s comments. This sampling scope of work is expected to provide
a more extensive dataset.
The results from sediment samples collected immediately upstream, adjacent and
downstream of the Site indicate that Table 3+ PFAS are not accumulating in sediment
above detectable concentrations. Considering the low log Koc values for the Table 3+
PFAS and the sensitivities of analytical methods for soils/sediment compared to water,
there is some uncertainty if Table 3+ PFAS may be present in the sediment porewater at
detectable concentrations while concentrations are below RLs in bulk sediment. The
detection frequencies of each Table 3+ PFAS in the evaluated aquatic media are provided
in Figure 4-3.
TR0795 33 December 2019
In the Cape Fear River surface water samples, HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, PFO2HxA,
PFO3OA, PFO4DA, PMPA, Byproduct 4, Byproduct 5, NVHOS, and R-EVE were
detected with detection frequencies ranging from 11% to 100% (Table 4-9). A similar
detection profile was observed in aquatic plants (Figure 4-3). HFPO-DA, PFMOAA,
PFO2HxA, PFO3OA, PFO4DA, PFO5DA, PMPA, PEPA, Byproduct 4, NVHOS, and
R-EVE detected in aquatic vegetation at detection frequencies ranging from 16% to 66%
(Table 4-10).
Notably, no Table 3+ PFAS were detected in Asian clams or the mixed benthic
invertebrate sample. Asian clams do not appear to accumulate Table 3+ PFAS to an
appreciable extent. Asian clams were sampled as their high abundance resulted in a likely
to be consumed invertebrate and efficient sampling program. Benthic invertebrates more
closely associated with sediment porewater than Asian clams were not sampled due to
the relative limited availability of these species in the sampling area. Species with a closer
porewater association are in general associated with greater bioaccumulation of sediment
associated chemicals.
In largemouth bass and catfish fillet samples from within the Aquatic EU, PFO4DA and
PMPA were detected at detection frequencies ranging from 33% to 50% (Figure 4-3).
However, additional Table 3+ PFAS were detected in largemouth bass, bluegill sunfish,
catfish and red-breasted sunfish fillet samples from further downstream (CFR-09, MM-
68 and Bladen bluffs) including HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, PFO5DA and R-EVE. Most
Table 3+ PFAS detected in fillet samples (PFMOAA, PFO4DA, PFO5DA, PMPA,
Byproduct 4 and R-EVE) along with PFESA-BP2 and NVHOS were detected in whole-
body fish and fish carcass samples as well (Figure 4-3; Table 4-11).
Table 3+ compounds PFESA-BP1, PFESA-BP2, Byproduct 6, EVE Acid, Hydro EVE
Acid, PES, PFECA-B and PFECA-G were not detected in any aquatic media and
therefore were not included in the quantification of exposures for this EU.
4.2.2 Spatial Patterns of Table 3+ PFAS in Media
Terrestrial EUs
In offsite surface soil samples, the limited detections of HFPO-DA and PFO2HxA
occurred in EU-1, EU-3, and EU-5, which are the EUs closest to the Site and in the
predominant wind direction. As discussed above, the detections of HFPO-DA and
PFO2HxA support air emissions as the primary source, though typically PMPA is
expected to be detected in air emission sourced PFAS; PMPA was not detected here, is
more mobile in the subsurface than HFPO-DA and PFO2HxA and so the lack of detection
may reflect this higher mobility.
TR0795 34 December 2019
Offsite vegetation samples showed a similar pattern, with the most detected Table 3+
PFAS in EU-1. Detections in plants were much more frequent than in soil. Generally
higher concentrations of the sum of all Table 3+ PFAS were observed in EU-2 and EU-
11 (Figure 4-4). This was generally expected for EU-2 given proximity to the Site.
Notably elevated concentrations of NVHOS and PMPA were observed at EU-11 and of
HFPO-DA at EU-12. Given that the available soil and groundwater data in these EUs do
not indicate relatively elevated concentrations of HFPO-DA, no clear mechanism for this
pattern is evident.
In addition to a higher detection frequency for Table 3+ PFAS, the concentrations
detected in onsite soils were typically at least an order of magnitude higher. The
maximum concentration of HFPO-DA in offsite soils was 2,600 nanogram per kilogram
(ng/kg) but was detected up to 29,500 ng/kg in onsite surface soil samples. PFO2HxA
was detected as high as 2,300 ng/kg in offsite soils, but as high as 47,000 ng/kg in onsite
soils. While other Table 3+ PFAS were not detected above RLs in offsite soil samples,
Table 3+ PFAS in onsite soils ranged as high as 150,000 ng/kg for PFMOAA. The onsite
surface soil samples were the only surface soil data with the full Table 3+ PFAS data set
available and the limited scope did not enable and assessment of spatial trends. However,
based on the results of onsite subsurface soil samples (Geosyntec, 2019b), the combined
data suggest that concentrations of HFPO-DA may be elevated near historical process
water release locations and along the eastern edge of the Site where observed groundwater
seeps containing PFAS from historical process water releases. Concentrations in
subsurface are typically lower on the southwestern edge of the Site, though surface data
are lacking for this area.
Aquatic EUs
The focus of the aquatic EU area is the Cape Fear River from north of the Site at Willis
Creek south to approximately Georgia Branch Creek. The concentrations of total
Table3+ PFAS were generally highest in soils and aquatic vegetation from near the onsite
seep areas, with lower concentrations in media sampled below the dam (Figure 4-5). In
sediment samples collected from this area, limited detections did not enable an
assessment of spatial patterns. In aquatic vegetation samples, Total Table 3+ PFAS were
highest in the Site adjacent area and decreased in samples below the dam. Concentrations
of Table 3+ PFAS in aquatic vegetation were in the same order of magnitude as terrestrial
plant samples, with the exceptions of PFMOAA, PFO2HxA, and PEPA which were
typically an order of magnitude higher in aquatic samples.
In whole-body fish samples collected from the Aquatic EU, no clear spatial patterns were
observed which is consistent with the expectation that many fish will forage throughout
the Aquatic EU rather than spatially distinct areas. When evaluated along with
TR0795 35 December 2019
downstream fillet samples collected at Bladen Bluffs and CFR-09 and upstream at River
Mile 68, concentrations of Table 3+ PFAS were generally on the same order of magnitude
as samples collected from areas adjacent to the Site, with no clear decrease in
concentrations. HFPO-DA was detected in 3 of 6 largemouth bass samples from these
downstream locations but was not detected in samples from closer to the Site. Samples
of other species from Bladen Bluffs did not result in detectable HFPO-DA. PFO4DA
was also detected at an order of magnitude higher in a Bluegill sunfish sample from
Bladen Bluffs compared to Site-adjacent samples.
4.2.3 Bioaccumulation Potential of Table 3+ PFAS
The bioaccumulation potential of a compound is of particular interest when considering
ecological exposures. Compounds that are non-metabolizable and have high
accumulation potential result in elevated exposures to upper trophic level organisms,
many of which are important species for ecological function. Metabolizable compounds
are typically removed by organisms at a rate that prevents this accumulation in the
absence of on-going exposures. HFPO-DA is expected to be metabolized and have a low
bioaccumulation potential based on results of bioconcentrations tests with fish
(DuPont,2009b; Hoke et al., 2016; Goodband, 2019, Pan et al., 2017), and is expected to
be metabolizable in mammals based on the lack of detections in human blood serum of
exposed populations (Kotlarz et al, 2019; NC State University, 2018).
As part of the estimation of TDI in each EU, Site-specific Soil to Terrestrial Invertebrate
Bioaccumulation Factors (BSAF) and fillet to whole body ratios for fish were calculated
to expand the utility of these datasets, and can provide some indication of
bioaccumulation of Table 3+ PFAS in these media.
Soil to Terrestrial Invertebrate Bioaccumulation
The paired soil and earthworm samples are a useful indicator of terrestrial
bioaccumulation potential for Table 3+ compounds. Six samples of paired soil and
earthworms were collected from areas of the Site where a high concentration of Table 3+
compounds in soil was anticipated, specifically areas near groundwater seeps along the
Cape Fear River. These areas were targeted with the expectation that a higher frequency
of detected compounds and higher concentrations would occur, allowing for a better
dataset to understand bioaccumulation and evaluation of exposures under reasonable
worst-case conditions.
TR0795 36 December 2019
The ratio of each detected Table 3+ PFAS in earthworm (ng/kg ww) to soil (ng/kg dw)
was calculated for each paired sampled and averaged for a Site-specific BSAF (Table 4-
12). The results indicated the following:
•BSAFs for Byproduct 4, Byproduct 5, NVHOS, and R-EVE ranged from 2 kg
ww/kg dw to 12 kg ww/kg dw and were all greater than 1, indicating accumulation
of these PFAS from soil to earthworm tissues.
•BSAFs for HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, PFO2HxA, PFO3OA, PFO4DA, PFO5DA,
PMPA, PEPA, PFESA-BP1, PFESA-BP2, and Hydro-EVE Acid were all below
1, indicating negligible bioaccumulation from soil to earthworms.
•BSAFs for Byproduct 6, EVE Acid, PES, PFECA B, PFECA-G could not be
calculated due to a lack of detections in either media.
Whole-body to Fillet Ratios for Fish
Flathead, channel and blue catfish along with angler sized largemouth bass were collected
in support of the HH-SLEA. These samples were analyzed for fillet only, however six
samples were analyzed as both fillet and carcass samples to estimate whole-body to fillet
ratios (Table 4-13). The whole-body to fillet ratios (WB:F) were then applied to the fillet
EPCs for use in estimating exposure. This step also provided information on the tissue
specific partitioning of Table 3+ PFAS. Based on data availability, WB:F ratios were
calculated for either largemouth bass or catfish for PFO4DA, PFO5DA, PMPA, PFESA-
BP2, Byproduct 4, and R-EVE. Generally, concentrations were higher in carcass
samples, resulting in WB:F ratios greater than 1 (1.2 to 4.6). PFO4DA in catfish and
PFESA-BP2 in largemouth bass resulted in WB:F ratios less than one, suggesting higher
partitioning in fillet muscles. However, ratios were variable between samples of the same
species and given the small size of the data set are uncertain.
4.2.4 Summary of Observations from Empirical Data:
Based on empirical data collected the following observation were made:
•Neither offsite soil nor Cape Fear River sediment resulted in high detection
frequencies of any Table 3+ PFAS though given the difference in sensitivities
between soil and sediment analytical methods compared to aqueous media
analytical methods some uncertainties remain regarding the magnitude of
potential exposure to porewater, but this exposure is bounded by the soil and
sediment reporting limits.
TR0795 37 December 2019
•Accumulation of Table 3+ PFAS in both terrestrial and aquatic plants was
observed, but accumulation in invertebrates was limited to terrestrial
invertebrates; Table 3+ PFAS were not detected in the sampled aquatic
invertebrates though some uncertainties remain regarding the presence of and
bioaccumulation in species with different feeding mechanisms.
•PFMOAA, PMPA, NVHOS, PFO4DA, PFO5DA, Byproduct 4, and R-EVE
were the primary Table 3+ PFAS detected in whole-body fish in the Aquatic
EU. Accumulation of these Table 3+ PFAS in fish was observed, but data
generally suggest that the other Table 3+ PFAS do not have bioaccumulative
potential in fish based on a lack of detections in fish tissue samples.
•The higher detection frequencies of Table 3+ PFAS in soil samples near onsite
seeps are consistent with the current CSM. The detection profile of Table 3+
PFAS in groundwater and seeps from the onsite area are reflective of process
water. The detection profile in soils in the offsite area appear to reflect aerial
emissions and aerial deposition processes.
4.3 Quantification of Exposure
The data for soil, sediment, surface water, plant, invertebrates and fish tissue were used
to estimate TDIs for the potentially exposed receptors described in Section 3.3. EPCs and
TDIs were calculated on an EU specific basis as described in Section 3.4. Results are
discussed for each EU below.
4.3.1 Exposure Point Concentrations
EPCs were calculated for all EU specific exposure media as described in Section 3.2
Summary statistics for each EU and media specific exposure datasets are provided in
Tables 4-1 through 4-11. For each Table 3+ PFAS the EPC is selected for that media in
its respective Summary Statistics table.
EPCs for all media are compared for the primarily detected Table 3+ PFAS in the Figure
4-6 series. As indicated in this figure set, the highest EPCs were variable for different
compounds. For many Table 3+ PFAS (HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, PFO2HxA, PMPA,
PEPA, and NVHOS) the highest EPCs were observed in plants; for other compounds
(PFO3DA, PFO5DA, PEFSA-BP1, PEFSA-BP2, Byproduct4, Hydro-EVE and R-EVE)
the EPCs were highest for invertebrates; only one compound resulted in the highest EPCs
in fish tissue (PFO4DA).
TR0795 38 December 2019

4.3.2 Onsite Terrestrial
The onsite terrestrial dataset includes surface soil and earthworm samples collected from
the areas of known seeps on Site, and surface water from the onsite Pond 1. No onsite
vegetation samples were collected, however the maximum concentration of either the
aquatic or offsite terrestrial vegetation samples were applied as the plant EPC. EPCs are
summarized for the onsite EU in Table 4-14.
The onsite soil EPC was used to evaluate exposures for directly exposed plants and
invertebrate communities (Table 4-15). For wildlife receptors in the onsite EU, TDI was
calculated for each Table 3+ PFAS for each receptor and are presented in Tables 4-16a
through 4-16d. As shown in Figure 4-7, TDI for the ΣTable 3+ PFAS were similar for
all receptors, ranging from 0.003 mg/kg-bw day to 0.21 mg/kg-bw day. TDI was largely
dependent on overall food ingestion rates rather than by feeding guild.
The profile of Table 3+ PFAS did vary considerably between herbivores and invertivores
in the onsite area. Herbivores were primarily exposed to NVHOS, PFMOAA, PMPA and
PFO2HxA. HFPO-DA represented < 5% of TDI of Table 3+ PFAS for herbivores.
However the exposure estimates for NVHOS is primarily driven by vegetation, which is
based on measurement of offsite concentrations in plants (as discussed above, as onsite
vegetation was not sampled the maximum of offsite and aquatic vegetation was used) and
so may not reflect true onsite exposures. The profile of Table 3+ PFAS of TDI for
invertivores were dominated by PFMOAA, followed by Byproduct4, Byproduct5 and
HFPO-DA. HFPO-DA represented ~10% of TDI of Table 3+ PFAS for invertivores.
4.3.3 Offsite Terrestrial
The offsite terrestrial dataset includes surface soil samples, vegetation samples and insect
samples collected from the offsite EU area using ISM, and surface water from the offsite
Pond B. As the offsite insects collected did not represent the targeted soil-associated
invertebrates, the maximum of the offsite insect and an estimated offsite earthworm
concentration (calculated using Site-specific BSAFs) were applied as the EPCs. EPCs
are summarized for the offsite EU in Table 4-17.
The offsite soil EPC was used to evaluate exposures for directly exposed plants and
invertebrate communities (Table 4-18). For wildlife receptors in the offsite EU, TDI was
calculated for each Table 3+ PFAS for each receptor and are presented in Tables 4-19a
through 4-19d. As shown in Figure 4-8, TDI for the ΣTable 3+ PFAS was highest for the
Eastern Cottontail rabbit (0.12 mg/kg-bw day), but similar for all other receptors, ranging
from 0.03 mg/kg-bw day to 0.06 mg/kg-bw day. In the onsite areas, similar concentrations
in most diet items resulted in TDIs that were largely dependent on overall food ingestion
rates rather than by feeding guild. Here the combined elevated ingestion rate for
TR0795 39 December 2019
Cottontail rabbits and higher concentrations in plants than soils and invertebrates resulted
in a higher TDI for this receptor.
The profile of Table 3+ PFAS between herbivores and invertivores was similar to the
onsite area. Herbivores were exposed to much higher levels of NVHOS in this EU
accounting for approximately 70% of TDI. PFMOAA was the next highest exposure in
herbivores. In invertivores, PMPA, Byproduct 4, Byproduct 5 and HFPO-DA were the
most significant contributors to TDI accounting for approximately 60% of TDI.
4.3.4 Aquatic EU
The Aquatic EU dataset includes sediment, surface water, aquatic vegetation, Asian
clam/benthic invertebrate and fish tissue samples collected from Cape Fear River. EPCs
are summarized for the Aquatic EU in Table 4-20.
The aquatic sediment EPC was used to evaluate exposures for directly exposed benthic
invertebrate communities and the surface water EPC was used to evaluate exposures for
directly exposed aquatic life and plants (Table 4-21). For wildlife receptors in the Aquatic
EU, TDI was calculated for each Table 3+ PFAS for each receptor and are presented in
Tables 4-22a through 4-22f. As shown in Figure 4-9, TDI for the ΣTable 3+ PFAS were
highly variable. Herbivores were estimated to have TDI two orders of magnitude higher
than other receptors (0.2 mg/kg-bw day and 0.1 mg/kg-bw day for Muskrat and Wood
duck, respectively). The fish consuming receptor – Great Blue heron – had the next
highest TDI of 0.01 mg/kg-bw day. The mammalian fish-eating receptor – the River otter
- resulted in a lower TDI compared to the Great Blue heron due to its larger home range.
As Table 3+ PFAS were not detected above method detection limits in benthic
invertebrates, invertivore receptors (Mink and Mallard duck) had very low TDI and a
highly uniform profile of Table 3+ PFAS primarily reflecting RLs as EPCs for non-detect
results.
While the profile of the Table 3+ PFAS in invertivores was uninformative due to low
detection frequencies, the profile of Table 3+ PFAS between herbivores and piscivores
were different. Herbivores consuming aquatic vegetation were exposed to a much higher
level of PFMOAA accounting for approximately 66% of TDI. PMPA and PFO2HxA
were the next two most predominant of the Table 3+ PFAS. In piscivores, PFO4DA
followed by PFMOAA and Byproduct4 were the most significant contributors to TDI.
HFPO-DA contributed < 10% of TDI for all aquatic receptors.
4.3.5 Summary of Observations from Quantification of Exposures
Based on the evaluation of the Ecological SLEA dataset and quantifications of TDI for
various receptors both on and offsite, the following observations are indicated:
TR0795 40 December 2019
•The TDI of ΣTable3+ compounds ranged from 0.002 mg/kg-bw day to 0.2
mg/kg-bw day across all EUs and receptors. Exposures occurring onsite are
higher than those occurring offsite or in the Aquatic EU.
•Terrestrial herbivores are primarily exposed to NVHOS in the offsite EU, and
a combination of NVHOS and PFMOAA in the onsite EU, however the EPC
for NVHOS for the onsite EU was represented by offsite data adding
uncertainty.
•Offsite invertivores are primarily exposed to PMPA, Byproduct4,
Byproduct5, and R-EVE. Onsite invertivores are primarily exposed to
PFMOAA and Byproduct4.
•Aquatic herbivores in the Cape Fear River are primarily exposed PFMOAA
followed by Byproduct4, Byproduct5 and PMPA. Invertivores are not highly
exposed based on the currently available dataset. Piscivores are primarily
exposed to PFO4DA, PFMOAA and Byproduct4.
•Key Table 3+ PFAS of interest for ecological exposures based on this
evaluation include NVHOS, PFMOAA, PMPA, Byproduct4, and PFO2HxA,
which represented the Table 3+ PFAS with the highest exposures in the most-
exposed ecological feeding guilds (herbivores) in both terrestrial and aquatic
habitats. PFO4DA may be of ecological concern for fish-consuming
receptors.
4.4 Hazard Assessment of HFPO-DA
The TDI for each Table 3+ PFAS for each receptor was calculated as described above.
As toxicological benchmarks are available for only HFPO-DA, a hazard assessment
specific to HFPO-DA was included in this Ecological SLEA. As discussed in Section
3.5, to evaluate potential hazards via complete exposure pathways to receptors, TRVs
were selected as NOAEL or PNEC values from the literature (Table 3-10). To evaluate
hazards to directly exposed receptors (aquatic life, terrestrial plants and invertebrates),
the EPC for that EU-specific media was compared to the selected TRV to calculate the
HQ. For receptors exposed via dietary consumption, the TDI for HFPO-DA was
compared to the TRV to calculate the HQ.
Overall, the current exposures of HFPO-DA to wildlife are unlikely to result in adverse
effects to wildlife communities either onsite, offsite or in the Cape Fear River based on
the results of this evaluation. As shown in Table 4-23, HQs ranged from 0.00000008 to
0.24 indicating that current exposures in these EUs do not pose a hazard to ecological
receptors. The highest HQ was observed for onsite terrestrial plants and invertebrates
TR0795 41 December 2019
based on the PNEC for soil communities. As noted in Section 3.5, the uncertainty
regarding the PNEC is high as it was based on aquatic invertebrate toxicity rather than
terrestrial. Although there is high uncertainty on the PNEC for soil, based on observations
at the Site, plant and terrestrial invertebrate communities are abundant with no observed
signs of potential stress.
HQs for wildlife receptors were all below 0.02 indicating that current exposures to HFPO-
DA not pose a hazard to wildlife. As discussed in Section 3.5, the range finding study for
HFPO-DA in birds (ECHA, 2019) indicated some slight reductions in reproduction at a
100 mg/kg dosing level (dose representing the concentration of HFPO-DA in food), but
the definitive study NOEC was at the 1,000 mg/kg dose HQs for birds were all < 0.0002
and so if the range finding study NOEC was applied (i.e. a 10X lower TRV), exposures
would not result in HQs > 1.
4.5 Additional Data Evaluations and Lines of Evidence
Toxicity reference values for many Table 3+ PFAS are still being developed, particularly
with respect to ecological receptors. Therefore, it was necessary to investigate additional
lines of evidence to inform development of the CSM and to qualitatively evaluate
potential risk to biota to support the exposure quantifications and HFPO-DA hazard
assessment. The following additional lines of evidence were included:
•Results of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing conducted by Chemours
Fayetteville, and
•Additional environmental data regarding Table 3+ PFAS in the Fayetteville
region and Cape Fear River Estuary.
4.5.1 WET Testing to Evaluate Risks to Aquatic Life
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing at the Site has shown that effluent does not pose
a hazard to aquatic life. WET testing is a tool used to evaluate effluent toxicity utilizing
an aquatic toxicity test that employs standardized methods (USEPA, 2000). WET tests
are used by regulatory agencies to assess water quality, develop permit limits, and assess
permit compliance. This type of testing is particularly useful in determining the combined
toxicity of effluent to aquatic biota, without identifying the specific chemicals within the
effluent that are likely to be responsible for effects. The overarching goal of WET testing
is to ensure that water quality criteria are designed with consideration to protecting
aquatic ecosystem health (USEPA, 2000).
TR0795 42 December 2019
The USEPA has approved the following testing methods to evaluate the acute and/or
chronic toxicity of whole effluents to freshwater, marine, and/or estuarine biota:
•Acute toxicity to Freshwater and Marine organisms
•Chronic toxicity to Freshwater organisms
•Chronic toxicity to Marine/Estuarine organisms
Per the USEPA (2000), the study design for WET testing must include a control group
and a minimum of five effluent concentrations that are ≥ 0.5 dilution factor of the whole
effluent. Acute exposures are evaluated for 24, 48, and 96 hours. Chronic toxicity to
freshwater organisms is evaluated for four to eight days, while chronic toxicity to marine
and estuarine organisms is evaluated for one hour to nine days. Although there are
inherent differences in species sensitivities, reproductive toxicity is widely accepted as a
sensitive endpoint in toxicity testing, as well as an important indicator of potential
population level effects.
The Chemours Fayetteville manufacturing facility conducts WET testing in accordance
with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements. Thirteen chronic studies were conducted between February 2016 and
February 2019, in which Ceriodaphnia dubia were exposed to 3.3% effluent from the
Fayetteville manufacturing facility. Mortality and reproduction of C. dubia were recorded
daily for the duration of the test. As seen in Table 4-24, no statistically significant adverse
effects on either of the aforementioned endpoints were observed during any of the tests.
For context, a 3.3% dilution of effluent containing approximately 40,000-80,000 ng/L of
HFPO-DA (which is representative of concentrations in effluent over the time frame of
WET tests [Geosyntec, 2019e]) corresponds to an exposure concentration of 1,320 to
2,640 ng/L. Concentrations of HFPO-DA were below this exposure concentration in all
SLEA surface water samples from the CFR supporting the conclusion of this Ecological
SLEA that there are no potential hazards to aquatic life from current concentrations of
HFPO-DA in the CFR.
4.5.2 Additional Regional Environmental Data
Certain Table 3+ PFAS were detected in abiotic and biota media in the Cape Fear River
and the terrestrial area surrounding the facility. Other efforts by research facilities,
including state and Federal agencies, have developed additional datasets regarding the
presence of Table 3+ PFAS in the environment. Major findings from publicly available
studies are briefly summarized below; many of the studies discussed below are currently
in progress and have only reported preliminary findings thus far.
TR0795 43 December 2019
Robuck et al. (2019) measured the concentrations of 17 PFAS, including four Table 3+
PFAS, in Atlantic seabirds, as a proxy for homeothermic vertebrates. Chick and juvenile
seabirds were sourced from coastal habitats including the CFR Estuary, Massachusetts
Bay, and Narragansett Bay. Tissues analyzed included brain, heart, kidney, liver, lungs,
muscles, and spleen. Other biological samples analyzed included blood, fat, preen, and
feces. The studied analyzed samples for four Table 3+ PFAS (HFPO-DA, PFO4DA,
PFO5DA and PFESA-BP2) and non-Table 3+ PFAS (PFOS and other PFSAs, PFCAs,
perfluorooctane sulfonaminde). While raw data has been made available for review,
based on the presentation of data in Robuck et al. (2019) HFPO-DA was not detected in
significant quantities; PFESA-BP2, PFO5DA, and PFO4DA were detected in all CFR
Estuary seabirds tissue samples. The relative contributions of these Table 3+ PFAS to
total PFAS was highly variable between samples, particularly for PFESA-BP2; however,
the study concluded that PFOS is the predominantly accumulated PFAS in all habitats.
The data from this Ecological SLEA indicate that fish are not experiencing high rates of
HFPO-DA bioaccumulation, though detectable concentrations were observed in some
samples. One composite sample of seven Red-ear sunfish caught the Cape Fear River
near the Site also had detectable levels of HFPO-DA, though none of the other fish
samples collected during that sampling event had measurable levels of HFPO-DA
(NCDEQ, 2018). Guillette et al. (2019) also reported detectable concentrations of HFPO-
DA and PFESA-BP2 in the serum of Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and American
alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) in the Cape Fear River. However, PFOS was
overwhelmingly the largest contributor of the total PFAS body burden in both species
(Guillette et al., 2019).
Lastly, a human biomonitoring study conducted near the Fayetteville production facility
did not find HFPO-DA in blood serum, despite documented community-wide exposure
to HFPO-DA via impacted drinking water (Kotlarz et al., 2019). However, other Table
3+ PFAS were detected at a high frequency, including PFESA-BP2, PFO4DA, PFO5DA,
and Hydro-Eve. This supports the conclusion that HFPO-DA does not appear to be
strongly bioaccumulative or have a long half-life in humans, and that other Table 3+
PFAS may be more frequently detected in upper trophic levels.
TR0795 44 December 2019

5 UNCERTAINTIES
There are a number of uncertainties related to all SLEAs/SLERAs, based on the use of
assumed parameters for ecological modeling, spatial variation of chemicals in media, and
organism habitat use patterns, among other uncertainties. While these uncertainties are
relevant, the assumptions used in the Ecological SLEA aimed to provide additional
conservatism where there was significant uncertainty. For example, exposure parameters
were selected to provide reasonable maximum exposure estimates by selecting maximum
reported consumption rates, minimum body weight estimates, small home range
estimates, and by selecting EPCs based on maximum EPCs in varying diet items (i.e. the
highest fish species EPC was selected to represent all fish). The remainder of this section
focuses more on project specific uncertainties, such as analytical or field sampling related
uncertainties, uncertainties in the analyses and uncertainties in the CSM.
Analytical Uncertainties:
For Table 3+ analyses the laboratory runs both a primary and laboratory replicate sample
and reports the average of the two runs. In some fish tissue and invertebrate samples too
small a mass of tissue was available to run both. As noted above in Section 4.1, this does
not add additional uncertainty to the analytical results, and the results from the primary
are considered usable.
Many Table 3+ PFAS were not detected in all media however EPCs are needed for all
Table 3+ PFAS to estimate TDI. If a Table 3+ PFAS was not detected in any exposure
media in an EU, it was not included in the calculation of exposures. However, if a Table
3+ PFAS was detected in some media of an EU, it was carried forward in the
quantification of exposures using the RL as the EPC for media where that compound was
not detected. The use of the RL as EPCs will lead to overestimates of exposures. In some
instances with a high frequency of non-detect results (e.g. benthic invertebrates, offsite
vegetation) substituting zeros for the RLs for non-detect results reduces TDI estimates
for these receptors by up to 90%.
Uncertainties in the Ecological SLEA Analysis:
This analysis did not assess hazards to exposed receptors for Table 3+ PFAS outside of
HFPO-DA due to the lack of Table 3+ PFAS specific TRVs. Under Paragraph 14 of the
CO, Chemours is evaluating toxicity of PFMOAA, PMPA, PFO2HxA, PEPA, and
PFESA‐BP2 to mammalian and aquatic life receptors. These tests include mammalian
repeated dose and immunotoxicity studies and aquatic toxicity testing. These results will
enable an evaluation hazard for these Table 3+ PFAS. The potential for toxicity of
individual Table 3+ PFAS to be influenced by the composition of Table 3+ PFAS
mixtures is considered an uncertainty, but this is an uncertainty that occurs with the
TR0795 45 December 2019
majority of multichemical hazard assessments and in particular hazard assessments
related to any PFAS.
The southern hognose snake is a listed species at risk that may potentially be found in the
Site. This species is primarily a carnivore and likely has similar exposure to a carnivorous
or invertivorous mammal or bird so it is unlikely that an evaluation would indicate
potential hazard given the low HQs for HFPO-DA noted herein, but this is considered an
uncertainty as no reptiles were evaluated in the Ecological SLEA. Toxicity data on
reptiles for any PFAS is scarce (McCarthy et al., 2019; Conder et al., 2019).
Larger ranging carnivores that consume small birds and mammals were not included in
this evaluation as the collection of small bird and mammal tissue samples to understand
exposure to these receptors is a significant undertaking and was not feasible in the SLEA
development timeframe. Typically, large ranging carnivores have low exposures due to
their large home ranges relative to impacted areas of sites. However, given the large area
of detectable Table 3+ PFAS in offsite groundwater and vegetation samples, exposure to
these receptors could be significant for Table 3+ PFAS that are not metabolized by small
birds and mammals. Based on the available supporting lines of evidence, Table 3+ PFAS
to which carnivores may be exposed are primarily PFESA-BP2, PFO4DA, PFO5DA.
Vegetation samples were collected from the offsite area to represent terrestrial exposures
and from the Cape Fear River to represent aquatic exposures. However, this SLEA did
not include the collection of plant samples from the onsite area. Considering elevated
concentrations in soil and earthworms near the onsite seeps, this is considered an
uncertainty that may underestimate exposure to onsite herbivores.
Asian clam samples were collected as they were highly abundant in the aquatic EU and
sediment grab samples did not indicate sufficient mass of invertebrate tissues of other
species could be collected for analysis in the available time frame. Since Asian clams are
abundant, it is likely they are being consumed by wildlife, however they may not
represent the highest exposure for benthic invertivores as clams derive their exposure
from the overlying water in addition to sediment and porewater. Benthic invertebrates
with burrowing or tube-forming feeding habits may have higher exposures due to a closer
association with sediment porewater.
Uncertainties in the CSM:
The higher detection frequency of Table 3+ PFAS in vegetation and insects from the
offsite EU and the high detection frequencies of PMPA and HFPO-DA, which are
markers for air emission (Geosyntec, 2019b, c) supports that aerial emissions were the
migration pathway to the offsite area. It is unclear if the presence of Table 3+ PFAS in
plants and insects resulted from both aerial deposition on to the organism directly or from
TR0795 46 December 2019
the aerial deposition to soil and subsequent uptake from soil pore water into plants, and
consumption of those plants by insects. Understanding the relative contribution of each
pathway is complicated by the low frequency of detection in offsite soils. The detection
limits in soil are not as sensitive as water (by 2-3 orders of magnitude), and potentially
less sensitive than wet weight tissue analysis, therefore the higher detection frequencies
in these media may be an artifact of RLs. Alternatively, due to the low log Koc of most
Table 3+ PFAS, compounds in soil may rapidly partition to groundwater resulting in non-
detects for soil samples but may remain on the tissues of plants and insects resulting in
higher detection frequencies.
Studies from a PFAS manufacturing facility in the Netherlands with similar release
mechanisms provides some indication that these two pathways are both important
contributors. Concentrations of HFPO-DA in plant samples from offsite areas were
reduced by about half after washing (Mengelers et al., 2018). These results may also
suggest that exposure to Table 3+ PFAS may be reduced by washing vegetation; based
on this, natural weathering/raining may reduce exposure to ecological herbivores as well,
though this has not been studied The similar profiles between plants and insects indicates
that air emissions is the primary source regardless of specific uptake pathways into
organisms, though no information regarding the timing of deposition either onto organism
tissues or in soil porewater for subsequent uptake into organisms is available and may
have occurred prior to emission reduction controls put in place by Chemours.
The sediment samples collected from the Cape Fear River were widely non-detect for
Table 3+ PFAS indicating bulk sediment is not a sink or potential long-term source of
Table 3+ PFAS. However, given the noted analytical sensitivities between soil and
aqueous matrices and the lower organic carbon partitioning of Table 3+ PFAS there is
uncertainty in the potential for Table 3+ PFAS to be present in sediment porewater at
detectable concentrations while at concentrations lower than the reporting limit for Table
3+ PFAS in sediment. This could result in exposures to benthic invertebrates that may
not be accounted for by the bulk sediment analyses.
PFESA-BP2 has been detected by other studies in human blood serum and alligator blood
serum (Kotlarz et al, 2019; Guillette et al. 2019; Robuck et al. 2019). However, in this
evaluation PFESA-BP2 was not detected in plants from offsite and aquatic areas or in
Cape Fear River surface water (but was detected in onsite and offsite Pond water) and
was not detected in fish tissue samples. BSAF for earthworm were moderate but
complicated by non-detect results in soil and therefore possibly underestimated. The high
frequency of detection (FOD) in blood with present information appears to be
inconsistent with the low FOD in environment.
TR0795 47 December 2019

6 SUMMARY
This Ecological SLEA evaluated the presence of Table 3+ PFAS in multiple abiotic and
biotic media in the terrestrial areas on and surrounding the Site and in the adjacent Cape
Fear River. Ecological hazard and exposure assessments for all PFAS, especially for more
recently studied PFAS such as the Table 3+ PFAS, are in their infancy, and a number of
uncertainties remain. Overall this Ecological SLEA aimed to evaluate the extent and
magnitude of exposures with a reasonable degree of confidence, but conclusions resulting
from the data, analyses and interpretation described herein are presented in the context of
the uncertainties described above.
Up to 17 individual Table 3+ PFAS were detected in samples of onsite soils,
invertebrates, terrestrial and aquatic vegetation and fish. Very few (less than two) Table
3+ PFAS were detected in sediment, benthic invertebrates and offsite soils.
Concentrations were generally highest in the onsite area relative to the Cape Fear River
and offsite terrestrial areas, and predominant exposures are related to consumption of
terrestrial and aquatic plants by herbivorous wildlife like rabbits and muskrats. NVHOS,
PFMOAA, PMPA, Byproduct4, and PFO2HxA represent the highest exposures to these
receptors, and mammalian toxicity evaluation of PFMOAA, PMPA, and PFO2HxA will
be very helpful in evaluating the potential hazards of these exposures. Sediment sampled
in Cape Fear River and soil sampled in offsite area were primarily non-detect for Table
3+ PFAS, though due to difference between soil and sediment analytical method
sensitivities compared to aqueous samples Table 3+ PFAS may be present in these
samples where aqueous phases are present (groundwater, porewater).
No adverse hazards were identified to ecological receptors from current exposures to
HFPO-DA onsite or offsite. The primary exposures are related to the onsite seep areas
and consumption of plants in the offsite area. Under the CO, Chemours is implementing
significant source control of air emissions and discharges to the Cape Fear River which
will significantly reduce exposures to ecological receptors.
TR0795 48 December 2019

7 REFERENCES
Beekman, M., P. Zweers, A. Muller, W. de Vries, P. Janssen, and M. Zeilmaker. 2016.
Evaluation of Substances Used in the Gen-X Technology by Chemours,
Dordrecht. RIVM Letter Report 2016-0174. The Netherlands, National Institute
for Public Health and the Environment, Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.
Accessed October 2019.
Cahoon, L.B., MIkucki, J.A., Mallin, M.A. 1999. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Imports to
the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins To Support Intensive Livestock
Production. Environ. Sci. Technol., 33:410-415.
Cape Fear River Partnership, 2019. The Cape Fear River And Migratory Fish. Accessed
at: https://capefearriverpartnership.com/river/
Chemours, 2019. Chemours’ Proposed Toxicity Study Work Plan Pursuant to Paragraph
14 of the Consent Order. Chemours Fayetteville Works. March 27, 2019.
Conder, J., Arblaster, J., Larson, E., Brown, J., Higgins, C. 2019. Guidance for Assessing
the Ecological Risks of PFAS to Threatened and Endangered Species at Aqueous
Film Forming Foam-Impacted Sites. SERDP Project ER18-1614. July.
https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER18-
1614
Conder, J. M., R. A. Hoke, W. d. Wolf, M. H. Russell & R. C. Buck (2008) Are PFCAs
Bioaccumulative? A Critical Review and Comparison with Regulatory Criteria
and Persistent Lipophilic Compounds. Environmental Science & Technology, 42,
995-1003.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2019. All About Birds.
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Wood_Duck/lifehistory
Cumberland County Joint Planning Board (CCJPB), 2016. Southeast Cumberland
County Land Use Plan. https://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/vd-
planning/Downloads/land_use/Southeast_Cumberland/Southeast_Cumberland_
FINAL_SIGNED.pdf
DuPont-17568-1675: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 2008a. Estimation of the
Adsorption Coefficient (Koc) of the HFPO Dimer Acid Ammonium Salt on Soil
and Sludge. OECD Test Guideline 121. Study conducted by DuPont Haskell
Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences (Study Completion Date:
September 11, 2008), Newark, DE
TR0795 49 December 2019
DuPont-25938 RV1: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 2008b. H-28397: Activated
Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test. OECD Test Guideline 209. Study conducted
by DuPont Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences (Study
Completion Date: September 5, 2008; Revision Date: October 21, 2008), Newark,
DE
DuPont-26349: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 2008c. Determination of the
Dissociation Constant and UV-VIS Absorption Spectra of H-28307. U.S. EPA
OPPTS 830.7370; OECD Test Guidelines 101 and 112. Study conducted by
Wildlife International, Ltd. (Study Completion Date: September 17, 2008),
Easton, MD
DuPont-A080558: Du Pont-Mitsui Fluorochemicals Company, Ltd., 2009a. Ready
Biodegradability Test of FRD903. Test guideline not identified. Study conducted
by Mitsubishi Chemical Medience Corporation, Yokohama Laboratory (Study
Completion Date: May 25, 2009), Yokohama, Japan
DuPont-23459, 2007. In vitro Trout Hepatocyte Bioaccumulation Screen. Study
conducted by Haskell Laboratory Discovery Toxicology Group (Study
Completion Date: June 15, 2007).
DuPont-A080560: Du Pont-Mitsui Fluorochemicals Company, Ltd. 2009b.
Bioconcentration Study of FRD903 with Carp. Test guideline not identified.
Study conducted by Mitsubishi Chemical Medience Corporation, Yokohama
Laboratory (Study Completion Date: June 26, 2009), Yokohama, Japan
European Chemical Agency. 2019. Registration Dossier for HFPO_DA EC number: 700-
242-3. Ecotoxicology Summary. https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-
/registered-dossier/2679/6/1
Environmental Working Group (EWG), 2019. PFAS Contamination Map. Accessed at:
https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_pfas_contamination/map/
Geosyntec Consultants, 2018. Assessment of the Chemical and Spatial Distribution of
PFAS in the Cape Fear River. September 17, 2018.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2019a. Draft Corrective Action Plan - Chemours Fayetteville
Works. December.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2019b. Site Assessment Report Chemours Fayetteville Works.
October.
TR0795 50 December 2019
Geosyntec Consultants, 2019c. Offsite Screening Level Exposure Assessment Of Site
Associated PFAS - Workplan Chemours Fayetteville Works. July.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2019d. Sediment Characterization Plan- The Chemours
Company. August 2019.Geosyntec Consultants, 2019e. Cape Fear River PFAS
Loading Reduction Plan- Chemours Fayetteville Works. August.
Gobas, FAPC, Watze de Wolf, Lawrence P Burkhard, Eric Verbruggen, Kathleen
Plotzke. 2009. Revisiting Bioaccumulation Criteria for POPs and PBT
Assessments Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume
5, Number 4—pp. 624–637
Goodband, T, 2019. Final Report: 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic
acid: Bioaccumulation in Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio): Aqueous Exposure.
Chemours Belgium BVBA. March 2019
Guillette, T., Polera, M., Belcher, S., 2019. Ecological impacts of novel and legacy per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Coastal North Carolina. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 40th Annual Meeting
Presentation.
Hassell, K.L., Coggan, T.L., Cresswell, T., Kolobaric, A., Berry, K., Crosbie, N.D.,
Blackbeard, J., Pettigrove,V.J., Clark, B.O. 2019. Dietary Uptake and Depuration
Kinetics of PFOS, PFOA and GenX in a Benthic Fish. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. November. 10.1002/etc.4640.
Hoke, R.A., B.D. Ferrell, T.L. Sloman, R.C. Buck, and L.W. Buxton. 2016. Aquatic
hazard, bioaccumulation and screening risk assessment for ammonium 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoro-2- (heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoate. Chemosphere 149:336–342
Hopkins, Z. R., Sun, M., DeWitt, J. C. and Knappe, D. R. (2018), Recently Detected
Drinking Water Contaminants: HFPO-DA and Other Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl
Ether Acids. J Am Water Works Assoc, 110: 13-28. doi:10.1002/awwa.1073
Kelly, BC. MG, Ikonomou, JD, Blair, AE. Morin, FAPC Gobas. 2007. Food Web–
Specific Biomagnification of Persistent Organic Pollutants. Science. 317: 236-
238.
Kotlarz; D, Collier; S, Lea; D, Knappe; J, Hoppin. Population Exposure to Emerging Per-
and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) through Drinking Water in North
Carolina Environmental Epidemiology: 2019
Lindstrom, A., M. Strynar, L. McMillan, D. Knappe. 2015. Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plant Biosludge Applications and Perfluoroalkyl Acid Surface Water
TR0795 51 December 2019
Contamination in North Carolina. North Carolina Community- Based
Environmental Justice Summit, Whitakers, NC.
McCarthy, C., Kappleman, W., & DiGuiseppi, W. (2017). Ecological Considerations of
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Current Pollution Reports, 3(4),
289–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-017-0070-8
Mengelers, M; Biesebeek, JD; Schipper, M; Slob, W; Boon, PE. 2018. Risk assessment
of GenX and PFOA in vegetable garden crops in Dordrecht. RIVM Letter report
2018-0017. http://rivm.openrepository.com/rivm/handle/10029/621785
Nagy KA (2001) Food requirements of wild animals: predictive equations for free-living
mammals, reptiles, and birds.Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 71, 21R-
31R
Nakayama Shoji, Mark J. Strynar, Laurence Helfant, Peter Egeghy, Xibiao Ye, Andrew
B.Lindstrom. 2007. Perfluorinated Compounds in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin
in North Carolina. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 5271-5276
NC Office of Environmental Education and Public Affairs, 2019. The Cape Fear River
Basin. Accessed at: https://files.nc.gov/deqee/documents/files/cape-fear-river-
basin.pdf
NC State University, 2018. GenX Exposure Study. https://genxstudy.ncsu.edu/results-
communication/
NCDEQ (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2018. Surface Water,
Sediment, and Fish Sample Testing Results, NCDEQ. Accessed October, 2019.
https://deq.nc.gov/news/key-issues/genx-investigation/genx-surface-water-
sampling-sites
NCDEQ, 2003 Guidelines for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments
Within The North Carolina Division of Waste Management. October.
NCWC, 2019. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Wildlife Species
Profiles. https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Learning-About-North-Carolinas-
Wildlife-Resources
Pan, Y., H. Zhang, Q. Cui, N. Sheng, L.W.Y. Yeung, Y. Guo, Y. Sun, and J. Dai. 2017.
First report of occurrence and bioaccumulation of hexafluoropropylene oxide
trimer acid: An emerging concern. Environmental Science and Technology
51(17):9553–9560
TR0795 52 December 2019
Pan, Y., H. Zhang, Q. Cui, N. Sheng, L.W.Y. Yeung, Y. Sun, Y. Guo, and J. Dai. 2018.
Worldwide distribution of novel perfluoroether carboxylic and sulfonic acids in
surface water. Environmental Science and Technology 52:7621–7629
Parsons, 2014. Final RCRA Facility Investigation Report (Rev. 1). February 2014;
Revised August 2014.
Robuck, AR. 2019. Tissue-specific distribution of legacy and emerging per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances in seabirds from Atlantic offshore and coastal
environments. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Focused
Topic Meeting on PFAS. Durham NC August. Poster.
Sun, M., Arevalo, E., Strynar, M., Lindstrom, A., Richardson, M., Kearns, B., Pickett,
A., Smith, C. and Knappe, D.R., 2016. Legacy and emerging perfluoroalkyl
substances are important drinking water contaminants in the Cape Fear River
Watershed of North Carolina. Environmental science & technology letters, 3(12),
pp.415-419
USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R 93/187a.
USEPA. 1994. Role of the Ecological Risk Assessment in the Baseline Risk Assessment.
Final, August.
USEPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for
Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim final. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Edison, NJ. EPA 540-R-97-OCS.EPA.
USEPA. 2000. Method Guidance and Recommendations for Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET) Testing (40 CFR Part 136). Office of Water.
USEPA. 2005. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. November 2003; Revised February 2005.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55.
USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data
for Superfund Use. National Service Center for Environmental Publications.
EPA-540-R-08-005. January 2009.
USEPA. 2015. ProUCL Software and Technical Guidance. https://www.epa.gov/land-
research/proucl-software
USEPA. 2018. Public Comment Draft: Human Health Toxicity Values for HFPO-DA
chemicals. EPA-823-P-18-001. USEPA, Office of Water, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Washington, DC. Accessed October 2019
TR0795 53 December 2019
Xiao, F. 2017. Emerging poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment:
A review of current literature. Water Research, 124, 482-495
TR0795 December 2019
TABLES
TABLE 2-1
REGIONAL LISTED SPECIES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat/Presence Potential for Critical Habitat/Presence On-Site Source of Habitat Info
Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus Endangered Spend majority of life in saltwater; spawn in freshwater.Unlikely to occur by project Site; reported distribution does
not include Bladen/Cumberland counties.
Fishbase.org
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened [1]
Inhabit fresh and brackish marshes, ponds, lakes, rivers,etc.
They often bask on partially submerged logs or on land next
to the water. They make dens on river or lake margins or in
marshes; they spend cold winter and drought periods in the
dens. Reproduce in shallow water; less active from November to March.
Distribution reported to include Bladen/Cumberland counties but unlikely to be commonly found in the section of CFR
adjacent to Site due to steep banks, deep water depths (up to
30 ft), and lack of habitat for dens.
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BPGA [2]
Typically inhabit forested areas often near water, avoiding
areas of significant human activity; migrate to warmer areas
in winter
May be found in forested areas within the Site. Distribution
reported to include Bladen County.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Small rivers to medium-sized creeks near the Fall Line; areas
of moderate gradient and riffles alternating with long deep
pools, and substrate a mixture of sand-gravel, rubble, and boulders. Occurs in slow pools, riffles, slow runs. Juveniles
occupy slackwater, areas near rock outcrops, and flooded
areas.
Unlikely to be found in CFR near Site; documented in
counties with critical habitat, near Fall line northwest of
Fayetteville.
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=60
63
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito At Risk Species
Found in mixed forest habitats (pines, oaks), often where
there are gopher tortoises. Breeds in ephemeral wetlands,
ditches, borrow pits (in early spring).
Distribution reported to include Bladen and Cumberland counties. Unlikely to be commonly found due to lack of
gopher tortoises in NC.
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened This species hibernates in caves in winter and roosts in trees in summer and forages in upland forests and wooded areas.
Distribution reported to include Bladen county. No critical
habitat has been identified in Bladen and Cumberland
counties. May be found in summer in this area.
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Preferred habitat is open, pine woodlands with sparse
midstory vegetation. Nest in pines and cypress trees and
reproduce in Spring.
Distribution reported to include Bladen and Cumberland counties. May be found in vicinity of project Site.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
VERTEBRATES
TR0795 Page 1 of 3 December 2019
TABLE 2-1
REGIONAL LISTED SPECIES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat/Presence Potential for Critical Habitat/Presence On-Site Source of Habitat Info
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Adults inhabit rivers, estuaries, and the sea but they move
upstream as much as 200 km to spawn.
Unlikely to be commonly found in CFR as they are
estuarine/marine species except during spawning season (Spring). Distribution reported to include Bladen county.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus At Risk Species Inhabit mixed woodlands and grasslands and riparian
habitats.
Distribution reported to include Bladen and Cumberland
counties. May be found in vicinity of project Site.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Wood stork Mycteria americana Threatened Preferred habitat is forested wetlands, ponds, lagoons
(mostly freshwater)
Distribution reported to include Bladen and Cumberland
county. May be found in the vicinity of the project Site.
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_wood_stork.ht
ml
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni At Risk Species
Preferred habitat includes high/moderate gradient rivers,
riffles with relatively fast flowing watersand coarse
sand/gravel.
May occur in CFR near Site although flow is variable;
distribution reported to occur in the northern half of
Cumberland county and beyond; other sources indicate its
potential presence in Bladen county.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/T7OPL7SFMVFTXO4WZVI2WGLLWM/resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode
=F03Khttp://explorer.natureserve.org/
Saint Francis' satyr butterfly Neonympha mitchellii
francisci Endangered
Habitat includes wet meadows dominated by a high diversity of sedges and other wetland grasses; a single metapopulation
was noted to occur in the sandhills of North Carolina, which
falls in both Cumberland and Hoke Counties. See map to right. This is more than 10 km north of the Site.
Unlikely to occur near Site based on NatureServe Explorer
database information.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_st_francis_saty
r.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260105848_P
ine_barrens_and_possum%27s_rations_Early_Archaic
_settlement_in_the_North_Carolina_Sandhills/figures?l
o=1
Variegated clubtail
(Belle's Sanddragon)Progomphus bellei At Risk Species Preferred habitat is shallow water of sand-bottomed lakes
and trickles.
Distribution reported to include Bladen county. May occur in
vicinity of Site.
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=2344
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Frequently grows in the transitional area between peaty
wetlands and dry sandy soils; may grow in acidic, sandy or
peaty soils within lowland pine forests, bogs, or areas where grassy communities are dominant. Known to be prevalent in
the NC Sandhills.
Unlikely to occur near the Site based on information
provided in NatureServe Explorer database which indicates
that these plants occur at the Western edge of the coastal
plain which is West of Fayetteville and the project Site.
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea At Risk Species
Inhabits permanently moist to wet, shrub-dominated seepage
wetlands; In the NC Sandhills, it occurs in streamhead
pocosins (wetland bogs with sandy peat soil and woody
shrubs throughout) that border headwater streams.
Distribution reported to occur in Cumberland county.
Possible it occurs near Site; known to occur in NC sandhills
(Cumberland county).
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=87
9
INVERTEBRATES
VASCULAR PLANT
TR0795 Page 2 of 3 December 2019
TABLE 2-1
REGIONAL LISTED SPECIES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat/Presence Potential for Critical Habitat/Presence On-Site Source of Habitat Info
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii At Risk Species
Habitat includes cypress-gum depressions or ponds, wet pine
savannahs and flatwoods. Preferred habitat may have
continuous, shallow standing water or may only be
seasonally very moist or inundated.
Distribution reported to include Bladen and Cumberland
counties. Maybe be present in the vicinity of the Site.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Georgia lead-plant Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana At Risk Species Habitat is pine/shrub/wiregrass terraces along rivers and
large streams.
Unlikely to occur near project Site. NatureServe Explorer
database indicates that distribution reported to include
Cumberland county but nearly all North Carolina
occurrences are scattered along the Little River (found in SW
N. Carolina); other occurrences are in the Fall-line Sandhills
of N. and S. Carolina (northwest of project Site).
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Conserving/Habitats
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana At Risk Species Habitat incldues longleaf or pond pine savannas, acidic
forests/bogs/wetlands.
May be found within the Site. Distribution reported to
include Bladen County.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered Habitat includes sandy or rocky open woods; mixed
woodlands.
May be found within the Site. Distribution reported to
include Cumberland county.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered Habitats include seasonally flooded wetlands/ forests,
shallow seasonal ponds/pools.
May be found within the Site. Distribution reported to
include Bladen and Cumberland counties.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Preferred habitat is in the transition zone between longleaf
pine uplands and pond pine wetalnds with sandy/peat soils.
Sufficient sun required.
May be found within the Site. Distribution reported to include Bladen and Cumberland counties.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Venus' fly-trap Dionaea muscipula At Risk Species
Habitat include the transition zone between the pine
savannas and the bogs, areas with moist soils for much of
the year; also found in acidic loamy sands in the Sandhill region.
May be found within the Site. Distribution reported to
include Bladen and Cumberland counties.http://explorer.natureserve.org/
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
http://explorer.natureserve.org/
Notes:
CFR = Cape Fear River
NC = North Carolina
BPGA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
US Fish and Wildlife Service. IPaCInformation for Planning and Consultation
Powered by ECOS - the Environmental Conservation Online System
Sources:
US Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina Natural Heritgage Program, County List. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/bladen.html.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/cumberland.html.Center for Biological Diversity. Map of US Threatened and Endangered Species by County.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/T_and_E_map/.
[2] The bald eagle was declared recoved and removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species but is protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act.
[1] This species is threatened due to its similarity in appearance to another listed species and is therefore included on the federal list of threatened
and endangered species for the other species' protection.
TR0795 Page 3 of 3 December 2019
TABLE 2-2
TABLE 3+ PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
aR-C=Caa R-CO2Hb R-SO3Hc
HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 13252-13-6 C6HF11O3 Per 1 Branched ------
PFECA-G Perfluoro-4-isopropoxybutanoic acid 801212-59-9 C7H1F13O1 Per 1 Branched ------
PMPA Perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid 13140-29-9 C4HF7O3 Per 1 Branched ------
PEPA Perfluoroethoxypropyl carboxylic acid 267239-61-2 C5HF9O3 Per 1 Branched ------
PFMOAA Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid 674-13-5 C3HF5O3 Per 1 Linear ------
PFO2HxA Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid 39492-88-1 C4HF7O4 Per 2 Linear ------
Ether Bonds Isomer type
Functional Groups Diproticd Structure
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids (PFECAs)
Common Name Chemical Name CAS #Formula Degree of
Fluorination
TR0795 Page 1 of 4 December 2019
TABLE 2-2
TABLE 3+ PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
aR-C=Caa R-CO2Hb R-SO3Hc
Ether
Bonds
Isomer
type
Functional Groups Diproticd StructureCommon Name Chemical Name CAS # Formula
Degree of
Fluorination
PFECA B Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid 151772-58-6 C5HF9O4 Per 2 Linear --ü -- --
PFO3OA Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid 39492-89-2 C5HF9O5 Per 3 Linear --ü -- --
PFO4DA Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid 39492-90-5 C6HF11O6 Per 4 Linear --ü -- --
PFO5DA Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid 39492-91-6 C7HF13O7 Per 5 Linear --ü -- --
Hydro-EVE
Acid Perfluoroethoxsypropanoic acid 773804-62-9 C8H2F14O4 Poly 2 Branched --ü -- --
EVE Acid Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid 69087-46-3 C8HF13O4 Per 2 Branched ü ü -- --
R-EVE R-EVE N/A C8H2F12O5 Per 1 Branched --ü --ü
TR0795 Page 2 of 4 December 2019
TABLE 2-2
TABLE 3+ PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
aR-C=Caa R-CO2Hb R-SO3Hc
Ether
Bonds
Isomer
type
Functional Groups Diproticd StructureCommon Name Chemical Name CAS #Formula Degree of
Fluorination
PES Perfluoroethoxyethanesulfonic acid 113507-82-7 C4HF9O4S Per 1 Linear ------
NVHOS Perfluoroethoxysulfonic acid 1132933-86-8 C4H2F8O4S Poly 1 Linear ------
Byproduct 6 Byproduct 6 N/A C6H2F12O4S Poly 1 Branched ------
PFESA-BP2 Byproduct 2 749836-20-2 C7H2F14O5S Poly 2 Branched ------
PFESA-BP1 Byproduct 1 29311-67-9 C7HF13O5S Per 2 Branched ----
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonic acids (PFESAs)
TR0795 Page 3 of 4 December 2019
TABLE 2-2
TABLE 3+ PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
aR-C=Caa R-CO2Hb R-SO3Hc
Ether
Bonds
Isomer
type
Functional Groups Diproticd StructureCommon Name Chemical Name CAS #Formula Degree of
Fluorination
Byproduct 4 Byproduct 4 N/A C7H2F12O6S Per 1 Branched --
Byproduct 5 Byproduct 5 N/A C7H3F11O7S Poly 2 Branched --
Notes:
Abbreviations:
N/A- Not available
-- - Not applicable
b Carboxylic acid functional group
d Compound with two acid functional groups
c Sulfonic acid functional group
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonic and carboxylic acids (PFES-CAs)
a Carbon double bond functional group
TR0795 Page 4 of 4 December 2019
TABLE 2-3
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR RELEVENT TABLE 3+ PFASChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Common Name Chemical Name CAS #Formula
Predicted
Log P a
(L/kg)
Predicted
Log KOC a
(L/kg)
Predicted
Log KOA a Henry's Law a
(atm-m3/mole)
BCF a
(L/kg)
Experimental
Log P b
(pH 5)
Calculated
Log P b
(pH 8)
Calculated
Log KOC b
PFMOAA Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid 674-13-5 C3HF5O3 1.75 0.68 3 3.56E-06 2.71 < 2.82 (2.45)< 2.83 (2.43)0.89
R-EVE R-EVE NA C8H2F12O5 ----------3.04 3.14 1.01
Byproduct 4 Byproduct 4 NA C7H2F12O6S ----------3.09 3.19 1.04
Byproduct 5 Byproduct 5 NA C7H3F11O7S ----------3.14 3.23 1.07
PMPA Perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid 13140-29-9 C4HF7O3 1.86 1.53 2.97 5.15E-05 5.47 3.05 3.05 1.02
PFO2HxA Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid 39492-88-1 C4HF7O4 2.12 1.69 3.68 5.39E-05 4.96 3.32 3.3 1.17
NVHOS Perfluoroethoxysulfonic acid 1132933-86-8 C4H2F8O4S ----------2.92 2.93 0.95
PEPA Perfluoroethoxypropyl carboxylic acid 267239-61-2 C5HF9O3 2.87 1.51 3.4 3.12E-10 6.27 3.63 3.6 1.35
PFECA B Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid 151772-58-6 C5HF9O4 4.17 1.71 3.8 1.14E-10 25.8 3.98 3.95 1.54
PFO3OA Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid 39492-89-2 C5HF9O5 3.2 1.54 3.95 4.91E-04 2.87 4.17 4.13 1.65
PES Perfluoroethoxyethanesulfonic acid 113507-82-7 C4HF9O4S 2.75 2.55 4.2 2.23E-10 34.2 3.8 3.78 1.44
HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 13252-13-6 C6HF11O3 1.98 2.61 3.74 2.37E-10 6.27 4.24 4.23 1.69
PFECA G Perfluoro-4-isoproproxybutanoic acid 801212-59-9 C7HF13O3 4.86 3.06 4.08 6.29E-04 617 4.79 4.77 2.00
PFO4DA Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid 39492-90-5 C6HF11O6 6.99 2.94 4.1 5.47E-05 21.1 4.98 4.95 2.11
Hydro-EVE Acid Perfluoroethoxsypropanoic acid 773804-62-9 C8H2F14O4 2.93 3.40 4.24 2.70E-07 5.41 4.68 4.66 1.94
EVE Acid Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid 69087-46-3 C8HF13O4 2.88 3.24 4.77 2.94E-09 5.42 5.10 5.06 2.17
Byproduct 6 Byproduct 6 NA C6H2F12O4S ----------4.61 4.57 1.9
PFESA-BP1 Byproduct 1 29311-67-9 C7HF13O5S 4.4 2.92 5.87 1.45E-08 5.39 5.09 5.06 2.17
PFESA-BP2 Byproduct 2 749836-20-2 C7H2F14O5S 3.86 2.90 4.78 2.35E-08 4.32 4.72 4.68 1.96
PFO5DA Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid 39492-91-6 C7HF13O7 8.46 2.75 4.29 3.87E-08 15.9 5.78 5.72 2.56
Notes:
a Values retrieved from the US EPA Chemistry Dashboard. (comptox.epa.gov/dashboard)
b Values are from the Geosyntec Consultants Draft Corrective Action Plan- Chemours Fayetteville Works. December, 2019.
Abbreviations:
US EPA- United States Environmental Protection Agency
CAS # - Unique identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
Log P - Logarithm of the octanol- water partition coefficient (i.e., the ratio of the concentration of a compound between aqueous and lipophilic phases)
Log Koc - Logarithm of the organic carbon-water partitioning coefficient
Log Koa - Logarithm of the octanol-air partitioning coefficient
BCF - Bioconcentration Factor
atm - Atmosphere
L/kg - liter per kilogram
-- - no data available
Page 1 of 1 December 2019
TABLE 3-1
ECOLOGICAL SLEA DATASET - OFFSITE SOIL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Sample ID Location ID Eco-SLEA EU Sample Description Data Use
8/14/2019 EU-1-DISCRETESOIL-0-.5-081419 EU-01 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
9/12/2019 EU-1-SOIL-0-.5-091219 EU-01 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
8/21/2019 EU-10-SOIL-0-.5-082119 EU-10 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
7/31/2019 EU-11-SOIL-0-0.5 EU-11 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
8/20/2019 EU-12-SOIL-0-.5-082019 EU-12 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
8/20/2019 EU-12-SOIL-0-.5-082019-D EU-12 Offsite Terrestrial Field duplicate Offsite Soil EPC
7/25/2019 EU2-SOIL-0-0.5 EU-2 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
7/31/2019 EU-3-SOIL-0-0.5 EU-3 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
8/19/2019 EU-4-SOIL-0-.5-081919 EU-4 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
8/23/2019 EU-5-SOIL-0-.5-082319 EU-5 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
7/25/2019 EU6-SOIL-0-0.5 EU-6 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
8/19/2019 EU-7-SOIL-0-.5-081919 EU-7 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
8/16/2019 EU-8-SOIL-0-.5-081619 EU-8 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
8/21/2019 EU-9-SOIL-0-.5-082119 EU-9 Offsite Terrestrial ISM Surface soil composite Offsite Soil EPC
Notes:
1: All surface soil represented the top 0 to 6 inches of soil
Abbreviations:
EU - Exposure Unit
ISM - Incremental Sampling Methodology
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
SLEA - Screening Level Exposure Assessment
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 3-2
ECOLOGICAL SLEA DATASET - OFFSITE VEGETATION AND INVERTEBRATES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Sample ID EU Sample Description a Data Use
9/12/2019 EU-1-VEG-091219 Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
7/25/2019 EU2-VEG Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
7/31/2019 EU-3-VEG Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
8/19/2019 EU-4-VEG-081919 Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
8/23/2019 EU-5-VEG-082319 Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
7/25/2019 EU6-VEG Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
8/19/2019 EU-7-VEG-081919 Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
8/16/2019 EU-8-VEG-081619 Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
8/21/2019 EU-9-VEG-082119 Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
8/21/2019 EU-10-VEG-082119 Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
7/31/2019 EU-11-VEG Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
8/20/2019 EU-12-VEG-082019 Offsite Terrestrial Plant Tissue Offsite plant EPC
9/12/2019 EU-1-INV-091219 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC
7/25/2019 EU2-INV Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC
8/19/2019 EU-4-INV-081919 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC
8/23/2019 EU-5-INV-082319 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC b
7/25/2019 EU6-INV Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC b
8/19/2019 EU-7-INV-081919 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC
8/16/2019 EU-8-INV-081619 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC
8/21/2019 EU-9-INV-082119 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC b
8/21/2019 EU-10-INV-082119 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC b
7/31/2019 EU-11-INV Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC b
8/20/2019 EU-12-INV-082019 Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Offsite invertebrate EPC
TR0795
Notes:
a: Plant tissue represents broadleaf plants with non-waxy leaves, seeded grasses (fescues, ryegrass, wheatgrass) and berries or fruit within 1 to 2 feet of the
ground surface. Terrestrial invertebrate samples were primarily composed of grasshoppers, crickets, and dragonflies.
b: Insufficient mass to run all analyses; only a single run of Table 3+ SOPs were analyzed.
Abbreviations:
EU - Exposure Unit
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
December 2019
TABLE 3-3
ECOLOGICAL SLEA DATASET - OFFSITE, ONSITE AND CFR SURFACE WATER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Sample ID Location ID Eco-SLEA EU Sample Description Data Use
9/12/2019 POND-B-EAST-091219 Pond B (EU2)Offsite Terrestrial Discrete SW sample Offsite SW EPC
9/12/2019 POND-B-SOUTH-091219 Pond B (EU2)Offsite Terrestrial Discrete SW sample Offsite SW EPC
9/12/2019 POND-B-WEST-091219 Pond B (EU2)Offsite Terrestrial Discrete SW sample Offsite SW EPC
7/24/2019 POND-1-NE-072419 Pond 1 Onsite Terrestrial Surface Water Onsite SW EPC
7/24/2019 POND-1-NW-072419 Pond 1 Onsite Terrestrial Surface Water Onsite SW EPC
7/24/2019 POND-1-SE-072419 Pond 1 Onsite Terrestrial Surface Water Onsite SW EPC
7/24/2019 POND-1-SE-072419-2 Pond 1 Onsite Terrestrial Surface Water Field Duplicate/EPC
7/25/2019 CFR-04-CM-072519 CFR-04 CFR Surface Water CFR SW EPC
7/25/2019 CFR-04-CT-072519 CFR-04 CFR Surface Water CFR SW EPC
7/25/2019 CFR-04-E-072519 CFR-04 CFR Surface Water CFR SW EPC
7/25/2019 CFR-04-W-072519 CFR-04 CFR Surface Water CFR SW EPC
7/25/2019 CFR-07-CM-072519 CFR-07 CFR Surface Water CFR SW EPC
7/25/2019 CFR-07-CT-072519 CFR-07 CFR Surface Water CFR SW EPC
7/25/2019 CFR-07-E-072519 CFR-07 CFR Surface Water CFR SW EPC
7/25/2019 CFR-07-W-072519 CFR-07 CFR Surface Water CFR SW EPC
Abbreviations:
CFR - Cape Fear River
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
SLEA EU - Screening Level Exposure Assessment Exposure Unit
SW - Surface water
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 3-4
ECOLOGICAL SLEA DATASET - ONSITE SOIL AND CO-LOCATED SOIL AND EARTHWORM
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Sample ID Location ID EU Matrix Data Use
9/25/2019 SEEP-B-SOIL-092519 SEEP-B Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample EPC
9/25/2019 SEEP-B-WORMSOIL-092519 SEEP-B Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample with corresponding tissue composite EPC/BSAF
9/26/2019 SEEP-C-SOIL-092619 SEEP-C Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample EPC
9/26/2019 SEEP-C-WORMSOIL-092619 SEEP-C Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample with corresponding tissue composite EPC/BSAF
9/26/2019 SEEP-D-WORMSOIL-092619 SEEP-D Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample with corresponding tissue composite EPC/BSAF
9/24/2019 WC-SOIL-092419 Willis Creek Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample EPC
9/24/2019 WC-WORMSOIL-092419 Willis Creek Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample with corresponding tissue composite EPC/BSAF
9/13/2019 SEEP-A-RIVERSOIL-091319 SEEP-A Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample EPC
9/13/2019 SEEP-A-WORMSOIL-091319 SEEP-A Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample with corresponding tissue composite EPC/BSAF
9/11/2019 SEEP-D-RIVERSOIL-091119 SEEP-D Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample EPC
9/24/2019 INTAKE-WORM-SOIL-092419 INTAKE Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample with corresponding tissue composite EPC/BSAF
9/24/2019 INTAKE-WORMSOIL-092419-D INTAKE Onsite Terrestrial Composite soil sample with corresponding tissue composite Field Duplicate/EPC
9/13/2019 SEEP-A-WORMS-091319 SEEP-A Onsite Terrestrial Composite earthworm tissue sample BSAF/Invertebrate EPC
9/25/2019 SEEP-B-WORMS-092519 SEEP-B Onsite Terrestrial Composite earthworm tissue sample BSAF/Invertebrate EPC
9/26/2019 SEEP-C-WORM-092619 SEEP-C Onsite Terrestrial Composite earthworm tissue sample BSAF/Invertebrate EPC
9/26/2019 SEEP-D-WORM-092619 SEEP-D Onsite Terrestrial Composite earthworm tissue sample BSAF/Invertebrate EPC
9/24/2019 WC-WORM-092419 Willis Creek Onsite Terrestrial Composite earthworm tissue sample BSAF/Invertebrate EPC
9/24/2019 INTAKE-WORM-092419 INTAKE Onsite Terrestrial Composite earthworm tissue sample BSAF/Invertebrate EPC
9/24/2019 INTAKE-WORM-092419-D INTAKE Onsite Terrestrial Composite earthworm tissue sample BSAF/Field Duplicate/EPC
Abbreviations:
BSAF - biota-soil accumulation factors
EU - Exposure Unit
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 3-5
ECOLOGICAL SLEA DATASET - CAPE FEAR RIVER SEDIMENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Sample ID Location ID EU Sample Description Data Use
10/21/2019 SED1-20191021 SED-1 CFR Composite sediment sample EPC
10/21/2019 SED2-20191021 SED-2 CFR Composite sediment sample EPC
10/21/2019 SED3-20191021 SED-3 CFR Composite sediment sample EPC
10/21/2019 SED4-20191021 SED-4 CFR Composite sediment sample EPC
10/21/2019 SED5-20191021 SED-5 CFR Composite sediment sample EPC
10/21/2019 SED6-20191021 SED-6 CFR Composite sediment sample EPC
10/21/2019 SED3-20191021-DUP SED-3 CFR Composite sediment sample Field duplicate/EPC
Notes:
1: CFR EU includes all sample locations within the CFR collected between Willis Creek and Georgia Branch Creek
Abbreviations:
CFR - Cape Fear River
EU - Exposure Unit
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 3-6
ECOLOGICAL SLEA DATASET - CAPE FEAR RIVER INVERTEBRATES AND VEGETATION
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Sample ID Location ID Sample Description Data Use
10/21/2019 CFR-AC-INV-01-20191021 CFR Asian clama EPC
10/21/2019 CFR-AC-INV-02-20191021 CFR Asian clama EPC
10/21/2019 CFR-AC-INV-03-20191021 CFR Asian clama EPC
10/21/2019 CFR-INV-01-20191021 CFR Benthic invertebratesb EPCd
10/21/2019 CFR-INV-02-20191021 CFR Benthic invertebratesb EPC
10/21/2019 CFR-INV-03-20191021 CFR Benthic invertebratesb EPC
10/21/2019 CFR-INV-04-20191021 CFR Benthic invertebratesc EPCd
10/21/2019 SED1-VEG-20191021 CFR Aquatic vegetationd EPC
10/21/2019 SED2-VEG-20191021 CFR Aquatic vegetation EPC
10/21/2019 SED3-VEG-20191021 CFR Aquatic vegetation EPC
10/21/2019 SED4-VEG-20191021 CFR Aquatic vegetation EPC
10/21/2019 SED5-VEG-20191021 CFR Aquatic vegetation EPC
10/21/2019 SED6-VEG-20191021 CFR Aquatic vegetation EPC
Notes:
a: Discrete Asian clam shallow water sample from single location
c: Primarily aquatic larvae and a leech.
d: Insufficient mass to run all analyses, only a single run of Table 3+ SOPs were analyzed.
Abbreviations:
CFR - Cape Fear River
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
b: Primarily Asian clams; represents deeper water and spatial composite samples that were combined into a
single composite at the lab.
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 3-7
ECOLOGICAL SLEA DATASET - FISH TISSUE
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Caught Sample ID Location Common Name Scientific Name Sample Description Analyzed Portion Weight (grams)Length
(mm)a Data Use
7/30/2019 DERC-1 LMB Pond 1 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Fillet only 816 343 EPC
7/30/2019 DERC-2 LMB Pond 1 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Fillet only 1270 406 EPC
7/30/2019 DERC-3 LMB Pond 1 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Fillet only 998 394 EPC/Whole-body to fillet ratio
7/30/2019 DERC-3 LMB-Carcass Pond 1 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Carcass (fillet removed)998 394 Whole-body to fillet ratio
7/31/2019 CFR-06-1 BC CFR-07d Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus individual, whole fish Fillet only 4899 660 EPC
7/31/2019 CFR-06-2 BC CFR-07d Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus individual, whole fish Fillet only 2812 597 EPC/Whole-body to fillet ratio
7/31/2019 CFR-06-2 BC-Carcass CFR-07d Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus individual, whole fish Carcass (fillet removed)2812 597 Whole-body to fillet ratio
7/31/2019 CFR-06-3 BC CFR-07d Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus individual, whole fish Fillet only 4354 622 EPC
7/31/2019 CFR-09-2 BC CFR-09 Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus individual, whole fish Fillet only 2903 663 Whole-body to fillet ratio
7/31/2019 CFR-09-2 BC-Carcass CFR-09 Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus individual, whole fish Carcass (fillet removed)2903 663 Whole-body to fillet ratio
8/1/2019 CFR-05-1 LMB CFR-06c Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Fillet only 631 358 EPC/Whole-body to fillet ratio
8/1/2019 CFR-05-1 LMB-Carcass CFR-06c Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Carcass (fillet removed)631 358 Whole-body to fillet ratio
8/1/2019 CFR-05-2 FH CFR-06c Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris individual, whole fish Fillet only 5262 747 EPC
8/1/2019 CFR-05-3 BC CFR-06c Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus individual, whole fish Fillet only 5262 767 EPC
8/1/2019 CFR-05-4 CC CFR-06c Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus individual, whole fish Fillet only 607 445 EPC/Whole-body to fillet ratio
8/1/2019 CFR-05-4 CC-Carcass CFR-06c Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus individual, whole fish Carcass (fillet removed)607 445 Whole-body to fillet ratio
8/2/2019 MM-68-4 LMB MM-68 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Fillet only 380 318 Whole-body to fillet ratio
8/2/2019 MM-68-4 LMB-Carcass MM-68 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Carcass (fillet removed)380 318 Whole-body to fillet ratio
9/24/2019 SeepA-01-Redbreast Sunfish SEEP A Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus comp, whole fish Whole-body 11 [38]EPC
9/24/2019 SeepB-01-Spotted Bass SEEP B Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Whole-body 5 58 EPC
9/24/2019 SeepC-01-Largemouth Bass SEEP C Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, fillet None - discarded due to sampling error 102 305 None
9/25/2019 CFR07-01Comely Shiner CFR07 Comely shiner Notropis amoenus comp, whole fish Whole-body 4 [45]EPCb
9/25/2019 CFR07-01-Lamprey CFR07 American eel Anguilla rostrata individual, whole fish Whole-body 3 107 EPCb
9/26/2019 SeepA-02-Redbreast Sunfish SEEP A Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus comp, whole fish Whole-body 17 [48]EPC
9/26/2019 SeepB-02-Redbreast Sunfish SEEP B Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus individual, whole fish Whole-body 15 42 EPC
9/26/2019 SeepC-02-Redbreast Sunfish SEEP C Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus individual, whole fish Whole-body 16 44 EPC
9/26/2019 WC-01-LMB Willis Creek Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Whole-body 2 53 EPCb
9/26/2019 WC-02-Dusky Shiner Willis Creek Dusky shiner Notropis cummingsae individual, whole fish Whole-body 2 61 EPCb
9/27/2019 CFRBladen-01-LMB Bladen Bluffs Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides individual, whole fish Whole-body 78 191 Downstream Whole-body Sample
Notes:
Abbreviations:
a: Values in square brackets [X] represent average length of fish for composite sample; non-bracketed values indicate whole fish specimen length.EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
b: Insufficient mass to run all analyses; only a single run of Table 3+ SOPs were analyzed.mm - millimeter
c: Field staff mistakenly labeled samples as location 05. Coordinates confirmed Location 06 was correct. CFR-Cape Fear River
d: Field staff mistakenly labeled samples as location 06. Coordinates confirmed Location 07 was correct. comp - composite sample
1: While upstream or downstream samples were collected at Bladen Bluffs, MM-68 and CFR-09 for the Human Health SLEA, only samples
within the Aquatic EU as defined in the Ecological SLEA were included in EPC calculations.
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 3-8
WILDLIFE EXPOSURE FACTORS FOR TERRESTRIAL RECEPTORS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Bobwhite Quail Woodcock Eastern Cottontail
Rabbit
Southern Short-
tailed Shrew
Colinus
virginianus
Scolopax
minor
Sylvilagus
floridanus
Blarina
carolinensis
Avian Consumer
(Herbivore)
Avian
Consumer
(Invertivore)
Mammalian
Consumer
(Herbivore)
Mammalian
Consumer
(Invertivore)
BW Body Weight [1]kg 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.02
FIR Daily Food Ingestion Rate (dry matter)[2a]kg, dw/day 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.002
FIR Daily Food Ingestion Rate (wet matter)[2b]kg, ww/day 0.01 0.11 0.19 0.006
Pveg Proportion of Diet - Vegetation [3]kg diet item,
ww/kg diet, ww 1 0 1 0
Pinv Proportion of Diet - Invertebrates [3]kg diet item,
ww/kg diet, ww 0 1 0 1
Pso Proportion of Diet - Soil [4]kg diet item,
dw/kg diet, dw 0.034 0.10 0.02 0.02
DWI Daily Water Ingestion [5]L/kg-day 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.003
HR Home Range [6]acres 9 8 2.0 1.0
Site Total Site Area [7]acres 700 700 700 700
AUF Area Use Factor [8]proportion 1 1 1 1
Parameter Parameter Definition Units
Birds Mammals
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 3-8
WILDLIFE EXPOSURE FACTORS FOR TERRESTRIAL RECEPTORS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Notes:
[3] Diet = Assumed based on feeding guilds
[8] AUF = Calculated via EU ÷ HR. Maximum AUF assumed to be 1.0.
Abbreviations:
AUF - area use factor
BW - body weight
dw/day - dry weight per day
dw/kg - dry weight per kilogram
DWI - drinking water intake
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
EU - Exposure Unit
FIR - food ingestion rate
HR - home range
kg - kilogram
L/kg - liter per kilogram
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
ww/day - wet weight per day
[7] The on-Site forest area is approximately 700 acres.
[1] As reported in North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Wildlife Profiles https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species; and in USEPA (1993) for Short-tailed
shrew.
[2a] Calculated using allometric equations from Nagy (2001) for dry weight diet as follows:
Bobwhite Quail - equation for Galliform birds: FIR (dw) = 0.088 x BW 0.891
Woodcock - equation for insectivore birds: FIR (dw) = 0.540 x BW 0.705
Cottontail Rabbit - equation for herbivorous mammals: FIR (dw) =0.859 x BW 0.628
Short-tailed Shrew - equation for invertivore mammals: FIR (dw) = 0.373 x BW 0.622
[2b] Maximum rate reported in EPA (1993) for Woodcock and Bobwhite quail.
Cottontail Rabbit - calculated using allometric equations from Nagy (2001) for fresh weight diet for herbivorous mammals: FIR (ww) = 2.606 x BW 0.628
Short-tailed shrew - calculated using allometric equations from Nagy (2001) for fresh weight diet for invertivore mammals: FIR (ww) = 1.33 x BW 0.622
[4] Soil ingestion proportion:
Bobwhite Quail and Woodcock - as reported in USEPA (1993). Woodcock value from Table 4-4. Quail value from pg. 2-122.
Cottontail Rabbit and Short-tailed shrew assumed similar to white-footed mouse and meadow voles as reported in USEPA (1993) Table 4.4.
[5] As reported by USEPA (1993).
[6] Home range all value represent the smallest home ranges reported by USEPA (1993).
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 3-9
WILDLIFE EXPOSURE FACTORS FOR AQUATIC RECEPTORS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Wood Duck Mallard Duck Great Blue
Heron Muskrat Mink River Otter
Aix sponsa Anas
platyrhynchos Egretta thula Ondatra
zibethicus
Mustela
vison
Lontra
canadensisAvian
Consumer
(Herbivore)
Avian Consumer
(Invertivore)
Avian
Consumer
(Piscivore)
Mammalian
Consumer
(Herbivore)
Mammalian
Consumer
(Invertivore)
Mammalian
Consumer
(Piscivore)
BW Body Weight [1]kg 0.7 1.1 2.5 0.9 0.5 5.0
FIR Daily Food Ingestion Rate (dry matter)[2a]kg, dw/day 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.06 0.02 0.19
FIR Daily Food Ingestion Rate (wet matter)[2b]kg, ww/day 0.13 0.17 0.45 0.31 0.11 0.64
Pveg Proportion of Diet - Vegetation [3]kg diet item,
ww/kg diet, ww 1 0 0 1 0 0
Pinv Proportion of Diet - Benthic Invertebrates [3]kg diet item,
ww/kg diet, ww 0 1 0 0 1 0
Pmam Proportion of Diet - Fish [3]kg diet item,
ww/kg diet, ww 0 0 1 0 0 1
Pso Proportion of Diet - Sediment [4]kg diet item, dw/kg diet, dw 0.11 0.02 0 0.02 0.03 0.02
DWI Daily Water Ingestion [5]L/kg-day 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.87 0.055 0.40
HR Home Range [6]acres 275 275 1.5 0.1 61 1384
Site Total Site Area [7]acres 297 297 297 297 297 297
AUF Area Use Factor [8]proportion 1 1 1 1 1 0.21
Parameter Parameter Definition Units
Birds Mammals
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 3-9
WILDLIFE EXPOSURE FACTORS FOR AQUATIC RECEPTORS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Notes:
[3] Diet = Assumed based on feeding guilds
[8] AUF = Calculated via EU ÷ HR. Maximum AUF assumed to be 1.0.
Abbreviations:
AUF - area use factor FIR - food ingestion rate
BW - body weight HR - home range
dw/day - dry weight per day kg - kilogram
dw/kg - dry weight per kilogram L/kg - liter per kilogram
DWI - drinking water intake USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency ww/day - wet weight per day
EU - Exposure Unit
[5] Highest daily water ingestion rates are from EPA (1993). The DWI value for Mallards was used for Wood Ducks.
[6] Home range all value represent the smallest home ranges reported by USEPA (1993).
For Wood duck, the HR for Mallard duck is assumed.
For Mink and River otter, linear river-based home ranges were converted to areas assuming receptors stay within 200m of river banks (as reported by USEPA, 1993 for Mink).
[7] The stretch of the Cape Fear River encompassing the preliminary area evaluated includes 6 km of river, which was converted to a bank habitat assuming receptors primarily forage in
the 200 meters adjacent to the bank (based on Mink as reported in USEPA, 1993).
[1] Lowest body weights reported in North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Wildlife Profiles https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species
[2a] Calculated using allometric equations from Nagy (2001) for dry weight diet as follows:
Wood duck and Mallard duck - equation for omnivorous birds: FIR (dw) = 0.67 x BW 0.627
Great Blue Heron - equation for carnivorous birds: FIR (dw) = 0.849 x BW 0.663
Mink - equation for invertivore mammals: FIR (dw) = 0.373 x BW 0.622
Muskrat - equation for herbivorous mammals: FIR (dw) =0.859 x BW 0.628
River Otter - equation for carnivorous mammals: FIR (dw) = 0.153 x BW 0.834
[2b] Maximum rate reported in EPA (1993) for Mink, Muskrat and Great Blue Heron.
Calculated using allometric equations from Nagy (2001) for fresh weight diet as follows:
Wood duck and Mallard duck - equation for omnivorous birds: FIR (ww) = 2.094 x BW 0.627
River Otter - equation for carnivorous mammals: FIR (ww) = 0.469 x BW 0.848
[4] Soil ingestion proportion:
Mallard and Wood ducks - as reported in Table 4.4 of USEPA (1993).Great Blue Heron - assumed to be insignificant based on feeding methods.
Muskrat - assumed similar to Meadow vole, as reported in USEPA (1993)
Mink - assumed similar to Weasel, reported as 2.8% in Sample et al. (1997) based on red fox.
River Otter - limited data, assumed low (< 2%) based on feeding habits.
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 3-10
TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES FOR HFPO-DA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor TRV Values TRV Units Description and Reference
Invertebrates 0.518 mg/kg dw Freshwater benthic invertebrate PNEC from ECHA (2019)
Aquatic Plants 10.6 mg/L NOEC for freshwater algae of 106 mg/L from ECHA (2019) with UF=10 applied.
Aquatic Life 0.89 mg/L Freshwater chronic NOEC for Rainbow trout of 8.89 mg/L (Hoke et al. 2016) with UF=10 applied.
Bird 84.5 mg/kg bw-day Unbounded NOAEL from chronic bobwhite quail reproduction study (as reported in ECHA 2019). As this
was the highest measured dose, no LOAELs were reported.
Mammals 0.5 mg/kg bw-day NOAEL for decreased F1 generation pup weights in chronic reproductive study (EPA, 2019). The bounded
LOAEL was 5 mg/kg/day and resulted in decreased weight in male and female F1 pups.
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight
NOAEL - no observed adverse effect level
NOEC - no effect concentration
UF - uncertainty factor
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
mg/kg/day - milligram per kilogram per day
PNEC - probable no effects concentrations
TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY STATISTICS - ONSITE SOIL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No. NDs % NDs Minimum RL
(ng/kg dw)
Maximum RL
(ng/kg dw)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 11 0 11 100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.1E+04 9.2E+07 9.6E+03 0.91
PFMOAA 11 0 11 100%0 0% N/A N/A 2.6E+04 2.1E+09 4.5E+04 1.74PFO2HxA11011100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.4E+04 1.6E+08 1.3E+04 0.91PFO3OA110982%2 18%1,000 2,800 3.9E+03 1.0E+07 3.2E+03 0.84
PFO4DA 11 0 8 73%3 27%1,000 2,800 2.2E+03 2.4E+06 1.5E+03 0.70
PFO5DA 11 0 10 91%1 9%1,000 1,000 3.0E+03 6.4E+06 2.5E+03 0.83PMPA110873%3 27%1,000 2,800 4.7E+03 2.6E+07 5.1E+03 1.07PEPA110655%5 45%1,000 2,800 1.9E+03 2.2E+06 1.5E+03 0.77PFESA-BP1 11 0 1 9%10 91%1,000 2,800 1.2E+03 3.3E+05 5.8E+02 0.49
PFESA-BP2 11 0 4 36%7 64%1,000 2,800 1.3E+03 1.8E+05 4.2E+02 0.33Byproduct 4 11 0 2 18%9 82%1,000 2,800 1.2E+03 1.7E+05 4.2E+02 0.36Byproduct 5 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 2,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 2,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NVHOS 11 0 1 9%10 91%1,000 2,800 1.0E+03 8.1E+03 9.0E+01 0.09EVE Acid 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 2,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A Hydro-EVE Acid 11 0 2 18%9 82%1,000 2,800 1.0E+03 6.4E+03 8.0E+01 0.08R-EVE 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 2,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PES 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 2,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 2,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA-G 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 2,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of Variationdw - dry weightEPC - Exposure Point Concentration
KM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicableng/kg - nanogram per kilogramND - non detects
No. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogramRL - reporting limit
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY STATISTICS - ONSITE SOIL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DA
PFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DAPMPAPEPAPFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2Byproduct 4Byproduct 5Byproduct 6
NVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVE
PES
PFECA BPFECA-G
Minimum Detect
(ng/kg dw)
Maximum Detect
(ng/kg dw)
Mean Detect
(ng/kg dw)
Median Detect
(ng/kg dw)
90th
percentilea
(ng/kg dw)
95UCLb
(ng/kg dw)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/kg dw)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg, dw)
1,300 29,500 10,564 7,900 25,000 15,816 95% Student's-t UCL 15,816 95UCL 0.016
1,100 150,000 26,036 7,500 68,000 76,001 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 76,001 95UCL 0.0762,200 47,000 13,936 9,300 24,000 20,838 95% Student's-t UCL 20,838 95UCL 0.0211,500 12,000 4,422 2,200 7,700 7,346 95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL 7,346 95UCL 0.007
1,200 5,400 2,625 1,800 5,100 3,117 95% KM (t) UCL 3,117 95UCL 0.003
1,000 10,000 3,240 2,200 4,700 4,496 95% KM (t) UCL 4,496 95UCL 0.0041,000 19,000 6,050 4,850 7,800 7,679 95% KM (t) UCL 7,679 95UCL 0.0081,300 6,150 2,592 2,050 2,800 2,803 95% KM (t) UCL 2,803 95UCL 0.0033,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,800 N/A N/A 3,000 Maximum Detected 0.003
1,100 2,100 1,700 1,800 2,100 1,560 95% KM (t) UCL 1,560 95UCL 0.0021,200 2,400 1,800 1,800 2,400 1,498 95% KM (t) UCL 2,400 Maximum Detected 0.002 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A
1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 N/A N/A 1,300 Maximum Detected 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 N/A N/A 1,200 Maximum Detected 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of Variationdw - dry weightEPC - Exposure Point Concentration
KM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicableng/kg - nanogram per kilogramND - non detects
No. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogramRL - reporting limit
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS - OFFSITE SOIL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL (ng/kg dw)
Maximum
RL(ng/kg dw)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 12 0 2 17%10 83%250 250 4.6E+02 4.2E+05 6.5E+02 1.42
PFMOAA 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 12 0 2 17%10 83%1,000 1,000 1.1E+03 1.3E+05 3.7E+02 0.32PFO3OA12000%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFO4DA 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFO5DA 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A PMPA 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A PEPA 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFESA-BP1 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 4 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 5 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Byproduct 6 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NVHOS 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Hydro-EVE Acid 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PES 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA-G 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of Variationdw - dry weight
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
KM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicableng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detects
No. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogramRL - reporting limit
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS - OFFSITE SOIL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DA
PFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DAPMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2Byproduct 4Byproduct 5Byproduct 6
NVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVE
PESPFECA BPFECA-G
Minimum
Detect(ng/kg dw)
Maximum
Detect(ng/kg dw)
Mean
Detect(ng/kg dw)
Median
Detect(ng/kg dw)
90th
percentilea
(ng/kg dw)
95UCLb
(ng/kg dw)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/kg dw)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg dw)
360 2,600 1,480 1,480 349 1,607 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 2,600 Max Detect 0.0026
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.0011,400 2,300 1,850 1,850 1,360 1,410 95% KM (t) UCL 2,300 Max Detect 0.0023 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of Variationdw - dry weight
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
KM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicableng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detects
No. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogramRL - reporting limit
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-3
SUMMARY STATISTICS - ONSITE SURFACE WATER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL
(ng/L)
Maximum
RL
(ng/L)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 8.1E+02 1.3E+04 1.1E+02 0.14
PFMOAA 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 2.5E+02 5.8E+01 7.6E+00 0.03
PFO2HxA 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 7.1E+02 3.3E+02 1.8E+01 0.03PFO3OA303100%0 0% N/A N/A 9.2E+01 1.0E+01 3.2E+00 0.03PFO4DA303100%0 0% N/A N/A 3.8E+01 2.3E+00 1.5E+00 0.04
PFO5DA 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 9.9E+00 2.3E-02 1.5E-01 0.02
PMPA 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 8.3E+02 3.0E+02 1.7E+01 0.02PEPA303100%0 0% N/A N/A 2.8E+02 1.6E+02 1.3E+01 0.04PFESA-BP1 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 3.2E+01 7.5E-01 8.7E-01 0.03
Byproduct 4 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 9.4E+01 1.3E+01 3.6E+00 0.04Byproduct 5 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NVHOS 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 6.0E+00 1.2E-01 3.4E-01 0.06
EVE Acid 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Hydro-EVE Acid 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 3.5E+00 7.5E-03 8.7E-02 0.03R-EVE 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 5.5E+01 7.6E+00 2.8E+00 0.05PES3000%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA-G 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of VariationEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicable
ng/L - nanogram per litreND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/L - milligram per litre
RL - reporting limit
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-3
SUMMARY STATISTICS - ONSITE SURFACE WATER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPAPEPAPFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPES
PFECA BPFECA-G
Minimum
Detect
(ng/L)
Maximum
Detect
(ng/L)
Mean
Detect
(ng/L)
Median
Detect
(ng/L)
90th
percentilea
(ng/L)
95UCLb
(ng/L)95UCL Basis EPC(ng/L)EPC Basis EPC (mg/L)
730 940 812 765 905 1,001 95% Student's-t UCL 940 Maximum Detected 0.00094
240 255 248 250 254 261 95% Student's-t UCL 255 Maximum Detected 0.00026
690 725 705 700 720 735 95% Student's-t UCL 725 Maximum Detected 0.0007390969291959895% Student's-t UCL 96 Maximum Detected 0.0001037403838404195% Student's-t UCL 40 Maximum Detected 0.00004
10 10 10 10 10 10 95% Student's-t UCL 10 Maximum Detected 0.00001
820 850 830 820 844 859 95% Student's-t UCL 850 Maximum Detected 0.0008527029528228029230395% Student's-t UCL 295 Maximum Detected 0.00030 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002
31 33 32 31 32 33 95% Student's-t UCL 33 Maximum Detected 0.00003
90 97 94 96 96 100 95% Student's-t UCL 97 Maximum Detected 0.00010 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
6 6 6 6 6 7 95% Student's-t UCL 6 Maximum Detected 0.00001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 3 4 3 3 4 4 95% Student's-t UCL 4 Maximum Detected 0.00000452585555575995% Student's-t UCL 58 Maximum Detected 0.00006 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of VariationEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicable
ng/L - nanogram per litreND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/L - milligram per litre
RL - reporting limit
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-4
SUMMARY STATISTICS - OFFSITE SURFACE WATER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.
NDs % NDs Minimum RL
(ng/L)
Maximum RL
(ng/L)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 3.0E+02 1.3E+02 1.2E+01 0.04
PFMOAA 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 6.8E+01 9.3E+00 3.1E+00 0.05PFO2HxA303100%0 0% N/A N/A 2.2E+02 3.3E+01 5.8E+00 0.03PFO3OA303100%0 0% N/A N/A 2.6E+01 3.3E-01 5.8E-01 0.02
PFO4DA 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 8.7E+00 6.3E-02 2.5E-01 0.03
PFO5DA 3 0 2 67%1 33%2 2 2.1E+00 2.2E-03 4.7E-02 0.02PMPA303100%0 0% N/A N/A 3.5E+02 3.3E+01 5.8E+00 0.02PEPA303100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.1E+02 3.3E+01 5.8E+00 0.05PFESA-BP1 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 2.5E+01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 N/A Byproduct 4 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.4E+02 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 0.07Byproduct 5 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NVHOS 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Hydro-EVE Acid 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 3 0 3 100%0 0% N/A N/A 5.3E+01 3.3E-01 5.8E-01 0.01
PES 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA-G 3 0 0 0%3 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of VariationEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicableng/L - nanogram per litreND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/L - milligram per litreRL - reporting limit
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-4
SUMMARY STATISTICS - OFFSITE SURFACE WATER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DA
PFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DAPMPAPEPAPFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2Byproduct 4Byproduct 5Byproduct 6
NVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVE
PES
PFECA BPFECA-G
Minimum Detect
(ng/L)
Maximum Detect
(ng/L)
Mean Detect
(ng/L)
Median Detect
(ng/L)
90th
percentilea
(ng/L)
95UCLb
(ng/L)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/L)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/L)
290 310 303 310 133 323 95% Student's-t UCL 310 Maximum Detected 0.00031
65 71 68 67 9 73 95% Student's-t UCL 71 Maximum Detected 0.000072102202172203322695% Student's-t UCL 220 Maximum Detected 0.000222627262602795% Student's-t UCL 27 Maximum Detected 0.00003
8 9 9 9 0 9 95% Student's-t UCL 9 Maximum Detected 0.00001
2 2 2 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 Maximum Detected 0.0000023403503473503335695% Student's-t UCL 350 Maximum Detected 0.000351001101071103311695% Student's-t UCL 110 Maximum Detected 0.00011 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002
25 25 25 25 N/A N/A N/A 25 Maximum Detected 0.0000313015014014010015795% Student's-t UCL 150 Maximum Detected 0.00015 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 52 53 53 53 0 54 95% Student's-t UCL 53 Maximum Detected 0.00005
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.000002 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of VariationEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicableng/L - nanogram per litreND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/L - milligram per litreRL - reporting limit
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-5
SUMMARY STATISTICS - TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL
(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
RL
(ng/kg ww)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 12 0 12 100%0 0% N/A N/A 9.4E+03 2.9E+08 1.7E+04 1.84PFMOAA120325%9 75%1,000 5,700 7.4E+03 2.7E+08 1.6E+04 2.22
PFO2HxA 12 0 9 75%3 25%1,000 1,000 2.4E+03 4.4E+06 2.1E+03 0.88PFO3OA12018%11 92%1,000 5,700 2.2E+02 N/A N/A N/A PFO4DA 12 0 2 17%10 83%1,000 5,700 4.0E+02 1.8E+04 1.4E+02 0.34PFO5DA12000%12 100%1,000 5,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PMPA 12 0 12 100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.0E+04 2.6E+08 1.6E+04 1.56
PEPA 12 0 5 42%7 58%1,000 5,700 8.5E+02 3.9E+05 6.2E+02 0.74PFESA-BP1 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 5,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP2 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 5,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Byproduct 4 12 0 8 67%4 33%1,000 1,000 4.4E+03 5.3E+07 7.3E+03 1.65
Byproduct 5 12 0 2 17%10 83%1,000 5,700 4.7E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+02 0.21Byproduct 6 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 5,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A NVHOS 12 0 10 83%2 17%1,000 5,000 6.8E+04 4.0E+10 2.0E+05 2.92
EVE Acid 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 5,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 5,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 12 0 9 75%3 25%1,000 1,000 2.5E+03 5.5E+06 2.3E+03 0.95PES120433%8 67%1,000 5,000 6.8E+02 5.9E+05 7.6E+02 1.12
PFECA B 12 0 2 17%10 83%1,000 5,700 6.0E+02 7.0E+05 8.3E+02 1.40
PFECA-G 12 0 0 0%12 100%1,000 5,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicable
ng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-5
SUMMARY STATISTICS - TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DAPFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPAPFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA B
PFECA-G
Minimum
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Mean
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Median
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
90th
percentilea
(ng/kg ww)
95UCLb
(ng/kg ww)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/kg ww)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg ww)
540 55,000 9,351 1,850 31,490 30,951 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 30,951 95UCL 0.03197059,000 26,657 20,000 18,570 17,816 95% KM (t) UCL 59,000 Maximum Detected 0.059
790 6,600 2,910 1,500 5,970 4,477 95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL 4,477 95UCL 0.0042202202202204,600 N/A N/A 220 Maximum Detected 0.00022605303953954,600 984 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 530 Maximum Detected 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,600 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
390 52,000 10,335 3,300 31,800 26,235 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 26,235 95UCL 0.026
410 2,300 1,134 850 4,730 1,268 95% KM (t) UCL 1,268 95UCL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,600 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,600 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
600 22,000 6,239 1,650 17,440 33,483 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 33,483 95UCL 0.033
370 570 470 470 4,600 650 95% KM (t) UCL 570 Maximum Detected 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,600 N/A N/A 650 730,000 81,845 5,850 25,800 447,843 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 447,843 95UCL 0.448
N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,600 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,600 N/A N/A 240 8,500 3,204 3,100 4,370 3,750 95% KM (t) UCL 3,750 95UCL 0.0043002,900 1,350 1,100 2,720 1,160 95% KM (t) UCL 1,160 95UCL 0.001
320 3,100 1,710 1,710 4,810 2,927 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3,100 Maximum Detected 0.003
N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,600 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicable
ng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-6
SUMMARY STATISTICS - OFFSITE TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL
(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
RL
(ng/kg ww)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 11 0 2 18%9 82%1,000 12,000 1.4E+03 1.3E+06 1.1E+03 0.80PFMOAA11019%10 91%1,000 12,000 1.4E+03 1.2E+06 1.1E+03 0.79
PFO2HxA 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO3OA 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO4DA 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO5DA 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PMPA 11 0 3 27%8 73%1,000 12,000 2.7E+03 2.7E+07 5.2E+03 1.90
PEPA 11 0 1 9%10 91%1,000 12,000 1.1E+03 3.6E+04 1.9E+02 0.18PFESA-BP1 11 0 1 9%10 91%1,000 1,700 1.2E+03 5.2E+05 7.2E+02 0.59PFESA-BP2 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Byproduct 4 11 0 1 9%10 91%1,000 12,000 1.5E+03 1.9E+06 1.4E+03 0.95
Byproduct 5 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A NVHOS 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
EVE Acid 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 11 0 2 18%9 82%1,000 12,000 5.4E+02 6.8E+04 2.6E+02 0.48PES11000%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA-G 11 0 0 0%11 100%1,000 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicable
ng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-6
SUMMARY STATISTICS - OFFSITE TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DAPFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPAPFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA B
PFECA-G
Minimum
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Mean
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Median
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
90th
percentilea
(ng/kg ww)
95UCLb
(ng/kg ww)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/kg ww)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg ww)
1,200 4,800 3,000 3,000 4,800 3,619 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4,800 Maximum Detected 0.0054,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 N/A N/A 4,600 Maximum Detected 0.005
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
1,300 19,000 7,233 1,400 12,000 6,157 95% KM (t) UCL 19,000 Maximum Detected 0.019
1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,700 N/A N/A 1,600 Maximum Detected 0.0023,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,700 N/A N/A 3,500 Maximum Detected 0.004 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 N/A N/A 5,600 Maximum Detected 0.006
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 280 800 540 540 1,700 1,673 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 800 Maximum Detected 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicable
ng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-7
SUMMARY STATISTICS - ONSITE TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL
(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
RL
(ng/kg ww)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 6 0 6 100%0 0% N/A N/A 7.1E+03 3.7E+07 6.1E+03 0.86PFMOAA60233%4 67%1,000 1,200 1.3E+04 4.2E+08 2.1E+04 1.56
PFO2HxA 6 0 4 67%2 33%1,000 1,200 3.9E+03 2.2E+07 4.7E+03 1.22PFO3OA606100%0 0% N/A N/A 2.4E+03 6.2E+06 2.5E+03 1.06PFO4DA60350%3 50%1,000 1,200 3.4E+02 2.9E+03 5.4E+01 0.16PFO5DA606100%0 0% N/A N/A 4.3E+03 2.6E+07 5.1E+03 1.20
PMPA 6 0 3 50%3 50%1,000 1,200 1.3E+03 2.1E+05 4.6E+02 0.34
PEPA 6 0 6 100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.1E+03 1.5E+05 3.9E+02 0.35PFESA-BP1 6 0 2 33%4 67%1,000 1,200 4.3E+02 4.2E+04 2.1E+02 0.48PFESA-BP2 6 0 6 100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.5E+03 2.4E+06 1.5E+03 1.05
Byproduct 4 6 0 6 100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.6E+04 2.0E+08 1.4E+04 0.87
Byproduct 5 6 0 5 83%1 17%1,100 1,100 4.9E+03 5.0E+07 7.0E+03 1.43Byproduct 6 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 2,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A NVHOS 6 0 4 67%2 33%1,000 1,200 1.9E+03 6.4E+06 2.5E+03 1.36
EVE Acid 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 2,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 3 50%3 50%1,000 1,200 5.7E+02 6.5E+04 2.5E+02 0.45R-EVE 6 0 6 100%0 0% N/A N/A 4.9E+03 8.0E+06 2.8E+03 0.58PES6000%6 100%1,000 2,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 2,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA-G 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 2,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicable
ng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-7
SUMMARY STATISTICS - ONSITE TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DAPFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPAPFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA B
PFECA-G
Minimum
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Mean Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Median
Detect
(ng/kg ww)
90th
percentilea
(ng/kg ww)
95UCLb
(ng/kg ww)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/kg ww)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg ww)
1,400 19,000 7,093 5,450 12,600 21,269 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 19,000 Maximum Detected 0.01918,000 57,000 37,500 37,500 37,500 64,914 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 57,000 Maximum Detected 0.057
870 14,000 5,343 3,250 9,100 8,310 95% KM (t) UCL 14,000 Maximum Detected 0.0142326,700 2,360 1,605 5,100 4,414 95% Student's-t UCL 6,700 Maximum Detected 0.0072804103403301,200 416 95% KM (t) UCL 410 Maximum Detected 0.000438314,000 4,272 2,450 9,750 8,474 95% Student's-t UCL 14,000 Maximum Detected 0.014
1,100 2,156 1,685 1,800 1,978 1,811 95% KM (t) UCL 2,156 Maximum Detected 0.002
520 1,444 1,116 1,300 1,422 1,436 95% Student's-t UCL 1,444 Maximum Detected 0.0012206304254251,200 1,319 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 630 Maximum Detected 0.00062094,200 1,465 960 3,150 2,727 95% Student's-t UCL 4,200 Maximum Detected 0.004
3,800 44,000 16,458 11,500 30,973 28,163 95% Student's-t UCL 44,000 Maximum Detected 0.044
450 20,000 5,823 1,984 13,100 11,403 95% KM (t) UCL 20,000 Maximum Detected 0.020 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 420 7,500 2,450 940 4,350 17,081 Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL 7,500 Maximum Detected 0.008
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A
380 930 570 400 1,200 933 95% KM (t) UCL 930 Maximum Detected 0.0011,100 9,500 4,865 4,695 7,750 7,188 95% Student's-t UCL 9,500 Maximum Detected 0.010 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,700 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicable
ng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-8
SUMMARY STATISTICS - SEDIMENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL
(µg/kg dw)
Maximum
RL
(µg/kg dw)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 6 0 1 17%5 83%0.25 0.25 2.5E-01 1.4E-05 3.7E-03 0.01PFMOAA6000%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFO2HxA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO3OA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO4DA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO5DA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PMPA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PEPA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP2 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Byproduct 4 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A NVHOS 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
EVE Acid 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A PES 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA-G 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.00 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
dw - dry weightEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicable
µg/kg - microgram per kilogramND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-8
SUMMARY STATISTICS - SEDIMENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DAPFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPAPFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA B
PFECA-G
Minimum
Detect
(µg/kg dw)
Maximum
Detect
(µg/kg dw)
Mean
Detect
(µg/kg dw)
Median
Detect
(µg/kg dw)
90th
percentilea
(µg/kg dw)
95UCLb
(µg/kg dw)
95UCL
Basis
EPC
(µg/kg dw)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg dw)
0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 N/A N/A 0.26 Maximum Detected 0.0003 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
dw - dry weightEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicable
µg/kg - microgram per kilogramND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-9
SUMMARY STATISTICS - CAPE FEAR RIVER SURFACE WATER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.
NDs % NDs Minimum RL
(ng/L)
Maximum RL
(ng/L)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 9 0 7 78%2 22%2 2 5.3E+00 1.7E+01 4.2E+00 0.78
PFMOAA 9 0 6 67%3 33%5 5 1.9E+01 4.2E+02 2.1E+01 1.07PFO2HxA909100%0 0% N/A N/A 7.4E+00 5.6E+01 7.5E+00 1.02PFO3OA90333%6 67%2 2 2.6E+00 1.9E+00 1.4E+00 0.53
PFO4DA 9 0 1 11%8 89%2 2 2.0E+00 8.9E-03 9.4E-02 0.05
PFO5DA 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A PMPA 9 0 3 33%6 67%10 10 1.2E+01 8.0E+00 2.8E+00 0.25PEPA9000%9 100%20 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 4 9 0 8 89%1 11%2 2 6.1E+00 3.6E+00 1.9E+00 0.31Byproduct 5 9 0 6 67%3 33%2 2 5.5E+00 2.9E+01 5.3E+00 0.97Byproduct 6 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NVHOS 9 0 9 100%0 0% N/A N/A 6.5E+00 1.4E-01 3.8E-01 0.06EVE Acid 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Hydro-EVE Acid 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 9 0 7 78%2 22%2 2 2.9E+00 3.5E-01 5.9E-01 0.21
PES 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA-G 9 0 0 0%9 100%2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of VariationEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicableng/L - nanogram per litreND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/L - milligram per litreRL - reporting limit
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-9
SUMMARY STATISTICS - CAPE FEAR RIVER SURFACE WATER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DA
PFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DAPMPAPEPAPFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2Byproduct 4Byproduct 5Byproduct 6
NVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVE
PES
PFECA BPFECA-G
Minimum Detect
(ng/L)
Maximum Detect
(ng/L)
Mean Detect
(ng/L)
Median Detect
(ng/L)
90th
percentilea
(ng/L)
95UCLb
(ng/L)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/L)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/L)
2 15 6 4 11 8 95% KM (t) UCL 8 95UCL 0.000008
9 71 26 17 43 33 95% KM (t) UCL 33 95UCL 0.00003322575151695% Adjusted Gamma UCL 16 95UCL 0.00001626434495% KM (t) UCL 6 Maximum Detected 0.000006
2 2 2 2 2 N/A N/A 2 Maximum Detected 0.000002
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 Minimum RL 0.00000212191513141495% KM (t) UCL 19 Maximum Detected 0.000019 N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A 20 Minimum RL 0.000020 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 5 9 7 7 8 7 95% KM (t) UCL 7 95UCL 0.0000073197511995% KM (t) UCL 9 95UCL 0.000009 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
6 7 7 7 7 7 95% Student's-t UCL 7 95UCL 0.000007 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 3 4 3 3 4 3 95% KM (t) UCL 3 95UCL 0.000003
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of VariationEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicableng/L - nanogram per litreND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/L - milligram per litreRL - reporting limit
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-10
SUMMARY STATISTICS - AQUATIC VEGETATION
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No. Samples No. Missing No. Detects % Detects No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL
(µg/kg ww)
Maximum
RL
(µg/kg ww)KM Meana KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa
HFPO-DA 6 0 4 67%2 33%1.3 1.3 7.8E+00 8.3E+01 9.1E+00 1.16PFMOAA60233%4 67%1.0 1.0 8.4E+01 1.9E+04 1.4E+02 1.62
PFO2HxA 6 0 2 33%4 67%1.0 1.0 1.2E+01 2.4E+02 1.6E+01 1.31PFO3OA60117%5 83%1.0 2.4 1.0E+00 1.9E-03 4.3E-02 0.04PFO4DA60233%4 67%1.0 2.4 1.1E+00 7.8E-02 2.8E-01 0.25PFO5DA60233%4 67%1.0 2.4 1.2E+00 5.0E-02 2.2E-01 0.19
PMPA 6 0 2 33%4 67%1.0 1.0 2.2E+01 8.6E+02 2.9E+01 1.35
PEPA 6 0 1 17%5 83%1.0 2.4 2.8E+00 1.7E+01 4.1E+00 1.45PFESA-BP1 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP2 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Byproduct 4 6 0 3 50%3 50%1.0 1.0 1.6E+00 6.7E-01 8.2E-01 0.52
Byproduct 5 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A NVHOS 6 0 1 17%5 83%1.0 2.4 6.5E+00 1.5E+02 1.2E+01 1.89
EVE Acid 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 6 0 2 33%4 67%1.0 1.0 1.4E+00 4.5E-01 6.7E-01 0.47PES6000%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA-G 6 0 0 0%6 100%1.0 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicable
µg/kg - microgram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-10
SUMMARY STATISTICS - AQUATIC VEGETATION
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
HFPO-DAPFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPAPFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA B
PFECA-G
Minimum
Detect
(µg/kg ww)
Maximum
Detect
(µg/kg ww)
Mean
Detect
(µg/kg ww)
Median
Detect
(µg/kg ww)
90th
percentilea
(µg/kg ww)
95UCLb
(µg/kg ww)95UCL Basis EPC
(µg/kg ww)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg ww)
2 26 11 8 20 16 95% KM (t) UCL 26 Maximum Detected 0.02613037025025025042795% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 370 Maximum Detected 0.370
29 38 34 34 34 30 95% KM (t) UCL 38 Maximum Detected 0.03811112 N/A N/A 1 Maximum Detected 0.00112112195% KM (t) UCL 2 Maximum Detected 0.00212112195% KM (t) UCL 2 Maximum Detected 0.002
60 66 63 63 63 56 95% KM (t) UCL 66 Maximum Detected 0.066
12 12 12 12 7 N/A N/A 12 Maximum Detected 0.012 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
1 3 2 2 3 2 95% KM (t) UCL 3 Maximum Detected 0.003
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 1 Minimum RL 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 34 34 34 34 18 N/A N/A 34 Maximum Detected 0.034
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 3 2 2 2 2 95% KM (t) UCL 3 Maximum Detected 0.003 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected resultsb: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statistic
Abbreviations:
95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
CV - Coefficient of Variation
EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-MeierN/A - not applicable
µg/kg - microgram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - numbermg/kg - milligram per kilogram
RL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 December 2019
TABLE 4-11
SUMMARY STATISTICS - FISH
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No.
Samples
No.
Missing
No.
Detects
%
Detects
No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
RL(ng/kg ww)
KM
Meana
KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa Minimum
Detect(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
Detect(ng/kg ww)
Mean Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Median
Detect(ng/kg ww)
90th
percentilea
(ng/kg ww)
95UCLb
(ng/kg ww)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/kg ww)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg ww)
Species:
HFPO-DA 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFMOAA4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFO2HxA 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO3OA4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFO4DA 4 0 2 50%2 50%1,000 1,000 8.5E+02 1.0E+06 1.0E+03 1.18 270 2,600 1,435 1,435 2,120 5,308 975% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 2,600 Maximum Detected 0.0026PFO5DA4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PMPA 4 0 2 50%2 50%1,000 1,000 3.2E+02 2.5E+03 5.0E+01 0.16 270 370 320 320 1,000 438 95% KM (t) UCL 370 Maximum Detected 0.00037PEPA4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFESA-BP1 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/APFESA-BP2 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/AByproduct 4 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 5 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 6 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/ANVHOS4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001EVE Acid 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/AHydro-EVE Acid 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/AR-EVE 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PES4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/APFECA B 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A
PFECA-G 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/ASpecies:
HFPO-DA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFMOAA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO2HxA6000%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFO3OA 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO4DA6000%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO5DA6000%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PMPA60233%4 67%1,000 1,000 2.8E+02 2.5E+01 5.0E+00 0.02 270 280 275 275 1,000 285 95% KM (t) UCL 280 Maximum Detected 0.00028PEPA6000%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFESA-BP1 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/APFESA-BP2 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/AByproduct 4 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 5 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 6 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/ANVHOS6000%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
EVE Acid 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/AHydro-EVE Acid 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A
R-EVE 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PES6000%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A
PFECA B 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/APFECA-G 6 0 0 0%6 100%1,000 1,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Largemouth bass (fillet only)
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Catfish spp. (fillet only)
TR0795 Page 1 of 3 December 2019
TABLE 4-11
SUMMARY STATISTICS - FISH
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No.
Samples
No.
Missing
No.
Detects
%
Detects
No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
RL(ng/kg ww)
KM
Meana
KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa Minimum
Detect(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
Detect(ng/kg ww)
Mean Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Median
Detect(ng/kg ww)
90th
percentilea
(ng/kg ww)
95UCLb
(ng/kg ww)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/kg ww)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg ww)
Species:
HFPO-DA 4 0 0 0%4 100%2,200 10,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8,560 N/A N/A 2,200 Minimum RL 0.0022PFMOAA404100%0 0% N/A N/A 4.1E+03 5.9E+05 7.7E+02 0.19 3,000 4,700 4,125 4,400 4,640 5,028 95% Student's-t UCL 4,700 Maximum Detected 0.0047
PFO2HxA 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO3OA4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFO4DA 4 0 4 100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.8E+04 4.3E+08 2.1E+04 1.12 580 41,000 18,420 16,050 38,000 42,786 95% Student's-t UCL 41,000 Maximum Detected 0.041PFO5DA404100%0 0% N/A N/A 8.8E+02 3.1E+05 5.5E+02 0.63 470 1,700 883 680 1,403 1,535 95% Student's-t UCL 1,700 Maximum Detected 0.0017
PMPA 4 0 3 75%1 25%1,000 1,000 6.7E+02 5.0E+05 7.1E+02 1.06 240 1,900 807 280 1,630 1,694 95% KM (t) UCL 1,900 Maximum Detected 0.0019PEPA4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFESA-BP1 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/APFESA-BP2 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/AByproduct 4 4 0 3 75%1 25%1,000 1,000 5.3E+02 2.1E+04 1.5E+02 0.28 400 730 527 450 919 768 95% KM (t) UCL 730 Maximum Detected 0.00073Byproduct 5 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 6 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/ANVHOS40125%3 75%1,000 1,000 7.1E+02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 N/A 710 710 710 710 1,000 N/A N/A 710 Maximum Detected 0.00071EVE Acid 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/AHydro-EVE Acid 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/AR-EVE 4 0 3 75%1 25%1,000 1,000 1.1E+03 8.4E+05 9.1E+02 0.80 450 2,700 1,310 780 2,190 2,462 95% KM (t) UCL 2,700 Maximum Detected 0.0027PES4000%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/APFECA B 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/A
PFECA-G 4 0 0 0%4 100%1,000 1,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,070 N/A N/ASpecies:
HFPO-DA 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,300 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,300 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFMOAA 2 0 1 50%1 50%1,000 1,000 3.1E+03 4.2E+06 2.1E+03 0.67 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 4,690 N/A N/A 5,100 Maximum Detected 0.0051PFO2HxA2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFO3OA 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO4DA202100%0 0% N/A N/A 1.7E+03 8.0E+04 2.8E+02 0.17 1,500 1,900 1,700 1,700 1,860 N/A N/A 1,900 Maximum Detected 0.0019PFO5DA20150%1 50%1,000 1,000 1.1E+03 2.5E+03 5.0E+01 0.05 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,090 N/A N/A 1,100 Maximum Detected 0.0011PMPA2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PEPA2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFESA-BP1 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/APFESA-BP2 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/AByproduct 4 2 0 1 50%1 50%1,000 1,000 3.7E+03 7.3E+06 2.7E+03 0.73 6,400 6,400 6,400 6,400 5,860 N/A N/A 6,400 Maximum Detected 0.0064Byproduct 5 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 6 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/ANVHOS2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
EVE Acid 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/AHydro-EVE Acid 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A
R-EVE 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PES2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A
PFECA B 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/APFECA-G 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Largemouth Bass Young of Year (whole body)
Redbreasted Sunfish (whole body)
TR0795 Page 2 of 3 December 2019
TABLE 4-11
SUMMARY STATISTICS - FISH
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte No.
Samples
No.
Missing
No.
Detects
%
Detects
No.
NDs % NDs
Minimum
RL(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
RL(ng/kg ww)
KM
Meana
KM
Variancea
KM
Standard
Deviationa KM CVa Minimum
Detect(ng/kg ww)
Maximum
Detect(ng/kg ww)
Mean Detect
(ng/kg ww)
Median
Detect(ng/kg ww)
90th
percentilea
(ng/kg ww)
95UCLb
(ng/kg ww)95UCL Basis EPC
(ng/kg ww)EPC Basis EPC
(mg/kg ww)
Species:
HFPO-DA 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFMOAA20150%1 50%1,000 1,000 2.1E+03 1.2E+06 1.1E+03 0.52 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 2,980 N/A N/A 3,200 Maximum Detected 0.0032
PFO2HxA 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO3OA2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFO4DA 2 0 2 100%0 0% N/A N/A 5.6E+03 1.1E+06 1.1E+03 0.19 4,800 6,300 5,550 5,550 6,150 N/A N/A 6,300 Maximum Detected 0.0063PFO5DA202100%0 0% N/A N/A 2.4E+03 9.8E+05 9.9E+02 0.41 1,700 3,100 2,400 2,400 2,960 N/A N/A 3,100 Maximum Detected 0.0031
PMPA 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PEPA2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFESA-BP1 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/APFESA-BP2 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/AByproduct 4 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 5 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 6 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/ANVHOS2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001EVE Acid 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/AHydro-EVE Acid 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/AR-EVE 2 0 1 50%1 50%1,000 1,000 2.6E+03 2.6E+06 1.6E+03 0.62 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 3,880 N/A N/A 4,200 Maximum Detected 0.0042PES2000%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/APFECA B 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/A
PFECA-G 2 0 0 0%2 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 N/A N/ASpecies:
HFPO-DA 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFMOAA 1 0 1 100%0 0%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 N/A N/A N/A 13,000 Maximum Detected 0.013PFO2HxA1000%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
PFO3OA 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO4DA1000%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFO5DA1000%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PMPA1000%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PEPA1000%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PFESA-BP1 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/APFESA-BP2 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AByproduct 4 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 5 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001Byproduct 6 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANVHOS1000%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001
EVE Acid 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AHydro-EVE Acid 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
R-EVE 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,000 Minimum RL 0.001PES1000%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PFECA B 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/APFECA-G 1 0 0 0%1 100%1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
a: values include both detected and non-detected results
b: where analytes have < 3 distinct and detected results, ProUCL does not consider this a meaningful statisticAbbreviations:95UCL - 95% Upper Confidence LimitCV - Coefficient of VariationEPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationKM - Kaplan-Meier
N/A - not applicableng/kg - nanogram per kilogram
ND - non detectsNo. - number
mg/kg - milligram per kilogramRL - reporting limit
ww - wet weight
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Shiners (whole body)
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
American Eel
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU mediaNot detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
Not detected in any EU media
TR0795 Page 3 of 3 December 2019
TABLE 4-12
BIOTA SOIL ACCUMULATION FACTORS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
[PFAS] in
Worm
Tissue
[PFAS] in
Soil BSAF
[PFAS] in
Worm
Tissue
[PFAS] in
Soil BSAF
[PFAS] in
Worm
Tissue
[PFAS] in
Soil BSAF
[PFAS] in
Worm
Tissue
[PFAS] in
Soil BSAF
[PFAS] in
Worm
Tissue
[PFAS] in
Soil BSAF
[PFAS] in
Worm
Tissue
[PFAS] in
Soil BSAF
Units µg/kg ww µg/kg dw kg dw/
kg ww µg/kg ww µg/kg dw kg dw/
kg ww µg/kg ww µg/kg dw kg dw/
kg ww µg/kg ww µg/kg dw kg dw/
kg ww µg/kg ww µg/kg dw kg dw/
kg ww µg/kg ww µg/kg dw kg dw/
kg ww
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 6.2 13 0.47 19 25 0.78 1.4 6.3 0.23 5.2 7.9 0.66 5.7 8.1 0.70 5.1 30 0.17 0.5
PFMOAA 18 21 0.88 57 150 0.38 -- a 67 ---- a 17 ---- a 1.6 0.14 -- a 3.4 --0.5
PFO2HxA 4.2 12 0.35 14 47 0.29 0.87 24 0.04 2.3 15 0.15 < 1 8.6 0.12 < 1.2 18 0.07 0.2
PFO3OA 2.6 5.1 0.52 6.7 12 0.56 0.52 5.2 0.10 3.5 7.7 0.45 0.61 2.1 0.29 0.23 2.2 0.11 0.3
PFO4DA 0.41 5.1 0.08 0.28 3.0 0.09 < 1.2 2.2 0.55 0.33 5.4 0.06 < 1 1.4 0.71 -- a 1.3 --0.3
PFO5DA 14 10 1.4 5.5 3.7 1.5 0.85 1.5 0.57 3.1 4.2 0.73 1.82 2.2 0.83 0.38 1.4 0.27 0.9
PMPA 1.8 6.0 0.31 1.1 7.8 0.14 < 1.2 6.0 0.20 < 1 2.1 0.48 < 1 3.7 0.27 2.2 19 0.11 0.3
PEPA 1.3 2.6 0.49 1.4 2.7 0.52 0.52 1.5 0.35 0.73 < 1 0.73 1.3 1.3 0.98 1.4 6.2 0.23 0.6
PFESA-BP1 0.22 < 1 0.22 0.63 < 1 0.63 < 1.2 3.0 0.40 < 1 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 --0.4
PFESA-BP2 1.5 2.0 0.76 4.2 2.1 2.0 0.42 1.1 0.38 2.1 1.6 1.3 0.36 < 1 0.36 0.21 < 1 0.21 0.8
Byproduct 4 3.8 < 1 3.8 44 2.4 18.52 10 < 1 10 12.3 < 1 12 11 < 1 11 18 1.2 15 12
Byproduct 5 6.2 < 1 6.2 20 < 1 19.59 0.45 < 1 0.45 0.48 < 1 0.48 < 1.1 < 1 --2.0 < 1 2.0 5.8
Byproduct 6 < 2.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 ----
NVHOS 1.0 < 1 1.0 7.5 1.3 5.7 0.42 < 1 0.42 0.88 < 1 0.88 < 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 --2.0
EVE Acid < 2.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 ----
Hydro-EVE Acid 0.38 1.2 0.32 0.93 1.2 0.77 < 1.2 < 1 --0.40 < 1 0.40 < 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 --0.50
R-EVE 1.1 < 1 1.1 9.5 < 1 9.5 4.9 < 1 4.9 6.0 < 1 6.0 3.2 < 1 3.2 4.5 < 1 4.5 4.9
PES < 2.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 ----
PFECA B < 2.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1 < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 ----
PFECA-G < 2.2 < 1 ---- a < 1 --< 1.2 < 1 --< 1 < 1 ---- a < 1 ---- a < 1 ----
Notes:
a: rejected result
1. Results not detected about reporting limits (RLs) are shown as < RL.
2. If a Site-associated PFAS was detected in one media but not the other, the RL was used to calculate the BSAF.
Abbreviations:
µg/kg - microgram per kilogram
dw - dry weight
kg - kilogram
ww- wet weight
BSAF - Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factor
PFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
INTAKE AREA
Mean BSAF
Analyte
SEEP-A SEEP-B SEEP-C SEEP-D WILLIS CREEK
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-13FILLET TO WHOLE-BODY RATIO CALCULATIONS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Carcass [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Fillet [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Estimated WB [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
WB:Fillet Ratio
Carcass [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Fillet [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Estimated WB [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
WB:Fillet Ratio
Carcass [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Fillet [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Estimated WB [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
WB:Fillet Ratio
Carcass [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Fillet [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Estimated WB [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
WB:Fillet Ratio
Carcass [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Fillet [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Estimated WB [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
WB:Fillet Ratio
Carcass [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Fillet [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
Estimated WB [PFAS]
(µg/kg)
WB:Fillet Ratio
Sample Mass (g)444 215 659 -503 85 588 -378 2021 2400 -2319 347 2666 -400 191 591 -248 98 346 -
HFPO-DA < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
PFMOAA (a)< 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
PFO2HxA < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
PFO3OA < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
PFO4DA 1.0 2.6 1.5 0.6 < 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 1.7 1.1 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.7 2.7 0.9 < 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.4 0.6 1.2
PFO5DA < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----0.8 < 1 0.9 4.6 < 1 < 1.1 ----4.6 --4.6
PMPA 0.9 0.4 0.7 2.0 < 1 0.27 0.9 3.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 < 1 0.3 0.9 3.0 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.9 1.1 < 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.6 2.4 2.0
PEPA < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
PFESA-BP1 < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
PFESA-BP2 < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----0.3 < 1 0.5 0.5 < 1 < 1.1 ----0.5 --0.5
Byproduct 4 < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----0.5 < 1 0.6 3.6 < 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ------3.6 3.6
Byproduct 5 < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
Byproduct 6 < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
NVHOS < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
EVE Acid < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
Hydro-EVE Acid < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
R-EVE 3.3 < 1.1 2.6 2.4 < 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----2.5 < 1 2.0 2.0 4.6 < 1.1 3.6 3.3 2.5 --2.5
PES < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
PFECA B < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
PFECA-G < 1 < 1.1 ----< 1 < 1.2 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1 ----< 1 < 1.1 ----------
Notes:
(a) Data was rejected during data validation process and is not suitable for use.
Results not detected above RLs are presented as < RL.
If a compound was only detected in one media, the RLwas used to represent concentrations for the result not-detected above RLs.
Abbreviations:
µg/kg - nanogram per kilogram
PFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
RL - Reporting limit
WB - whole body
CFR - Cape Fear River
LMB - large mouth bass
BC - Black catfish
CC - channel catfish
g - grams
Table 3+ Lab SOP
Analyte
CFR-05-1-LMB CFR-05-4 CC CFR-06-2 BC CFR-09-2 BC MM-68-4 LMB
LMB Mean
WB:Fillet Ratio
Catfish Mean
WB:Fillet Ratio
All Species
Mean WB:Fillet Ratio
DERC-3 LMB
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-14
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - ONSITE TERRESTRIAL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte Soil EPC
(mg/kg dw)
Surface Water
(mg/L)
Offsite Terrestrial
Plant
EPC
(mg/kg, ww)
Aquatic Plant EPC
(mg/kg, ww)
Onsite Terrestrial
Plant
EPC [1]
(mg/kg, ww)
Onsite Terrestrial
Invertebrate EPC (mg/kg, ww)
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 0.016 0.000940 0.031 0.026 0.031 0.019
PFMOAA 0.076 0.000255 0.059 0.37 0.370 0.057
PFO2HxA 0.021 0.000725 0.004 0.038 0.038 0.014
PFO3OA 0.007 0.000096 0.000 0.0011 0.001 0.007
PFO4DA 0.003 0.000040 0.001 0.0017 0.002 0.000
PFO5DA 0.004 0.000010 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.014
PMPA 0.008 0.000850 0.026 0.066 0.066 0.002
PEPA 0.003 0.000295 0.001 0.012 0.012 0.001
PFESA-BP1 0.003 0.000002 0.001 NC 0.001 0.001
PFESA-BP2 0.002 0.000033 0.001 NC 0.001 0.004
Byproduct 4 0.002 0.000097 0.033 0.0033 0.033 0.044
Byproduct 5 0.001 0.000002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.020
NVHOS 0.001 0.000006 0.448 0.034 0.448 0.008
Hydro-EVE Acid 0.001 0.000004 0.001 NC 0.001 0.001
R-EVE 0.001 0.000058 0.004 0.0028 0.004 0.010
PES 0.001 0.000002 0.001 NC 0.001 0.001
PFECA B 0.001 0.000002 0.003 NC 0.003 0.001
Notes:
1: Onsite Plant EPC is max of the aquatic or offsite plant EPCs
Abbreviations:
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
dw - dry weight
NC - not calculated for the Aquatic EU due to lack of detctions in aquatic media
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
mg/L - milligram per liter
ww - wet weight
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-15
DIRECT CONTACT EXPOSURES - ONSITE TERRESTRIAL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 0.016 0.066 0.066 0.24 0.24
PFMOAA 0.076 --------
PFO2HxA 0.021 --------
PFO3OA 0.007 --------
PFO4DA 0.003 --------
PFO5DA 0.004 --------
PMPA 0.008 --------
PEPA 0.003 --------
PFESA-BP1 0.003 --------
PFESA-BP2 0.002 --------
Byproduct 4 0.002 --------
Byproduct 5 0.001 --------
NVHOS 0.001 --------
Hydro-EVE Acid 0.001 --------
R-EVE 0.001 --------
PES 0.001 --------
PFECA B 0.001 --------
Abbreviations:
-- - No TRV available
dw - dry weight
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
Hazard
Quotient for
Invertebrates
Hazard
Quotient for
Plants
Analyte Soil EPC
(mg/kg dw)
Terrestrial
Invertebrates TRV
(mg/kg dw)
Terrestrial
Plants TRV
(mg/kg dw)
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-16aTOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR BOBWHITE QUAIL - ONSITE TERRESTRIALChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Bobwhite Quail AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
HFPO-DA 1.6E-02 2.8E-05 9.4E-04 1.2E-04 3.1E-02 2.9E-03 1.9E-02 NA 3.0E-03 8.5E+01 3.6E-05
PFMOAA 7.6E-02 1.3E-04 2.6E-04 3.3E-05 3.7E-01 3.4E-02 5.7E-02 NA 3.5E-02 ----
PFO2HxA 2.1E-02 3.6E-05 7.3E-04 9.4E-05 3.8E-02 3.5E-03 1.4E-02 NA 3.7E-03 ----
PFO3OA 7.3E-03 1.3E-05 9.6E-05 1.2E-05 1.1E-03 1.0E-04 6.7E-03 NA 1.3E-04 ----
PFO4DA 3.1E-03 5.4E-06 4.0E-05 5.2E-06 1.7E-03 1.6E-04 4.1E-04 NA 1.7E-04 ----
PFO5DA 4.5E-03 7.8E-06 1.0E-05 1.3E-06 1.5E-03 1.4E-04 1.4E-02 NA 1.5E-04 ----
PMPA 7.7E-03 1.3E-05 8.5E-04 1.1E-04 6.6E-02 6.1E-03 2.2E-03 NA 6.3E-03 ----
PEPA 2.8E-03 4.9E-06 3.0E-04 3.8E-05 1.2E-02 1.1E-03 1.4E-03 NA 1.2E-03 ----
PFESA-BP1 3.0E-03 5.2E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 1.0E-03 9.3E-05 6.3E-04 NA 9.8E-05 ----
PFESA-BP2 1.6E-03 2.7E-06 3.3E-05 4.2E-06 1.0E-03 9.3E-05 4.2E-03 NA 1.0E-04 ----
Byproduct 4 2.4E-03 4.2E-06 9.7E-05 1.3E-05 3.3E-02 3.1E-03 4.4E-02 NA 3.1E-03 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 1.0E-03 9.3E-05 2.0E-02 NA 9.5E-05 ----
NVHOS 1.3E-03 2.3E-06 6.3E-06 8.1E-07 4.5E-01 4.2E-02 7.5E-03 NA 4.2E-02 ----
Hydro-EVE Acid 1.2E-03 2.1E-06 3.6E-06 4.6E-07 1.0E-03 9.3E-05 9.3E-04 NA 9.6E-05 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 5.8E-05 7.5E-06 3.8E-03 3.5E-04 9.5E-03 NA 3.6E-04 ----
PES 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 1.2E-03 1.1E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.1E-04 ----
PFECA B 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 3.1E-03 2.9E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.9E-04 ----
Notes:
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.14.
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Intake is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.8.
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) x (1/BW) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day TDIi,x = Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
L/day - litre per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
Table 3+ Lab SOP
Analyte
Terrestrial InvertebrateSoilVegetation TDItotal [2]TRV HQ [3]
Surface Water
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-16bTOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR WOODCOCK - ONSITE TERRESTRIALChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Woodcock AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 1.6E-02 2.1E-04 9.4E-04 9.4E-05 3.1E-02 NA 1.9E-02 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 8.5E+01 1.8E-04
PFMOAA 7.6E-02 9.9E-04 2.6E-04 2.6E-05 3.7E-01 NA 5.7E-02 4.4E-02 4.5E-02 ----
PFO2HxA 2.1E-02 2.7E-04 7.3E-04 7.3E-05 3.8E-02 NA 1.4E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 ----
PFO3OA 7.3E-03 9.6E-05 9.6E-05 9.6E-06 1.1E-03 NA 6.7E-03 5.2E-03 5.3E-03 ----
PFO4DA 3.1E-03 4.1E-05 4.0E-05 4.0E-06 1.7E-03 NA 4.1E-04 3.2E-04 3.6E-04 ----
PFO5DA 4.5E-03 5.9E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 1.5E-03 NA 1.4E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 ----
PMPA 7.7E-03 1.0E-04 8.5E-04 8.5E-05 6.6E-02 NA 2.2E-03 1.7E-03 1.8E-03 ----
PEPA 2.8E-03 3.7E-05 3.0E-04 3.0E-05 1.2E-02 NA 1.4E-03 1.1E-03 1.2E-03 ----
PFESA-BP1 3.0E-03 3.9E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 1.0E-03 NA 6.3E-04 4.9E-04 5.2E-04 ----
PFESA-BP2 1.6E-03 2.0E-05 3.3E-05 3.3E-06 1.0E-03 NA 4.2E-03 3.2E-03 3.3E-03 ----
Byproduct 4 2.4E-03 3.1E-05 9.7E-05 9.7E-06 3.3E-02 NA 4.4E-02 3.4E-02 3.4E-02 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 1.0E-03 NA 2.0E-02 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 ----
NVHOS 1.3E-03 1.7E-05 6.3E-06 6.3E-07 4.5E-01 NA 7.5E-03 5.8E-03 5.8E-03 ----
Hydro-EVE Acid 1.2E-03 1.6E-05 3.6E-06 3.6E-07 1.0E-03 NA 9.3E-04 7.2E-04 7.3E-04 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 5.8E-05 5.8E-06 3.8E-03 NA 9.5E-03 7.3E-03 7.3E-03 ----
PES 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 1.2E-03 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 7.8E-04 ----
PFECA B 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 3.1E-03 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 7.8E-04 ----
Notes:
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.14.
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Intake is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.8.
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) x (1/BW) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day TDIi,x = Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
L/day - litre per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
Analyte HQ [3]
Surface WaterSoil Vegetation Terrestrial Invertebrate TDItotal [2]TRV
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-16cTOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR EASTERN COTTONTAIL RABBIT - ONSITE TERRESTRIALChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Eastern Cottontail Rabbit AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 1.6E-02 2.2E-05 9.4E-04 9.1E-05 3.1E-02 6.4E-03 1.9E-02 NA 6.5E-03 5.0E-01 1.3E-02PFMOAA7.6E-02 1.0E-04 2.6E-04 2.5E-05 3.7E-01 7.7E-02 5.7E-02 NA 7.7E-02 ----
PFO2HxA 2.1E-02 2.9E-05 7.3E-04 7.0E-05 3.8E-02 7.9E-03 1.4E-02 NA 8.0E-03 ----
PFO3OA 7.3E-03 1.0E-05 9.6E-05 9.3E-06 1.1E-03 2.3E-04 6.7E-03 NA 2.5E-04 ----
PFO4DA 3.1E-03 4.3E-06 4.0E-05 3.9E-06 1.7E-03 3.5E-04 4.1E-04 NA 3.6E-04 ----
PFO5DA 4.5E-03 6.1E-06 1.0E-05 9.7E-07 1.5E-03 3.1E-04 1.4E-02 NA 3.2E-04 ----
PMPA 7.7E-03 1.1E-05 8.5E-04 8.2E-05 6.6E-02 1.4E-02 2.2E-03 NA 1.4E-02 ----
PEPA 2.8E-03 3.8E-06 3.0E-04 2.9E-05 1.2E-02 2.5E-03 1.4E-03 NA 2.5E-03 ----
PFESA-BP1 3.0E-03 4.1E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 1.0E-03 2.1E-04 6.3E-04 NA 2.1E-04 ----
PFESA-BP2 1.6E-03 2.1E-06 3.3E-05 3.2E-06 1.0E-03 2.1E-04 4.2E-03 NA 2.1E-04 ----
Byproduct 4 2.4E-03 3.3E-06 9.7E-05 9.4E-06 3.3E-02 6.9E-03 4.4E-02 NA 7.0E-03 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 1.0E-03 2.1E-04 2.0E-02 NA 2.1E-04 ----
NVHOS 1.3E-03 1.8E-06 6.3E-06 6.1E-07 4.5E-01 9.3E-02 7.5E-03 NA 9.3E-02 ----
Hydro-EVE Acid 1.2E-03 1.6E-06 3.6E-06 3.4E-07 1.0E-03 2.1E-04 9.3E-04 NA 2.1E-04 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 5.8E-05 5.6E-06 3.8E-03 7.8E-04 9.5E-03 NA 7.9E-04 ----
PES 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 1.2E-03 2.4E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.4E-04 ----
PFECA B 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 3.1E-03 6.4E-04 1.0E-03 NA 6.4E-04 ----
Notes:
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.14.
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Intake is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.8.
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) x (1/BW) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day TDIi,x = Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
L/day - litre per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
TRV HQ [3]Analyte
Surface WaterSoil Vegetation Terrestrial Invertebrate TDItotal [2]
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-16dTOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR SOUTHERN SHORT-TAILED SHREW - ONSITE TERRESTRIALChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Southern Short-tailed Shrew AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 1.6E-02 5.1E-05 9.4E-04 2.1E-04 3.1E-02 NA 1.9E-02 7.7E-03 8.0E-03 5.0E-01 1.6E-02PFMOAA7.6E-02 2.4E-04 2.6E-04 5.7E-05 3.7E-01 NA 5.7E-02 2.3E-02 2.3E-02 ----
PFO2HxA 2.1E-02 6.7E-05 7.3E-04 1.6E-04 3.8E-02 NA 1.4E-02 5.7E-03 5.9E-03 ----
PFO3OA 7.3E-03 2.4E-05 9.6E-05 2.1E-05 1.1E-03 NA 6.7E-03 2.7E-03 2.8E-03 ----
PFO4DA 3.1E-03 1.0E-05 4.0E-05 8.9E-06 1.7E-03 NA 4.1E-04 1.7E-04 1.9E-04 ----
PFO5DA 4.5E-03 1.4E-05 1.0E-05 2.2E-06 1.5E-03 NA 1.4E-02 5.7E-03 5.7E-03 ----
PMPA 7.7E-03 2.5E-05 8.5E-04 1.9E-04 6.6E-02 NA 2.2E-03 8.8E-04 1.1E-03 ----
PEPA 2.8E-03 9.0E-06 3.0E-04 6.6E-05 1.2E-02 NA 1.4E-03 5.9E-04 6.6E-04 ----
PFESA-BP1 3.0E-03 9.6E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 1.0E-03 NA 6.3E-04 2.6E-04 2.7E-04 ----
PFESA-BP2 1.6E-03 5.0E-06 3.3E-05 7.2E-06 1.0E-03 NA 4.2E-03 1.7E-03 1.7E-03 ----
Byproduct 4 2.4E-03 7.7E-06 9.7E-05 2.2E-05 3.3E-02 NA 4.4E-02 1.8E-02 1.8E-02 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 1.0E-03 NA 2.0E-02 8.1E-03 8.1E-03 ----
NVHOS 1.3E-03 4.2E-06 6.3E-06 1.4E-06 4.5E-01 NA 7.5E-03 3.0E-03 3.1E-03 ----
Hydro-EVE Acid 1.2E-03 3.9E-06 3.6E-06 7.9E-07 1.0E-03 NA 9.3E-04 3.8E-04 3.8E-04 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 5.8E-05 1.3E-05 3.8E-03 NA 9.5E-03 3.9E-03 3.9E-03 ----
PES 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 1.2E-03 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 ----
PFECA B 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 3.1E-03 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 ----
Notes:
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.14.
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Intake is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.8.
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) x (1/BW) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day TDIi,x = Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
L/day - litre per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
Analyte HQ [3]Surface WaterSoil Vegetation Terrestrial Invertebrate TDItotal [2] TRV
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-17
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - OFFSITE TERRESTRIAL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte Soil EPC
(mg/kg dw)
Surface
Water
(mg/L)
Terrestrial Plant EPC
(mg/kg, ww)
Terrestrial
Emergent Insect
EPC
(mg/kg, ww)
Earthworm
BSAF
(kg ww/kg dw)
Off-Site Earthworm
EPC [1]
(mg/kg, ww)
Terrestrial Invertebrate
EPC [2]
(mg/kg, ww)
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 0.003 0.00031 0.031 0.005 0.50 0.001 0.005
PFMOAA 0.001 0.00007 0.059 0.005 0.47 0.0005 0.005
PFO2HxA 0.002 0.0002 0.004 0.001 0.17 0.0004 0.001
PFO3OA 0.001 0.00003 0.000 0.001 0.34 0.0003 0.001
PFO4DA 0.001 0.00001 0.001 0.001 0.30 0.0003 0.001
PFO5DA 0.001 0.000002 0.001 0.001 0.87 0.001 0.001
PMPA 0.001 0.00035 0.026 0.019 0.25 0.0003 0.019
PEPA 0.001 0.00011 0.001 0.002 0.55 0.001 0.002
PFESA-BP1 0.001 0.000002 0.001 0.004 0.42 0.0004 0.004
PFESA-BP2 0.001 0.00003 0.001 0.001 0.84 0.001 0.001
Byproduct 4 0.001 0.00015 0.033 0.006 11.8 0.012 0.012
Byproduct 5 0.001 0.000002 0.001 0.001 5.8 0.006 0.006
NVHOS 0.001 0.000002 0.448 0.001 2.0 0.002 0.002
R-EVE 0.001 0.00005 0.004 0.001 4.9 0.005 0.005
PES 0.001 0.000002 0.001 0.001 ----0.001
PFECA B 0.001 0.000002 0.003 0.001 ----0.001
Notes:
1. The Offsite worm EPC is the Soil EPC x BSAF for each Table 3+ PFAS
2. The Terrestrial Invertebrate EPC was selected as the higher of the Emergent Insect and Earthworm EPCs.
Abbreviations:
BSAF - Soil-to-Earthworm Bioaccumulation Factor
dw - dry weight
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
mg/L - milligram per litre
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
ww- wet weight
ww/kg - wet weight per kilogram
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-18
DIRECT CONTACT EXPOSURES - OFFSITE TERRESTRIAL
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 0.003 0.066 0.066 0.04 0.04
PFMOAA 0.001 --------
PFO2HxA 0.002 --------
PFO3OA 0.001 --------
PFO4DA 0.001 --------
PFO5DA 0.001 --------
PMPA 0.001 --------
PEPA 0.001 --------
PFESA-BP1 0.001 --------PFESA-BP2 0.001 --------Byproduct 4 0.001 --------
Byproduct 5 0.001 --------
NVHOS 0.001 --------
R-EVE 0.001 --------
PES 0.001 --------
PFECA B 0.001 --------
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
Hazard
Quotient for
Invertebrates
Hazard
Quotient for
Plants
Analyte Soil EPC
(mg/kg dw)
Terrestrial
Invertebrates
TRV
(mg/kg dw)
Terrestrial
Plants
TRV
(mg/kg dw)
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-19aTOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR BOBWHITE QUAIL - OFFSITE TERRESTRIALChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Bobwhite Quail AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-03 4.5E-06 3.1E-04 4.0E-05 3.1E-02 2.9E-03 4.8E-03 NA 2.9E-03 8.5E+01 3.5E-05
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 7.1E-05 9.2E-06 5.9E-02 5.5E-03 4.6E-03 NA 5.5E-03 ----
PFO2HxA 2.3E-03 4.0E-06 2.2E-04 2.9E-05 4.5E-03 4.2E-04 1.0E-03 NA 4.5E-04 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.7E-05 3.5E-06 2.2E-04 2.0E-05 1.0E-03 NA 2.6E-05 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 8.9E-06 1.2E-06 5.3E-04 4.9E-05 1.0E-03 NA 5.2E-05 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.1E-06 2.7E-07 1.0E-03 9.3E-05 1.0E-03 NA 9.5E-05 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 3.5E-04 4.6E-05 2.6E-02 2.4E-03 1.9E-02 NA 2.5E-03 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 1.1E-04 1.4E-05 1.3E-03 1.2E-04 1.6E-03 NA 1.3E-04 ----
PFESA-BP1 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 1.0E-03 9.3E-05 3.5E-03 NA 9.5E-05 ----
PFESA-BP2 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.5E-05 3.3E-06 1.0E-03 9.3E-05 1.0E-03 NA 9.8E-05 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 1.5E-04 2.0E-05 3.3E-02 3.1E-03 1.2E-02 NA 3.1E-03 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 5.7E-04 5.3E-05 5.8E-03 NA 5.5E-05 ----NVHOS 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 4.5E-01 4.2E-02 2.0E-03 NA 4.2E-02 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 5.3E-05 6.9E-06 3.8E-03 3.5E-04 4.9E-03 NA 3.6E-04 ----
PES 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 1.2E-03 1.1E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.1E-04 ----
PFECA B 1.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.0E-06 2.6E-07 3.1E-03 2.9E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.9E-04 ----
Notes:
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.17.
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Intake is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.8.
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi ) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day TDIi,x = Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in BoldHQ= Hazard Quotient (unitless)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
Analyte
Terrestrial InvertebrateSoilVegetation TDItotal [2]TRV HQ [3]Surface Water
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-19bTOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR WOODCOCK - OFFSITE TERRESTRIALChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Woodcock AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinvmg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-03 3.4E-05 3.1E-04 3.1E-05 3.1E-02 NA 4.8E-03 3.7E-03 3.8E-03 8.5E+01 4.5E-05
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 7.1E-05 7.1E-06 5.9E-02 NA 4.6E-03 3.5E-03 3.6E-03 ----
PFO2HxA 2.3E-03 3.0E-05 2.2E-04 2.2E-05 4.5E-03 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 8.2E-04 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.7E-05 2.7E-06 2.2E-04 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 7.9E-04 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 8.9E-06 8.9E-07 5.3E-04 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 7.8E-04 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.1E-06 2.1E-07 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 7.8E-04 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 3.5E-04 3.5E-05 2.6E-02 NA 1.9E-02 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 ----PEPA 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 1.1E-04 1.1E-05 1.3E-03 NA 1.6E-03 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 ----
PFESA-BP1 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 1.0E-03 NA 3.5E-03 2.7E-03 2.7E-03 ----
PFESA-BP2 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.5E-05 2.5E-06 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 7.9E-04 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 1.5E-04 1.5E-05 3.3E-02 NA 1.2E-02 9.1E-03 9.1E-03 ----Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 5.7E-04 NA 5.8E-03 4.4E-03 4.4E-03 ----
NVHOS 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 4.5E-01 NA 2.0E-03 1.6E-03 1.6E-03 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 5.3E-05 5.3E-06 3.8E-03 NA 4.9E-03 3.7E-03 3.8E-03 ----
PES 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 1.2E-03 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 7.8E-04 ----PFECA B 1.0E-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-06 2.0E-07 3.1E-03 NA 1.0E-03 7.7E-04 7.8E-04 ----
Notes:
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.17.
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Intake is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.8.
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day TDIi,x = Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogramkg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
Analyte HQ [3]Surface WaterSoil Vegetation Terrestrial Invertebrate TDItotal [2]TRV
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-19cTOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR EASTERN COTTONTAIL RABBIT - OFFSITE TERRESTRIALChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Eastern Cottontail Rabbit AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-03 3.6E-06 3.1E-04 3.0E-05 3.1E-02 6.4E-03 4.8E-03 NA 6.5E-03 5.0E-01 1.3E-02
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 7.1E-05 6.9E-06 5.9E-02 1.2E-02 4.6E-03 NA 1.2E-02 ----
PFO2HxA 2.3E-03 3.1E-06 2.2E-04 2.1E-05 4.5E-03 9.3E-04 1.0E-03 NA 9.5E-04 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.7E-05 2.6E-06 2.2E-04 4.6E-05 1.0E-03 NA 5.0E-05 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 8.9E-06 8.6E-07 5.3E-04 1.1E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.1E-04 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.1E-06 2.0E-07 1.0E-03 2.1E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.1E-04 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 3.5E-04 3.4E-05 2.6E-02 5.4E-03 1.9E-02 NA 5.5E-03 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 1.1E-04 1.1E-05 1.3E-03 2.6E-04 1.6E-03 NA 2.8E-04 ----
PFESA-BP1 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 1.0E-03 2.1E-04 3.5E-03 NA 2.1E-04 ----
PFESA-BP2 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.5E-05 2.4E-06 1.0E-03 2.1E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.1E-04 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 1.5E-04 1.5E-05 3.3E-02 6.9E-03 1.2E-02 NA 7.0E-03 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 5.7E-04 1.2E-04 5.8E-03 NA 1.2E-04 ----NVHOS 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 4.5E-01 9.3E-02 2.0E-03 NA 9.3E-02 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 5.3E-05 5.1E-06 3.8E-03 7.8E-04 4.9E-03 NA 7.8E-04 ----
PES 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 1.2E-03 2.4E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.4E-04 ----
PFECA B 1.0E-03 1.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-07 3.1E-03 6.4E-04 1.0E-03 NA 6.4E-04 ----
Notes:
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.17.
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Intake is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.8.
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi ) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day TDIi,x = Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in BoldHQ= Hazard Quotient (unitless)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
TRV HQ [3]Analyte
Surface WaterSoil Vegetation Terrestrial Invertebrate TDItotal [2]
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-19dTOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR SOUTHERN SHORT-TAILED SHREW - OFFSITE TERRESTRIALChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Southern Short-tailed Shrew AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOPHFPO-DA 2.6E-03 8.4E-06 3.1E-04 6.9E-05 3.1E-02 NA 4.8E-03 1.9E-03 2.0E-03 5.0E-01 4.1E-03
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 7.1E-05 1.6E-05 5.9E-02 NA 4.6E-03 1.9E-03 1.9E-03 ----
PFO2HxA 2.3E-03 7.4E-06 2.2E-04 4.9E-05 4.5E-03 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.6E-04 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.7E-05 6.0E-06 2.2E-04 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.2E-04 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 8.9E-06 2.0E-06 5.3E-04 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.1E-06 4.7E-07 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 3.5E-04 7.8E-05 2.6E-02 NA 1.9E-02 7.7E-03 7.8E-03 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 1.1E-04 2.5E-05 1.3E-03 NA 1.6E-03 6.5E-04 6.8E-04 ----
PFESA-BP1 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 1.0E-03 NA 3.5E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 ----PFESA-BP2 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.5E-05 5.6E-06 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 1.5E-04 3.3E-05 3.3E-02 NA 1.2E-02 4.8E-03 4.8E-03 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 5.7E-04 NA 5.8E-03 2.3E-03 2.3E-03 ----
NVHOS 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 4.5E-01 NA 2.0E-03 8.2E-04 8.2E-04 ----R-EVE 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 5.3E-05 1.2E-05 3.8E-03 NA 4.9E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 ----
PES 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 1.2E-03 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 ----
PFECA B 1.0E-03 3.2E-06 2.0E-06 4.5E-07 3.1E-03 NA 1.0E-03 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 ----
Notes:
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.17.
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Intake is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.8.
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day TDIi,x = Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating ProcedureL/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
Analyte HQ [3]Surface WaterSoil Vegetation Terrestrial Invertebrate TDItotal [2] TRV
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-20
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - AQUATIC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Analyte
Sediment
EPC
(mg/kg)
Surface
Water
(mg/L)
Aquatic
Plant
EPC
(mg/kg, dw)
Asian clam
EPC
(mg/kg, dw)
Mixed
Benthic
Invertebrate
EPC
(mg/kg, dw)
Highest
Benthic
Invertebrate
EPC
Catfish
Fillet
EPC
Catfish
WB:F
Ratio
Catfish
EPCWB
LMB Fillet
[PFAS]
LMB
WB:F
Ratio
Largemouth
Bass EPCWB
YOY
Largemouth
Bass EPCWB
Sunfish
EPCWB
American
Eel EPCWB
Shiner
EPCWB
Highest Fish
EPC
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 0.00026 0.0000081 0.026 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002
PFMOAA 0.001 0.0000333 0.37 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.003 0.013
PFO2HxA 0.001 0.0000156 0.038 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
PFO3OA 0.001 0.0000064 0.0011 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
PFO4DA 0.001 0.0000023 0.0017 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.63 0.001 0.003 2.50 0.0065 0.002 0.041 0.001 0.006 0.041
PFO5DA 0.001 0.000002 0.0015 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 4.57 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.003
PMPA 0.001 0.000019 0.066 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0003 2.45 0.001 0.0004 2.93 0.0011 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002
PEPA 0.001 0.00002 0.012 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Byproduct 4 0.001 0.0000074 0.0033 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 3.63 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006
Byproduct 5 0.001 0.0000092 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
NVHOS 0.001 0.0000068 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
R-EVE 0.001 0.0000033 0.0028 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 --0.001 0.001 9.63 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.003
Notes:
Catfish and LMB Wholebody EPCs were estimated from concentrations measured in fillets and whole-body to fillet ratios. Only detected results were adjusted to wholebody estimates, RLs were left as reported.
The highest fish EPC for any species was used to represent this diet item.
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight
EPC - exposure point concentration
LMB - largemouth bass
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
mg/L - milligram per litre
PFAS - per - and polyfluoroalkyl substances
WB:F - wholebody to fillet
ww - wet weight
YOY - young of the year
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-21
DIRECT CONTECT EXPOSURES - AQUATIC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 0.0003 0.518 0.001 0.0000081 0.89 106 9E-06 8E-08
PFMOAA 0.001 ----0.0000333 ------
PFO2HxA 0.001 ----0.0000156 ------
PFO3OA 0.001 ----0.0000064 ------
PFO4DA 0.001 ----0.0000023 ------
PFO5DA 0.001 ----0.000002 ------
PMPA 0.001 ----0.000019 ------
PEPA 0.001 ----0.00002 ------Byproduct 4 0.001 ----0.0000074 ------
NVHOS 0.001 ----0.0000068 ------
R-EVE 0.001 ----0.0000033 ------
Notes:
1. As noted in Section 4.4, a more conservative aquatic life TRV of 0.108 mg/L is available and would also result in an HQ < 1.
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
mg/L - milligram per liter
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
Hazard
Quotient for
Invertebrates
Analyte
Hazard
Quotient for
Aquatic Plants
Hazard
Quotient for
Aquatic Life
Sediment EPC
(mg/kg dw)
Benthic
Invertebrates
TRV
(mg/kg dw)
Surface
Water EPC
(mg/L)
Aquatic Life
TRV [1]
(mg/L)
Aquatic Plants
TRV
(mg/L)
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-22a
TOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR WOOD DUCK - AQUATIC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Wood Duck AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv EPCfish [1]TDIfish
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/L mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-04 1.7E-06 8.1E-06 4.5E-07 2.6E-02 4.7E-03 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-03 NA 4.7E-03 8.5E+01 5.6E-05
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 3.3E-05 1.8E-06 3.7E-01 6.7E-02 1.0E-03 NA 1.3E-02 NA 6.7E-02 ----
PFO2HxA 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 1.6E-05 8.6E-07 3.8E-02 6.9E-03 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 6.9E-03 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 6.4E-06 3.5E-07 1.1E-03 2.0E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 2.1E-04 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 2.3E-06 1.3E-07 1.7E-03 3.1E-04 1.0E-03 NA 4.1E-02 NA 3.2E-04 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 2.0E-06 1.1E-07 1.5E-03 2.7E-04 1.0E-03 NA 3.1E-03 NA 2.8E-04 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 1.9E-05 1.0E-06 6.6E-02 1.2E-02 1.0E-03 NA 1.9E-03 NA 1.2E-02 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 2.0E-05 1.1E-06 1.2E-02 2.2E-03 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-03 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 7.4E-06 4.1E-07 3.3E-03 6.0E-04 1.0E-03 NA 6.4E-03 NA 6.1E-04 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 9.2E-06 5.1E-07 1.0E-03 1.8E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.9E-04 ----
NVHOS 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 6.8E-06 3.7E-07 3.4E-02 6.2E-03 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 6.2E-03 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 6.4E-06 3.3E-06 1.8E-07 2.8E-03 5.1E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.7E-03 NA 5.2E-04 ----
Notes:
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Dose (TDI) is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.9:
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (only for soil portion of diet; assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pfish proportion Proportion of Diet -- Fish
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
TDI = Total Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
Benthic Invertebrate
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.20
Sediment Vegetation Fish TDItotal [2]TRV HQ [3]Surface Water
Analyte
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-22b
TOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR MALLARD DUCK - AQUATIC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Mallard Duck AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv EPCfish [1]TDIfish
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/L mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-04 2.6E-07 8.1E-06 4.5E-07 2.6E-02 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 2.2E-03 NA 1.5E-04 8.5E+01 1.8E-06
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 3.3E-05 1.8E-06 3.7E-01 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 1.3E-02 NA 1.6E-04 ----
PFO2HxA 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 1.6E-05 8.6E-07 3.8E-02 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.6E-04 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 6.4E-06 3.5E-07 1.1E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.5E-04 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 2.3E-06 1.3E-07 1.7E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 4.1E-02 NA 1.5E-04 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 2.0E-06 1.1E-07 1.5E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 3.1E-03 NA 1.5E-04 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 1.9E-05 1.0E-06 6.6E-02 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 1.9E-03 NA 1.6E-04 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 2.0E-05 1.1E-06 1.2E-02 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.6E-04 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 7.4E-06 4.1E-07 3.3E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 6.4E-03 NA 1.6E-04 ----
NVHOS 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 6.8E-06 3.7E-07 3.4E-02 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.6E-04 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 9.8E-07 3.3E-06 1.8E-07 2.8E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.5E-04 2.7E-03 NA 1.5E-04 ----
Notes:
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Dose (TDI) is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.9:
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (only for soil portion of diet; assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pfish proportion Proportion of Diet -- Fish
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
TDI = Total Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.20
TRV HQ [3]Surface WaterSediment Vegetation Benthic Invertebrate Fish TDItotal [2]Analyte
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-22c
TOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR GREAT BLUE HERON - AQUATIC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Great Blue Heron AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv EPCfish [1]TDIfish
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/L mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-04 NA 8.1E-06 3.6E-07 2.6E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-03 4.0E-04 4.0E-04 8.5E+01 4.7E-06
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 NA 3.3E-05 1.5E-06 3.7E-01 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.3E-02 2.3E-03 2.3E-03 ----
PFO2HxA 1.0E-03 NA 1.6E-05 7.0E-07 3.8E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 NA 6.4E-06 2.9E-07 1.1E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 NA 2.3E-06 1.0E-07 1.7E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 4.1E-02 7.4E-03 7.4E-03 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 NA 2.0E-06 9.0E-08 1.5E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 3.1E-03 5.6E-04 5.6E-04 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 NA 1.9E-05 8.6E-07 6.6E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.9E-03 3.4E-04 3.4E-04 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 NA 2.0E-05 9.0E-07 1.2E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 NA 7.4E-06 3.3E-07 3.3E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 6.4E-03 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 NA 9.2E-06 4.1E-07 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 ----
NVHOS 1.0E-03 NA 6.8E-06 3.1E-07 3.4E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 NA 3.3E-06 1.5E-07 2.8E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 2.7E-03 4.9E-04 4.9E-04 ----
Notes:
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Dose (TDI) is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.9:
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (only for soil portion of diet; assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pfish proportion Proportion of Diet -- Fish
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
TDI = Total Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.20
TRV HQ [3]Surface WaterSediment Vegetation Benthic Invertebrate Fish TDItotal [2]Analyte
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-22d
TOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR MUSKRAT - AQUATIC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Muskrat AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv EPCfish [1]TDIfish
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/L mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-04 4.3E-07 8.1E-06 7.9E-06 2.6E-02 8.8E-03 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-03 NA 8.8E-03 0.5 1.8E-02
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 3.3E-05 3.2E-05 3.7E-01 1.3E-01 1.0E-03 NA 1.3E-02 NA 1.3E-01 ----
PFO2HxA 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 1.6E-05 1.5E-05 3.8E-02 1.3E-02 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.3E-02 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 6.4E-06 6.2E-06 1.1E-03 3.7E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 3.8E-04 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 2.3E-06 2.2E-06 1.7E-03 5.8E-04 1.0E-03 NA 4.1E-02 NA 5.8E-04 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 2.0E-06 1.9E-06 1.5E-03 5.1E-04 1.0E-03 NA 3.1E-03 NA 5.1E-04 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 1.9E-05 1.8E-05 6.6E-02 2.2E-02 1.0E-03 NA 1.9E-03 NA 2.2E-02 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 2.0E-05 1.9E-05 1.2E-02 4.1E-03 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 4.1E-03 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 7.4E-06 7.2E-06 3.3E-03 1.1E-03 1.0E-03 NA 6.4E-03 NA 1.1E-03 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 9.2E-06 8.9E-06 1.0E-03 3.4E-04 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 3.5E-04 ----
NVHOS 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 6.8E-06 6.6E-06 3.4E-02 1.2E-02 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.2E-02 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.6E-06 3.3E-06 3.2E-06 2.8E-03 9.5E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.7E-03 NA 9.6E-04 ----
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Dose (TDI) is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.9:
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (only for soil portion of diet; assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pfish proportion Proportion of Diet -- Fish
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in BoldHQ= Hazard Quotient (unitless)
TDI = Total Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.20
TRV HQ [3]Analyte
Surface WaterSediment Vegetation Benthic Invertebrate Fish TDItotal [2]
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-22e
TOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR MINK - AQUATIC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:Mink AUF:1
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv EPCfish [1]TDIfish
mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/L mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-04 2.6E-07 8.1E-06 8.9E-07 2.6E-02 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 2.2E-03 NA 2.2E-04 0.5 4.4E-04
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 3.3E-05 3.7E-06 3.7E-01 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 1.3E-02 NA 2.2E-04 ----
PFO2HxA 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 1.6E-05 1.7E-06 3.8E-02 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 6.4E-06 7.0E-07 1.1E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 2.3E-06 2.5E-07 1.7E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 4.1E-02 NA 2.2E-04 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 2.0E-06 2.2E-07 1.5E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 3.1E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 1.9E-05 2.1E-06 6.6E-02 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 1.9E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 2.0E-05 2.2E-06 1.2E-02 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 7.4E-06 8.1E-07 3.3E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 6.4E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 9.2E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
NVHOS 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 6.8E-06 7.5E-07 3.4E-02 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.0E-06 3.3E-06 3.6E-07 2.8E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.2E-04 2.7E-03 NA 2.2E-04 ----
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Dose (TDI) is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.9:
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (only for soil portion of diet; assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pfish proportion Proportion of Diet -- Fish
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
TDI = Total Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
Analyte
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.20
Sediment Vegetation Benthic Invertebrate Fish TDItotal [2]TRV HQ [3]Surface Water
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-22f
TOTAL DAILY INTAKE FOR RIVER OTTER - AQUATIC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Receptor:River Otter AUF:0.21
EPCs [1]TDIs EPCs [1]TDIsw EPCveg [1]TDIveg EPCinv [1]TDIinv EPCfish [1]TDIfishmg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/L mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day unitless
Table 3+ Lab SOP
HFPO-DA 2.6E-04 4.1E-08 8.1E-06 1.4E-07 2.6E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 2.2E-03 6.1E-05 6.1E-05 0.5 1.2E-04
PFMOAA 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 3.3E-05 5.7E-07 3.7E-01 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.3E-02 3.6E-04 3.6E-04 ----
PFO2HxA 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 1.6E-05 2.7E-07 3.8E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.8E-05 2.8E-05 ----
PFO3OA 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 6.4E-06 1.1E-07 1.1E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.8E-05 2.8E-05 ----
PFO4DA 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 2.3E-06 3.9E-08 1.7E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 4.1E-02 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 ----
PFO5DA 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 2.0E-06 3.4E-08 1.5E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 3.1E-03 8.5E-05 8.6E-05 ----
PMPA 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 1.9E-05 3.3E-07 6.6E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.9E-03 5.2E-05 5.3E-05 ----
PEPA 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 2.0E-05 3.4E-07 1.2E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.8E-05 2.8E-05 ----
Byproduct 4 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 7.4E-06 1.3E-07 3.3E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 6.4E-03 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 ----
Byproduct 5 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 9.2E-06 1.6E-07 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.8E-05 2.8E-05 ----
NVHOS 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 6.8E-06 1.2E-07 3.4E-02 NA 1.0E-03 NA 1.0E-03 2.8E-05 2.8E-05 ----
R-EVE 1.0E-03 1.6E-07 3.3E-06 5.7E-08 2.8E-03 NA 1.0E-03 NA 2.7E-03 7.4E-05 7.5E-05 ----
[2] Media-specific Total Daily Dose (TDI) is calculated using the following general equation and receptor specific parameters in Table 3.9:
TDIi,copc = (EPCcopc x RB x FIR x Pi) + (DWI x EPC) x AUF x (1/BW), where:
Variable Name Units Variable Description
TDIi mg/kg-day Total Daily Intake for Dietary Item "i" for COPC
EPCcopc mg/kg dw or mg/L Exposure Point Concentration for each media
RB unitless Relative Bioavailability (only for soil portion of diet; assumed to be 1 for all chemicals)
Pveg proportion Proportion of Diet -- Vegetation
Pinv proportion Proportion of Diet -- Invertebrates
Pfish proportion Proportion of Diet -- Fish
Pso proportion Proportion of Diet -- Soil
FIR kg/day Daily Food Ingestion
DWI L/day Daily Drinking Water Ingestion Rate
AUF proportion Area Use Factor
BW kg Body Weight
[3] HQ = TDI/TRV; HQ greater than 1 are shown in Bold
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
TDI = Total Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Abbreviations:
dw - dry weight mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
kg - kilogram mg/L - milligram per litre
kg/day - kilogram per day SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
L/day - litre per day TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
Analyte
[1] Soil and diet item exposure point concentration (EPC) are presented in Table 4.20
TRV HQ [3]Sediment Vegetation Benthic Invertebrate Fish TDItotal [2]Surface Water
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-23
SUMMARY OF HAZARD QUOTIENTS FOR HFPO-DA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Exposure Unit Receptor HQ
Terrestrial Invertebrates 2E-01
Terrestrial Plants 2E-01
Bobwhite Quail 4E-05
Woodcock 2E-04
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit 1E-02
Southern Short-tailed Shrew 2E-02
Terrestrial Invertebrates 4E-02
Terrestrial Plants 4E-02
Bobwhite Quail 3E-05
Woodcock 4E-05
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit 1E-02
Southern Short-tailed Shrew 4E-03
Benthic Invertebrates 5E-04
Aquatic Life 9E-06
Aquatic Plant 8E-08
Wood Duck 6E-05
Mallard Duck 2E-06
Great Blue Heron 5E-06
Muskrat 2E-02
Mink 4E-04
River Otter 1E-04
Abbreviations:
EU - Exposure Unit
HQ - Hazard Quotient
Aquatic EU
Offsite Terrestrial EU
Onsite Terrestrial EU
TR0795 December 2019
TABLE 4-24
SUMMARY OF WET TESTING RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Test Date % Mortality Average Reproduction Pass/Fail Organism Tested
24hr
composite
sample
LC50?
Chronic 2/18/2016 0 25.67 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 5/19/2016 0 24.92 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 8/17/2016 0 22.33 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 12/22/2016 0 19.5 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 2/23/2017 0 24.42 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 5/18/2017 0 23.08 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 8/23/2017 0 23.67 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 11/22/2017 0 21.58 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 2/22/2018 8.33 21.5 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 5/24/2018 8.33 22.33 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 8/29/2018 0 25 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 11/20/2018 0 22.58 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Chronic 2/21/2019 0 25.67 Pass Ceriodaphnia dubia yes NT
Notes:
All values obtained from effluent toxicity reports (Feb 2016-Nov 2018).
Organisms were exposed to 3.3% effluent.
Values from treatments, not controls, are reported in this table.
Abbreviations:
LC50 - Lethal concentration to 50% of population.
NT - Not tested; LC50 was not calculated in these tests due to lack of concern from chronic exposures.
hr - Hour.
% - Percent.
WET - Whole Effluent Toxicity
TR0795 December 2019
TR0795 December 2019
FIGURES
")
")
")
Willis Creek
Old Outfall 002
Pond 1 Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002
W.O. Huske Dam
Site River Water Intake
NC Highway 87Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
GBCTributary1GeorgiaBranchCreek
Site Location Map
Figure
2-1Raleigh
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
³
December 2019
Legend
")Facility Features
Site Boundary
Nearby Tributary
Observed Seep (Natural Drainage)
Site Drainage Network
Notes:1. The outline of the Cape Fear River shown on this figure is approximate (River outline based on compilation of open data sourcesfrom ArcGIS online service and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS - Major Hydro shapefile).2. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and theGIS User Community.
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Areas at Site
Chemours Monomers IXM
Former DuPont PMDF Area
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Kuraray SentryGlas®Leased Area
Kuraray Trosifol®Leased Area
DuPont Polyvinyl FluorideLeased Area
Chemours PolymerProcessing Aid Area Power - Filtered andDemineralized WaterProduction
Kuraray Laboratory
Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_ECO_Site_Location_Figure.mxd Last Revised: 11/28/2019 Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Regional Topographic Map
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
2-2Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Onsite and Offsite Assessment Report\TR0795_TopographicMap_6mile.mxd Last Revised: 10/30/2019 Author: TIpNovember 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Notes:1. For topographic map symbols, please refer to this document: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/TopographicMapSymbols/topomapsymbols.pdf 2. Basemap source: © 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Legend
Site Boundary
Ecological SLEA Exposure Units
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
2-3Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_ECO_Ecological_SLEA_Exposure_Units_Figure.mxd Last Revised: 11/28/2019 December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Notes:EU = Exposure UnitSLEA = Screening Level Exposure Assessment1. The outline of the River shown on this figure is approximate (River outline based on compilation of open data sources fromArcGIS online service and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS - Major Hydro shapefile).2. Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community.
Legend
Offsite Terrestrial EU Boundary
Onsite Terrestrial EU Boundary
Aquatic EU Area
Exposure Route
Plant CommunitySoil InvertebratesTerrestrial Avian and Mammal HerbivoresTerrestrial Avian and Mammal InvertivoresAquatic Plants Aquatic InvertebratesAquatic Avian and Mammal Herbivores Aquatic Avian and Mammal InvertivoresAvian and Mammal PiscivoresNotes:
Complete exposure pathway proposed for quantitative evaluation of intake.
Potentially complete, but insignificant pathway.
Incomplete exposure pathway; no evaluation or management action is necessary.
Terrestrial
Primary Chemical
Source
Secondary Impacted
MediaTransport MechanismImpacted Media Potential Exposed Receptors
Aquatic
Spills & Releases of Site-associated PFAS
Direct Contact
Bioaccumulation
Ingestion
IngestionTerrestrial Plants
Direct Contact
Groundwater
Soils
Surface water
Sediment
Bioaccumulation TerrestrialInvertebrates
Small Birds and Mammals
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Direct Contact
Incidental Ingestion
Incidental Ingestion
Ingestion
Aquatic Plants
IngestionBenthic Invertebrates
Fish
Figure
2-4RaleighNovember 2019
Ecological Conceptual Site Model
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
EU2
EU6
EU10EU11
EU9EU12
EU5
EU7
EU8
EU3
EU1EU4
Offsite Soil Sampling Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3-1Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_EU_Soil_Sample_Locations_Figure.mxd Last Revised: 11/28/2019 December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
N
S
W E
Notes:EU = Exposure UnitISM = Incremental Sampling Methodology1. Each point represents a single ISM subsample which was composited into a single sample for each EU.2. Black lines represent cardinal directions (N, E, S, W).3. Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity.
LegendEU Surface ISM Soil Location and Increment Counts
!(EU1 (31)
!(EU2 (31)
!(EU3 (31)
!(EU4 (31)
!(EU5 (30)
!(EU6 (31)
!(EU7 (30)
!(EU8 (30)
!(EU9 (31)
!(EU10 (31)
!(EU11 (31)
!(EU12 (31)
Site Boundary
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
EU4 EU1
EU3
EU8
EU7
EU5
EU12 EU9
EU11 EU10
EU6
EU2
Offsite Vegetation Sampling Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3-2Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_EU_Vegetation_Sample_Locations_Figure.mxd Last Revised: 11/28/2019 December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
N
S
W E
LegendEU Vegetation Sample Location and Increment Counts
!(EU1 (31)
!(EU2 (31)
!(EU3 (31)
!(EU4 (31)
!(EU5 (30)
!(EU6 (31)
!(EU7 (30)
!(EU8 (30)
!(EU9 (31)
!(EU10 (31)
!(EU11 (31)
!(EU12 (31)
Site Boundary
Notes:EU = Exposure UnitSM = Incremental Sampling Methodology1. Each point represents a single ISM subsample which was composited into a single sample for each EU.2. Black lines represent cardinal directions (N, E, S, W).3. Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
EU4 EU1
EU3
EU8
EU7
EU5
EU12 EU9
EU11 EU10
EU6
EU2
Offsite Terrestrial Invertebrate Sampling Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3-3Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_EU_Terrestrial_Invertebrate_Sample_Locations_Figure.mxd Last Revised: 11/28/2019 December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
N
S
W E
LegendEU Terrestrial Invertebrate Sample Location and Increment Counts
!(EU1 (5)
!(EU2 (7)
!(EU3 (0)
!(EU4 (6)
!(EU5 (5)
!(EU6 (5)
!(EU7 (2)
!(EU8 (4)
!(EU9 (6)
!(EU10 (6)
!(EU11 (1)
!(EU12 (5)
Site Boundary
Notes:EU = Exposure UnitISM = Incremental Sampling Methodology1. Each point represents a single ISM subsample which was composited into a single sample for each EU.2. Black lines represent cardinal directions (N, E, S, W).3. Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity.
")")")")
")")")
")")")")
")")")")")
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*CapeFearRi
verOnsite and Offsite Pond Sampling Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3-4Raleigh
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_ECO_Fish_SW_Sample_Locations_Ponds_Figure.mxd; Last Revised: 11/28/2019December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
#*Fillet
!(Fillet and Carcass
")Surface Water
!(Whole Body
Site Boundary
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
")
")
")")
!(!(#*#*
Largemouth bass
Largemouth bass
Largemouth bass
Largemouth bass
")")
")
Area 1
Area 2
200 0 200100 Feet
Notes:1. The outline of the River shown on this figure is approximate (River outline based on compilation of open data sourcesfrom ArcGIS online service and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS - Major Hydro shapefile).2. Aerial Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community.
200 0 200100 Feet
")")")")
")")")")")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(CapeFearRi
verWillisCreek
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Old Outfall 002
Dam
Outfall 002
SLEA-SED4-20191021SLEA-SED4-VEG-20191021
SLEA-SED6-20191021SLEA-SED6-VEG-20191021
SLEA-SED5-20191021SLEA-SED5-VEG-20191021
SLEA-SED3-20191021
SLEA-SED3-VEG-20191021
SLEA-SED2-20191021SLEA-SED2-VEG-20191021
SLEA-SED1-20191021
SLEA-SED1-VEG-20191021
CFR-04-CM-072519CFR-04-CT-072519
CFR-04-E-072519
CFR-07-CM-072519CFR-07-CT-072519
CFR-07-W-072519
CFR-07-E-072519
CFR-04-W-072519
Cape Fear River Surface Water, Sediment andAquatic Vegetation Sampling Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3-5Raleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_ECO_Sediment_Sample_Locations_Figure.mxd; Last Revised: 11/28/2019December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
")")")")
")")")")")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
Legend
!(Sediment and Aquatic VegetationSample Locations
")Surface Water Sample Locations
Site Boundary
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
³
Notes:CFR = Cape Fear RiverSED = SedimentSLEA = Screening Level Exposure AssessmentVEG = Vegetation1. Sediment samples were collected as a three point composite around the sampling location.2. Aquatic vegetation samples were collected from surface water and near shore areas around each sampling location.3. The outline of the River shown on this figure is approximate (River outline based on compilation of open data sourcesfrom ArcGIS online service and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS - Major Hydro shapefile).4. Aerial Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community.
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*Cape FearRi
verSeep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Willis Creek
Intake Area
Outfall 002
Onsite Soil and BSAF Sample locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3-6Raleigh
500 0 500250 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_ECO_OnSite_OnSite_Terrestrial_Soil_and _BSAF_Sample_Locations_Figure.mxd; Last Revised: 11/28/2019December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*
1 0 10.5 Miles
Legend
#*Soil and Worm Co-locatedSample for BSAF Calculation
!(Soil Subsample for SpatialComposite
Site Boundary
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
!(!(!(!(!(!(
#*
#*
#*#*
!(!(!(
!(!(!(#*
!(!(!(
!(!(!(#*
#*
!(
!(!(
!(!(
#*
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
#*
#*
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Area 5
³
30 0 3015 Feet
30 0 3015 Feet
30 0 3015 Feet
30 0 3015 Feet
Notes:BSAF = Biota-Soil Accumulation Factor1. The outline of the River shown on this figure is approximate (River outline based on compilation of open data sourcesfrom ArcGIS online service and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS - Major Hydro shapefile).2. Aerial Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community.
30 0 3015 Feet
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
#*#*
#*#*
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
CapeFearRi
verWillisCreek
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Dam
Outfall 002
Old Outfall 002
Largemouth BassFlathead Catfish
Blue Catfish
Channel Catfish
Blue Catfish
Blue Catfish
Comely Shiner
American Eel
Redbreast Sunfish
Redbreast Sunfish
Largemouth BassRedbreast Sunfish
Redbreast Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
Dusky Shiner
Asian Clam
Asian Clam
Asian Clam
Asian Clam*
Asian Clam*
Asian Clam*
Mixed Invertebrate
Cape Fear River Fish and InvertebrateSampling Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
3-7Raleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_ECO_Fish_SW_Sample_Locations_OnSite_Figure.mxd; Last Revised: 11/28/2019December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
Legend
#*Fillet
!(Fillet and Carcass
!(Whole Body
$1 Benthic Inverts AC SampleLocations
Site Boundary
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
³
Notes:* = Asian clam samples denoted with an asterisk were combined into a single composite sample to meet tissue massrequirements1. In addition to the samples shown on this figure, one upstream (MM-68) and one downstream (CFR-09) samples wereused to estimate fillet to whole body ratios.2. The outline of the River shown on this figure is approximate (River outline based on compilation of open data sourcesfrom ArcGIS online service and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS - Major Hydro shapefile).3. Aerial Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community.
SoilSeepSurface Water- Pond 1InvertebrateLargemouth Bass (fillet + carcass) - Pond 1PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFMOAA
HFPO-DA
Onsite Media
0 100
Detection Frequency (%)"P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\Illustrator\SLEA\Detection Frequency ECO SLEA\Figure 4-1 Detection Frequency Onsite Terr EU.ai"Detection Frequency by Media -
Onsite Terrestrial Exposure Unit
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-1RaleighDecember 2019
SoilSurface Water- Pond BVegetationInvertebratePFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFMOAA
HFPO-DA
Offsite Media
0 100
Detection Frequency (%)"P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\Illustrator\SLEA\Detection Frequency ECO SLEA\Figure 4-1 Detection Frequency Onsite Terr EU.ai"Detection Frequency by Media -
Offsite Terrestrial Exposure Unit
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-2RaleighDecember 2019
Aquatic Media
Detection Frequency (%)
0 100
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFMOAA
HFPO-DA
SedimentVegetationInvertebrateSurface Water- CFRLargemouth Bass (LMB; fillet)Catfish (fillet)Redbreast Sunfish (whole body)LMB Young-of-Year (whole body)Shiner (whole body)American Eel"P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\Illustrator\SLEA\Detection Frequency ECO SLEA\Figure4-3 Detection Frequency Aquatic EU.ai"Detection Frequency by Media -
Aquatic Exposure Unit
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-3RaleighDecember 2019
EU2
EU6
EU10EU11
EU9EU12
EU5
EU7
EU8
EU3
EU1EU4
Total Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations in Offsite Media
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-4Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_EU_Total_Table3_Plus_in_Offsite_Media_Figure.mxd Last Revised: 11/28/2019 December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
N
S
W E
Legend
Site Boundary
Notes:ng/kg = nanograms per kilogramEU = Exposure UnitINV = InvertebrateISM = Incremental Sampling MethodologyNA = Not applicableND = Non-detectVEG = Vegetation1. Each point represents a single ISM subsample whichwas composited into a single sample for each EU.
2. All results in nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg).3. Total Table 3+ PFAS result does not include non-detect values.4. Black lines represent cardinal directions (N, E, S, W).5. Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, OrdnanceSurvey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),(c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity.
INV 5,100
SOIL 4,900
VEG 57,000
EU-1 (ng/kg)
INV 3,500
SOIL ND
VEG 140,000
EU-2 (ng/kg)
INV NA
SOIL 360
VEG 16,000
EU-3 (ng/kg)
INV ND
SOIL ND
VEG 27,000
EU-4 (ng/kg)
INV 25,000
SOIL 1,400
VEG 36,000
EU-5 (ng/kg)
INV ND
SOIL ND
VEG 36,000
EU-6 (ng/kg)
INV ND
SOIL ND
VEG 9,100
EU-7 (ng/kg)
INV 7,600
SOIL ND
VEG 11,000
EU-8 (ng/kg)
INV 1,200
SOIL ND
VEG 11,000
EU-9 (ng/kg)
INV 1,300
SOIL ND
VEG 5,300
EU-10 (ng/kg)
INV ND
SOIL ND
VEG 820,000
EU-11 (ng/kg)
INV ND
SOIL ND
VEG 80,000
EU-12 (ng/kg)Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figure4-4_ECO_Total_Table3_Plus_PFAS_Conc_in_Osite_Media.aiINV 5,100
SOIL 4,900
VEG 57,000
EU-1 (ng/kg)Exposure UnitComposite Sample Media Results
&-
&-
&-
&-&-
&-
&-&-
&-&-
&-#*#####*****!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
#
#
#
#
#
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
##
#
#
#
**
*
*
*
#
##
*
**
###
##
***
**
$
$
+
+
$
$
$
$
+
+
+
+
")
"
"
"
"
"
)
)
)
)
)
%
%
%
%
%,
,
,
,
,CapeFearRi
verWillisCreek
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Dam
Old Outfall 002
Outfall 002
INVND
INVND
INVND
INVND
SEDND
SEDND
SEDND
SED260
SEDND
SEDND
VEG2,100
VEG3,200
VEG480,000
VEG300,000
VEG6,000
VEG2,400
FISHND
FISH3,000
FISH5,200
FISH270
FISHND
FISH310
FISH280
FISH13,000FISH13,000
FISH51,000
FISH37,000
FISH13,000FISH8,700
FISH5,000
FISH2,600
FISH11,000
SW11
SW20
SW16
SW30
SW74
SW38
SW170
SW100
Worm32,000
Worm63,000
Worm190,000
Worm21,000
Worm37,000
Worm24,000 Soil67,000
Soil32,000
Soil78,000
Soil6,100
Soil260,000
Soil20,000
Soil120,000
Soil20,000
Soil61,000
Soil25,000
Soil29,000
Total Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations in Onsiteand Aquatic Media
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-5Raleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\SLEA\TR0795_EU_Total_Table3_Plus_in_Onsite_Media_Figure.mxd; Last Revised: 12/3/2019December 2019
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
Legend
Well Media
*Fish(ng/kg, ww)
,TerrestrialInvertebrate(ng/kg, ww)
)Sediment(ng/kg, dw)
(Surface Water(ng\L)
-Soil(ng/kg, dw)
*Vegetation(ng/kg, ww)*Worm(ng/kg, ww)
³
Notes:ng/kg = nanograms per kilogramng/L = nanograms per literINV = InvertebrateND = Non-detectSED = SedimentSW = Surface WaterVEG = Vegetationdw= dry weightww = wet weight
!(!(
!(
#*#*#*#*
SW3,200
SW3,100 SW3,300
FISH530
FISHNDFISH5,200
!(
!(!(
SW1,300
SW1,300
SW1,300
Pond 1
Pond B
200 0 200100 Feet
200 0 200100 Feet
Pond 1
Pond B
Onsite
Concentration (ng/kg) and (ng/L)
1. All results in nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) or nanograms per liter (ng/L).2. Total Table 3+ PFAS result does not include non-detect values.3. The outline of the River shown on this figure is approximate (River outlinebased on compilation of open data sources from ArcGIS online service andNorth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS - Major Hydroshapefile).4. Aerial Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
!(ND
!(< 10
!(10 - 100
!(100 - 1,000
!(1,000 - 10,000
!(10,000 - 100,000
!(100,000 - 1,000,000
!(> 1,000,000
Site Boundary
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Exposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - HFPO-DA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-6aRaleighDecember 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.ai
Exposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PFMOAA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.ai4-6b
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PFO2HxA
4-6c
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PFO3OA
4-6d
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PFO4OA
4-6e
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PFO5OA
4-6f
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PMPA
4-6g
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PEPA
4-6h
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PFESA-BP1
4-6i
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - PFESA-BP2
4-6j
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units - Byproduct 4
4-6k
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units – NVHOS
4-6l
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units – Hydro-EVE Acid
4-6m
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh December 2019
Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/SLEA/Figures4-6series_ExposurePointConcMedia.aiExposure Point Concentrations by Media forAll Exposure Units – R-EVE
4-6n
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Southern Short-tailed Shrew Bobwhite Quail Woodcock
PFECA G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFMOAA
HFPO-DA
Total Daily Intake of ΣTable 3+ PFAS (mg/kg bw per day) =
0.21 mg/kg bw-day 0.08 mg/kg bw-day 0.10 mg/kg bw-day 0.16 mg/kg bw-day
Notes:mg/kg bw-day = miligram per kilogram body weight per day
Total Daily Intake of Table 3+ PFAS -Onsite Terrestrial EU
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-7RaleighDecember 2019
"P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\Illustrator\SLEA\ECO SLEA bar charts\Figure4-7_FAY_Terrestrial_OnSite.ai"
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Southern Short-tailed Shrew Bobwhite Quail Woodcock
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFMOAA
HFPO-DA
Total Daily Intake of ΣTable 3+ PFAS (mg/kg bw per day) =
0.06 mg/kg bw-day
0.13 mg/kg bw-day 0.02 mg/kg bw-day 0.05 mg/kg bw-day
Notes:mg/kg bw-day = miligram per kilogram body weight per day
Total Daily Intake of Table 3+ PFAS -Offsite Terrestrial EU
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-8RaleighDecember 2019
"P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\Illustrator\SLEA\ECO SLEA bar charts\Figure4-7_FAY_Terrestrial_OnSite.ai"
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Muskrat Mink River Otter Wood Duck Mallard Duck Great Blue Heron
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFMOAA
HFPO-DA
Total Daily Intake of ΣTable 3+PFAS (mg/kg bw per day) =
0.19 mg/kg bw-day 0.002 mg/kg bw-day 0.002 mg/kg bw-day 0.01 mg/kg bw-day0.002 mg/kg bw-day0.1 mg/kg bw-day
Notes:mg/kg bw-day = miligram per kilogram body weight per day
Total Daily Intake of Table 3+ PFAS -Aquatic EU
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4-9RaleighDecember 2019
"P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\Illustrator\SLEA\ECO SLEA bar charts\Figure4-9_FAY_Aquatic.ai"
TR0795 December 2019
APPENDIX A
Field Sampling SOPs
1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides descriptions of methodologies employed during field events associated with
the Ecological SLEA report, including collection of vegetation, sediment, invertebrates, and clams.
1.1 General Field Procedures
All equipment was used in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations. All sampling
methods, locations, and relevant safety hazards were reviewed and discussed with team members
and Chemours representatives.
1.1.1 Decontamination Methods
Sample containers were provided by TestAmerica (Sacramento, California). Containers were new
and were used only once for each sample. Disposable equipment (i.e. gloves) was not reused and
therefore, did not require decontamination. All non-disposable sampling equipment was
decontaminated immediately before sample collection using a de-ionized water rinse, scrub with de-
ionized water containing non-phosphate detergent (i.e. Alconox®), and a final rinse with de-ionized
water.
1.1.2 Sample Shipping, Chain of Custody, and Holding Times
Samples were collected, labeled, containerized, and 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 sampling team. Sample locations, identifications
numbers, descriptions, number of samples collected, and specific laboratory analyses to be
performed were recorded on the COC. The COC was signed by the field personnel relinquishing the
samples to the courier and was signed by the laboratory upon receiving the cooler.
2 TERRESTRIAL PLANT SAMPLE COLLECTION:
Objective: to collect 60 grams (wet) of forage plant material that represents plant material
consumed by herbivores. One composite sample per EU.
2.1 Methodology:
•At each ISM increment location, look for the following for sampling:
o Preferred: Broadleaf plants, within 1 to 2 ft of the ground. Target collecting leaves
(berries/fruit if present) and seeded grasses (fescues, ryegrass, wheatgrass)
o Secondary: any grasses, weeds with non-waxy leaves
•Photograph selected plant(s).
•Collect ~ 2 grams of plant material targeting leaves, seeds or berries, not woody stems.
•Wipe any loose dirt off the plant with a dry paper towel, but do not wash.
•Place in a HDPE sampling container; continue adding to sample at next soil aliquot location.
2.2 Laboratory Analysis Notes:
•Minimum mass: 60 grams (estimated pending info from lab; may be revised)
•Sampling jar: HDPE
•Analyte list: Same PFAS analyte list as soil samples; % moisture
2.3 Examples of appropriate plants:
Ferns
Wildflowers (Trumpetweed, wood anemone, green and gold)
Seeded grasses:
2.4 Avoid waxy cuticles on plants:
3 TERRESTRIAL SOIL INVERTEBRATE SAMPLE COLLECTION
3.1 Objective:
•Collect 30 grams (wet) of invertebrate tissue that represents organisms consumed by
invertivores. One composite sample per EU.
3.2 Methodology:
•At each ISM aliquot, collect additional 0 to 6-inch soil samples and sieve (use the largest sieve
size that allows soil to pass through easily)
•Collect invertebrates found any of the grabs and place in a HDPE jar:
o Sieve enough additional soil to capture 1-2 earthworm (preferred)
o Sieve enough additional soil to collect 2-3 grams of non-earth worm invertebrates (if
earthworms are not collected)
o Collect any invertebrates easily caught above soil (grasshoppers, crickets/katydids,caterpillars)
o Feel free to use best professional judgement - if after a couple sieves the area seems very
low in invertebrates, move on. If you hit a spot with an abundance of earthworms, collect
additional mass from that location. In an ideal world we would have earthworms from all
30 aliquots in an EU but collecting enough sample mass is the critical item.
•Continue adding invertebrates to the sampling jar during each aliquot in an EU
•At the completion of the EU, evaluate tissue mass for earthworms alone:
o If > 30 grams, then composite only earthworm tissues in HDPE jar for analysis
o If < 30 grams, add in additional invertebrates to reach mass with preferences for larger
invertebrates
•Photograph and document final composite sample species make up
•Allow sample organisms to depurate (i.e. poop) any consumed soil (primarily by earthworms) by
leaving in jar on filter paper for 24 hours.
•Remove invertebrates to a clean HDPE jar prior to placing on ice for shipment to the laboratory.
3.3 Laboratory Analysis Notes:
•Minimum mass: 30 grams
•Sampling jar: HDPE
•Analyte list: Same PFAS analyte list as soil samples; % moisture
3.4 Carcass sampling for whole body estimates:
3.4.1 Background:
Whole body concentrations of chemicals are preferred for ecological exposures. To best leverage
the SLEA fillet sampling, we will be calculating fillet to whole body ratios based on weighted
average whole- body concentrations for up to 3 samples of catfish and 3 samples of bass. Every
attempt should be made to composite based on specific species or families (i.e., catfish should not
be composited with bass).
3.4.2 Methods:
•3 samples will be analyzed for PFAS in carcass along with the fillet sample (preference
for different locations)
o Preferable on single fish samples over composites
o Prefer 3 individual or composite samples made up of the same species (or family) for
each of bass and catfish
•For each sample:
o Measure whole body fish weight and standard length of all fish samples
o Place all fish for a single composite sample in the same HDPE bag
o Samples that will be analyzed for skin-off fillet only, will be labeled on the outside of theHDPE bag with the sample ID (see Work Plan Table 2).
o For the samples that will also be analyzed for carcass tissues, label with both the sample
ID, and the sample-ID with “-Carcass”.
o The laboratory has been provided instructions on sample processing for skin-off fillet
and carcass.
o In a clean space, away from potential sources (i.e, mechanical equipment/exhaust/etc.)
and using clean equipment/materials, remove fillets and weight all fillet meat (free to
subsample fillet for lab following weighing); record weight in field notes or summary
table (see last page here).
o Weight all remaining fish tissue (carcass – bones, organs, any remaining fluids) and place
in sampling container for lab (same type of containers for fillet samples are fine).
o Clean equipment/materials used for filleting between each fish processed to ensure that
there is no cross contamination between samples.
o Place individual or composite samples in appropriate (PFAS-free) containers (HDPE bags)
o Send samples (fillet and carcass) to the lab for analysis
o Carcass sample IDs: please use the same Fillet ID with a “-Carcass” and run for the
same list of analytes
•If compositing multiple fish, weight each fish using these steps individually prior to composting
the fillets and carcasses together. .
3.4.3 Laboratory notes:
•Minimum tissue mass: 40 g (30 g for PFAS, 10g for % moisture; ok if short on mass for
% moisture)
•Sampling container: HDPE bags
•Analysis: Method 537/Table 3+ PFAS, % moisture (if sufficient mass)
3.5 Collection and analysis of up to 5 small, benthic fish:
3.5.1 Background:
The SLEA captures angler focused species rather than wildlife focused species. To better
understand exposures to wildlife, we would like to collect up to 5 samples of smaller benthic
fish that are more commonly consumed by wildlife. The goal is to capture exposure to fish-
eating birds and mammals which are primarily opportunistic feeders, therefore is a highly
abundant species is observed during sampling these are likely highly consumed by wildlife.
3.5.2 Methods:
•Field team preference on sampling methods
•Preference is to retain fish without major injuries (so as not to lose fluids)
•Prior to measurement, euthanize fish quickly without loss of fluid from body cavity
•Measure and weigh all individual fish samples prior to processing
•Whole body fish should be collected and provided to the lab without further processing
•Composite same species, genus, or family of fish (assuming the same feeding strategy) as
needed for tissue mass; it would be best to target an abundant species/genus/family with the
same feeding strategy (i.e., either primarily benthic feeding or primarily water column feeding
and fish of the same size, generally).
3.5.3 Target species:
•Sucker species: white sucker, spotted sucker, lake or creek chubsuckers
•Shad species: gizzard shad, American shad and threadfin shad
•Sunfish species: Bluegill sunfish, spotted sunfish
•Minnow species: fathead minnows, shiners
Note: List is provided as examples; Field staff have our support in selecting other appropriate
smaller (< 12 inches) benthic fish based on species observed during sampling.
3.5.4 Laboratory notes:
•Minimum tissue mass: 40 g (30 g for PFAS, 10g for % moisture; ok if short on mass for
% moisture)
•Sampling container: HDPE bags
•Analysis: Method 537/Table 3+ PFAS, % moisture (if sufficient mass)
•Please indicate on COC that these are to be processed as WHOLE BODY samples and not skin-
off fillet samples.
•Recommend Sample IDs CFR-06 (or 07 depending on location)-FISH-WHOLE-1 to CFR-07-
FISH- WHOLE-05
3.5.5 Contingency Plan:
If low success in capturing additional small whole-body fish for analysis, the need for
remobilization and additional sampling in later August will be evaluated based on the completed
fish sampling to date.
3.6 Crawfish Trapping and Analysis:
3.6.1 Background:
Consumption of benthic invertebrates by wildlife is a complete exposure pathway, and crawfish have
been identified as a relatively easy benthic invertebrate that is consumed by wildlife (river otters,
minks).
3.6.2 Methods:
•Crawfish traps will be deployed at the 4 Cape Fear River EUs
•3 baited crawfish traps will be deployed at each EU at different locations for three discrete
samples
•Check traps at the end of sampling day and collect crawfish.
o If insufficient mass (< 40 g) collect crawfish and freeze, leave traps in place to collect
additional mass
o If sufficient mass, collect and submit to laboratory as whole-body organism for analysis
•Measure individual crawfish weights and lengths prior to submitting to the lab.
3.6.3 Laboratory notes:
•Minimum tissue mass: 40 g (30 g for PFAS, 10g for % moisture; ok if short on mass for
% moisture)
•Sampling container: HDPE jars or bags
•Analysis: Method 537/Table 3+ PFAS, % moisture (if sufficient mass)
3.6.4 Contingency Plan:
If low sampling success, benthic grab sampling for invertebrates may be added to the Sediment
Characterization efforts. Site personal have indicated areas near Site are generally softer sediment
with relatively high invertebrate density. If crawfish trapping is unsuccessful prior to sediment
characterization mobilization, additional sampling notes for benthic grab sampling will be provided.
Please contact either Wendy or Jennifer with any questions or concerns during fish, crawfish, plant
or soil invertebrate sampling.

4 COLLECTION OF CO-LOCATED SOIL AND EARTHWORMS
4.1 Standard Operating Procedure
The Fayetteville soil and earthworm collection effort will target areas of seeps along the Cape
Fear River on the Site. These areas are expected to have a high abundance of earthworms based
on anecdotal site observations and are expected to represent areas of highest exposure for
ecological receptors.
The following procedure will be employed to collect collocated soil and earthworm samples at
each Seep sampling location (Figure 1). There are five total sampling locations planned for co-
located soil and earthworms, however these locations are also being sampled separately for bank
soils (see Bank Soil SOP), therefore two soil samples (one for co-located soil/earthworms, one for
spatial composites of surface soil) are collected at each seep.
•Identify an area approximately 2’ x 2’ that is relatively clear of heavy brush and debris. Sample
locations should target the areas near the seep channel and riverbank edge; an example area is
shown in Figure 2.
•Clear away vegetation and leaf debris as needed to expose surface soil; photograph sample plot
and surrounding areas, mark with GPS/record coordinates
•Set up a ¼ inch sieve with new or decontaminated HDPE or stainless-steel bin/catcher
underneath sieve.
•Take a single shovel of surface soil and visually inspect for earthworms.
o If earthworms are present, place soil in the sieve and catcher. Sieve soil to expose
earthworm.
o If no earthworms are visually identified, discard shovel of soil.
•Continue collecting, visually evaluating and ,compositing soil samples, targeting 30g of
earthworms (5 to 6 big worms); a minimum of 10 grams of tissue is needed for a viable sample
but the lab requests 30g where possible.
•Once a sufficient mass of worms has been collected in the sieve:
o Photograph and then remove the sieve from the catcher/bin
o Homogenize soil in bin by mixing with a decontaminated stainless-steel spoon and
collect 2x 16-oz jars of homogenized soil for analysis
o After soil is collected into sample jars, prepare earthworms. Using lab provided PFAS
free water, rinse the earthworms on screen until they are free of soil. Using stainless steel
tweezers (or similar), place worms in a glass sampling jar lined with filter paper and a
small volume (2-3 drops) of DI water for moisture. Photograph contents of jar. Store jar
at ambient temperatures away from sunlight overnight to allow earthworms to depurate.
o The next morning, remove earthworms from original container into a clean glass
sampling container and place in freezer (if possible) or in a cooler with ice until delivery
to the laboratory.
•5 soil and 5 earthworm tissue samples will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis of Table
3+ SOP, Method 537-mod. Soil samples will also be analyzed for total organic carbon and
tissue samples will also be analyzed for percent moisture.
•Sample ID: LOCATION# - MEDIA – DATE as MMDDYY
Example: SEEP1-SOIL-091219 or SEEP1-WORM-091319
Figure 1: Seep sample locations for composite soil and co-located soil and earthworm
sampling. Note, locations of seeps are approximate.
Figure 2: Example areas near seeps to target for co-located earthworm and soil sampling.
5 COMPOSITE SOIL SAMPLING ALONG RIVERBANK
5.1 Standard Operating Procedure
The Fayetteville bank soil collection effort will target areas of seeps along the Cape Fear River
on the Site. The following procedure will be employed to collect composite soil samples at
eight locations (Figures 1 and 2).
•At each sampling location, a single composite sample of 6 sub-samples will be collected. While
the specific locations of subsamples will vary, similar spatial coverage will be targeted.
o For samples collected at each seep location (Figure 1), the 6 sub-samples will be
distributed as follows: 3 subsamples will be collected from each side of the seep (Figure
3). Subsamples will be collected outside of the seep channel, targeting 2 ft from the seep
channel edge, and spaced 2 ft apart along the seep channel. Samples will be collected as
close to the River as safely feasible.
o For samples collected at near the Lock and Dam (Figure 2), the 6 sub-samples will
be distributed as follows: 6 subsamples oriented parallel to the riverbank (Figure 4).
Subsamples will be collected approximately 2 feet from the river and will be spaced
approximately 2 feet apart.
•Identify an area along the outlet of each sampling location that allows the collection of
composite samples according to Figures 3 and 4. Mark out the 6 subsample locations with flags
or other markers and photograph from multiple angles, record GPS of each subsample.
•For each sample:
o At each subsample location, collect a soil sample from 0 to 1 ft using a decontaminated
stainless-steel shovel.
o Approximately the same sample volume should be collected from each subsample
location.
o Place subsampled soil in a large decontaminated stainless steel or HDPE bin for
compositing.
o Composite and homogenize the six subsamples.
o Photograph the sample after mixing.
o From the soil composite, fill two 16 oz jars for laboratory analysis.
•8 composite bank soil samples will be collected for analysis of Table 3+, Method 537 and
Total organic carbon.
•Sample ID: LOCATION# - MEDIA – DATE as MMDDYY-COMP
Example: SEEP1-SOIL-091219-COMP or CFR07a-SOIL-091419-
COMP
Figure 1: Composite Soil Sample Locations at Seeps. Note, locations of seeps are
approximate.
Figure 2: Composite Soil Sample Locations Near the Lock and Dam
Figure 3 – Conceptual Distribution of Subsamples at Composite Soil Sampling Location at
Seep
Figure 4 – Riverbank Sampling Conceptual Schematic
6 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING IN SUPPORT OF THE
ECOLOGICAL SLEA
6.1 Background:
To support the evaluation of exposure to aquatic-life dependent birds and mammals:
1.Collection and analysis of 2-3 samples of Asian clams.
2.Collection and analysis of up to 3 samples of other benthic invertebrates
3.Collection and analysis of 4-5 samples of aquatic vegetation.
4.Collection and analysis of 4-5 samples of surface sediment.
6.2 Collection and analysis of 2-3 samples of Asian clams.
Rationale: Asian clams have been identified as highly abundant in areas of sandy/gravel banks
along this stretch of the Cape Fear River (CFR). Highly abundant organisms provide food sources
for wildlife and efficient sample collection when high tissue mass is needed.
Sample Locations: pre-determined sampling locations are not included in the
SOP. Sampling Methods:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/3M6.PDF
•Based on previous site surveys and recognizance, the approximate area of sandy/gravel banks
have been approximated. Staff will mobilize to the general areas, and using a GoPro observe
the bottom to identify the presence of clam beds.
•Whole body homogenize (rationale: small, thin shelled, likely consumed whole by organisms;
conserve internal juices/water from clams; uncertainty – some organisms do open shellfish and
eat only soft tissues, and this may underestimate exposure for that scenario)
7 COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF 5 SAMPLES OF AQUATIC VEGETATION.
7.1 Sample Locations:
Aquatic vegetation samples will be collected from within and along the banks of the CFR. Samples
will be collected from along the western bank of the CFR, in the area of each Sediment sample
location (SED1 through SED5; Figure 1. Note SED6 not included for veg.
7.2 Sampling Methods:
•Any live aquatic vegetation is considered acceptable for sampling – including floating
vegetations (e.g. duckweed), submerged vegetation and emergent vegetation (i.e.
roots/stems below water but leaves above). Leaf litter, debris and other dead vegetation
should not be collected.
•Collection methods may vary by type of vegetation:
o Floating vegetation can be collected from the surface of the water using a net and
placed in sampling containers by gloved hand.
o Submerged vegetation that is easily loosened from sediment can be disturbed to
loosen and removed either using a gloved hand or net.
o Emergent aquatic vegetation that can be safely reached from the vessel, can be
pulled directly from sediment using a gloved hand and placed in sampling
containers.
•In the vicinity of the Sampling location, collect any observed floating vegetation first.
•Move to the western bank to collect emergent and submerged vegetation as observed.
•If limited aquatic vegetation is observed, subsamples from multiple locations can be
composited as needed to collect 20-30 grams of tissue, but please discuss with EcoSLEA
task lead (Jenn Arblaster) prior to composting.
•Once collected, samples should be weight to confirm sample mass, photographed,
described in field notes (i.e. % submerged, % floating, % emergent in sample), placed in
sampling jars, sealed jars placed into Ziplock bags and placed on ice for transport to lab.
8 COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF 6 SAMPLES OF SURFACE SEDIMENT.
8.1 Sample Locations:
SED1 through SED6 (Figure 1
SED1 34.850394° -78.826705°
SED2 34.848660° -78.825936°
SED3 34.843501° -78.823967°
SED4 34.837534° -78.823236°
SED5 34.831484° -78.822477°
SED6 34.822039° -78.820892°
8.2 Sampling Methods:
•At each sampling location, a petite ponar will be used to collect a three-point composite of
surface sediment. The ponar is approximately 3-4 inches deep and the full depth can be
considered ‘surface sediment’.
•It may be worthwhile to use a GoPro to observe the sediment bottom for any large debris
prior to attempting. Sampling locations can be adjusted as needed to avoid refusal due to
debris. If refusal is encountered, sample locations can be moved up to 50 ft as needed in
any direction. Record coordinates of all sample locations.
•While on station, lower the ponar to collect a grab sample of surface sediment. On vessel,
observe the sample for acceptance and photograph (note sample ID in photo). Acceptable
samples will have greater than 2 inches of sediment recovery.
•In field notes, characterize sediment texture, color (using Munsell chart) and note any odors
or sheen.
•Using a stainless-steel spoon/scoop, collect sediment avoiding sediment in contact with the
sides of the sampler, and place in a stainless-steel bowl for composting.
•From within an approximate 25 ft radius of the first grab sample, repeat to collect two more
subsamples.
•Homogenize sediment until consistent color and texture is achieved removing any large
debris (rocks, sticks, shell hash, etc.), and place sample in 2x 16 oz jars and place sealed
jars into Ziplock bags. Samples should be sealed and placed on bagged, wet ice for delivery
to the laboratory.
•All non-dedicated or non-disposable sampling equipment (e.g., stainless steel reusable
equipment used in sediment sampling) will be decontaminated between samples (not
subsamples in the same composite) in the following manner:
Water rinse;
Scrub with de-ionized water containing non-phosphate detergent
(e.g.,Alconox®);
Tap water rinse; and
De-ionized water rinse.
9 COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF UP TO 3 SAMPLES OF OTHER BENTHIC
INVERTEBRATES
9.1 Sampling locations:
Sampling locations are flexible and can be determined in the field based on invertebrate abundance.
SED locations can be used as starting point for field teams.
9.2 Sampling Methods:
•In the general area of each SED sampling location field staff should observe sediment
surface for features that would result in refusal, and features like piled/disturbed sediment,
burrow holes, or bubbles which may indicate the presence of invertebrates.
•When ready to collect a grab sample, lower the ponar to sediment surface and collect a
sample.
•Place sediment from sampler into a sieve using stainless steel scoop/spoon. Gently sieve
out sediments using river water to expose invertebrates, photograph and collect using
forceps. Place invertebrates in a sampling container and keep on ice.
•If invertebrates are collected at a location, note coordinates with GPS.
•Field staff may need to use judgement regarding the success of collecting invertebrates at a
specific location and can collect additional grabs or move to a new location as deemed
appropriate.
•Invertebrates collected from the surrounding area of the same SED location can be directly
collected in the same sampling jar (however if a single location results in 15g+ of tissue it
should be kept separate as a discrete sample).
•As samples are collected from different SED locations, these should be collected in
separate jars labeled with the location ID.
•At the end of the field day, individual samples will be weighed, and a compositing
approach will be determined in coordination with the EcoSLEA task lead (Jenn Arblaster)
as needed. Samples will be composited and stored on bagged wet ice until transport to the
laboratory.
•If insufficient mass for 2-3 samples and pending time in the field, the task leads may
request an additional Asian clam sample. Please plan on connecting with Task leads prior
to demobilizing.
TR0795 November 2019
Figure 1: Proposed Sampling Locations for Benthic Invertebrates and Sediment Samples
for Ecological SLEA.
TR0795 December 2019
APPENDIX B
Data Summary Tables
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Media FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISHLocation ID CFR Bladen-01 CFR-05 CFR-05 CFR-05 CFR-05 CFR-05 CFR-05 CFR-06 CFR-06 CFR-06 CFR-06 CFR07-01Field Sample ID CFRBladen-01-LMB CFR-05-1-LMB CFR-05-1-LMB CFR-05-2-FH CFR-05-3-BC CFR-05-4-CC CFR-05-4-CC-Carcass CFR-06-1-BC CFR-06-2-BC CFR-06-2-BC-Carcass CFR-06-3-BC CFR07-01-Comely
ShinerSample Date 27-Sep-19 01-Aug-19 01-Aug-19 01-Aug-19 01-Aug-19 01-Aug-19 01-Aug-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 25-Sep-19Sample Matrix Fish - Whole-body Fish- Carcass (fillet
removed)
Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish- Carcass (fillet
removed)
Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish- Carcass (fillet
removed)
Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish - Whole-body
Eco SLEA Data Use Downstream Sample EPCs/Whole-body to
fillet ratio
EPCs/Whole-body to
fillet ratio
EPCs EPCs EPCs/Whole-body to
fillet ratio
Whole-body to fillet
ratio
EPCs EPCs/Whole-body to
fillet ratio
Whole-body to fillet
ratio
EPCs EPCs
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)320-54836-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-54836-1Lab Sample ID 320-54836-16 320-52951-22 320-52951-13 320-52951-14 320-52951-15 320-52951-16 320-52951-23 320-52951-5 320-52951-6 320-52951-20 320-52951-9 320-54836-5Table 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA <4,300 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
PFMOAA 4,900 J <1,000 R <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 3,200
PFO2HxA <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000PFO3OA<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
PFO4DA 400 960 J 2,600 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 6,300PFO5DA310<1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 3,100
PMPA <1,000 900 J 370 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 270 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 280 J 310 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000PEPA<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
PFESA-BP1 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000PFESA-BP2 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
Byproduct 4 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000Byproduct 5 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
Byproduct 6 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000NVHOS<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
EVE Acid <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000Hydro-EVE Acid <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000R-EVE <1,000 3,300 J <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000PES<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000PFECA B <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000PFECA-G <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000Other PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <1,000 UJ <1,500 UJ <4,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <7,300 UJ <1,500 UJ <1,300 UJ <4,100 UJ <3,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --
11Cl-PF3OUdS <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)<10,000 <14,000 UJ <40,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <70,000 UJ <15,000 UJ <12,000 UJ <40,000 UJ <29,000 UJ <10,000 UJ --
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)<14,000 <10,000 UJ <59,000 UJ <15,000 UJ <13,000 UJ <100,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <18,000 UJ <59,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <14,000 UJ --2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <1,400 ----<1,400 UJ <1,000 UJ ----<1,000 UJ ----<1,000 UJ --
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <2,700 ----<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ ----<1,000 UJ ----<1,000 UJ --6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <10,000 <10,000 UJ <24,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <42,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <24,000 UJ <17,000 UJ <10,000 UJ --
9Cl-PF3ONS <2,800 <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --ADONA <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --
NaDONA <1,100 <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ --N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <14,000 <10,000 UJ <59,000 UJ <15,000 UJ <13,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <18,000 UJ <59,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <14,000 UJ --
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <7,500 ----<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ ----<1,000 UJ ----<1,000 UJ --N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <1,200 ----<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ ----<1,000 UJ ----<1,000 UJ --
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <15,000 <10,000 UJ <62,000 UJ <15,000 UJ <14,000 UJ <11,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <62,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ --Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 390 J 270 J <1,000 UJ 4,100 J <1,000 UJ 6,000 J --Perfluorobutanoic Acid <1,100 <1,600 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 770 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid 3,100 2,900 J 1,300 J 2,200 J <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluorodecanoic Acid 4,500 12,000 J 2,800 J 14,000 J <1,000 UJ 150 J 630 J <1,000 UJ 280 J 750 J <1,000 UJ --Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)<2,300 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluorododecanoic Acid 7,300 11,000 J 2,200 J 9,700 J 1,600 J 470 J 2,300 J 1,100 J 1,300 J 3,100 J <1,000 UJ --Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)<1,400 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluoroheptanoic Acid <1,100 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)<1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid <1,200 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --
Perfluorohexanoic Acid <1,600 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluorononanesulfonic acid <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --
Perfluorononanoic Acid <1,400 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluorooctadecanoic acid <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 870 330 J <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,300 UJ 440 J <1,000 UJ 450 J 1,200 J <1,000 UJ --Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --
Perfluoropentanoic Acid <3,000 <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid 2,800 J 5,100 J 1,300 J 2,100 J 1,100 J 490 J 1,400 J <1,000 UJ 1,200 J 3,100 J <1,000 UJ --
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid 2,300 3,900 J 1,200 J 1,900 J <1,000 UJ 320 J 900 J <1,000 UJ 830 J 1,600 J <1,000 UJ --Perfluoroundecanoic Acid 6,800 17,000 J 3,700 J 17,000 J 1,400 J 350 J 1,600 J <1,000 UJ <5,700 UJ 1,900 J <1,000 UJ --
PFOA <3,400 <1,000 UJ <1,400 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,400 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,400 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --
PFOS 120,000 120,000 J 37,000 J 52,000 J 3,500 J <5,600 UJ 87,000 J <2,500 UJ <3,200 UJ 530,000 J <2,500 UJ --
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture 76.5 J 69.9 79.7 ----86.5 75.8 --79.7 68.9 ----
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)------------------------
TR0795 Page 1 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISHCFR07-01 CFR-09 CFR-09 DERC DERC DERC DERC MM-68 MM-68 SEEP-A-1 SEEP-A-2 SEEP-B-1CFR07-01-Lamprey CFR-09-2-BC CFR-09-2-BC-Carcass DERC-1-LMB DERC-2-LMB DERC-3-LMB DERC-3-LMB-Carcass MM-68-4-LMB MM-68-4-LMB-Carcass SeepA-01-Redbreast
Sunfish
SeepA-02-Redbreast
Sunfish
SeepB-01-Spotted bass
25-Sep-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 02-Aug-19 02-Aug-19 24-Sep-19 26-Sep-19 24-Sep-19
Fish - Whole-body Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish- Carcass (fillet
removed)
Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish- Carcass (fillet
removed)
Fish Tissue- Fillet Fish- Carcass (fillet
removed)
Fish - Whole-body Fish - Whole-body Fish - Whole-body
EPCs Whole-body to fillet
ratio
Whole-body to fillet
ratio
EPCs EPCs EPCs/Whole-body to
fillet ratio
Whole-body to fillet
ratio
Whole-body to fillet
ratio
Whole-body to fillet
ratio
EPCs EPCs EPCs
320-54836-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-52951-1 320-54836-1 320-54836-1 320-54836-1320-54836-4 320-52951-8 320-52951-21 320-52951-1 320-52951-2 320-52951-3 320-52951-19 320-52951-17 320-52951-24 320-54836-1 320-54836-7 320-54836-2
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,200 <2,200 <1,300
13,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ 4,500 J 4,300 J 5,100
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<1,000 1,700 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 270 J 950 J <1,100 UJ 890 J 41,000 31,000 J 1,900<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 810 J <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ 1,700 710 J <1,000
<1,000 300 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 270 J 630 J <1,100 UJ 1,100 J 240 J <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 290 J <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 UJ 510 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ 730 J 400 J 6,400<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ 710 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 2,500 J <1,100 UJ 4,600 J 2,700 780 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
--<4,800 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <4,500 UJ <8,200 UJ <5,900 UJ <6,100 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ
--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000--<46,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <11,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <44,000 UJ <79,000 UJ <57,000 UJ <58,000 UJ <12,000 <10,000 UJ <10,000
--<68,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <17,000 UJ <11,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <84,000 UJ <86,000 UJ <18,000 <10,000 <10,000------<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --------<1,700 <1,000 <1,000
------<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --------6,700 <1,400 <1,000--<28,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <34,000 UJ <35,000 UJ <10,000 <10,000 <10,000
--<1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,300 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,600 UJ <1,000 UJ <3,400 <1,400 <1,000--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
--<1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <1,100 <1,100 <1,100--<10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <17,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <84,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <18,000 <10,000 <10,000
------<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --------<9,100 <3,800 <1,000------<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --------<1,500 <1,000 <1,000
--<10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <88,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <19,000 <10,000 <10,000--1,900 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 320 J 1,300 J 270 J <1,000 UJ <1,200 <1,000 <1,000--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <4,900 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <6,500 UJ 370 <1,000 <1,000--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 190 J 550 J 2,000 J 6,400 J 1,400 1,800 2,000--<1,000 UJ 360 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 800 J 3,200 J 4,100 J 21,000 J 2,200 3,100 3,100--<1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,400 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,900 <1,200 <1,000--430 J 1,300 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 930 J 3,200 J 3,700 J 18,000 J 3,500 5,900 4,600--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 580 J 1,000 260 <1,000--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,400 <1,000 <1,000--<8,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 310 J <2,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 370 J 390 660 2,500
--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,000 <1,000 <1,000--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 520 J <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,700 <1,000 <1,000--<5,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ
--290 J 1,900 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,400 UJ <1,300 UJ <1,900 UJ <1,000 UJ 1,400 1,100 <1,000--<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 290 <1,000 <1,000
--<1,400 UJ <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <3,700 <1,500 <1,000--450 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 400 J 1,400 J 1,300 J 4,900 J 2,700 J 2,300 J 3,200 J
--330 J 460 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 760 J 1,900 J 1,500 J 4,600 J 1,400 1,700 1,300--290 J 1,100 J <1,000 UJ 1,400 J 1,800 J 6,900 J 4,300 J 22,000 J 4,100 5,200 4,500
--<1,600 UJ <1,400 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,500 UJ <1,400 UJ <1,900 UJ <1,000 UJ <4,100 <1,700 <1,000
--1,300 J 16,000 J 14,000 J 12,000 J 18,000 J 1,400,000 J 56,000 J 670,000 J 140,000 78,000 81,000
--84.1 74.3 ----81 71.2 79.4 69.4 79.6 J 76.3 J --
------------------------
TR0795 Page 2 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
FISH FISH FISH FISH INV INV INV INV INV INV INV INVSEEP-B-2 SEEP-C-2 WC-01 WC-02 EU-01 EU-10 EU-11 EU-12 EU-2 EU-4 EU-5 EU-6SeepB-02-Redbreast
Sunfish
SeepC-02-Redbreast
Sunfish
WC-01-LMB WC-02-Dusky Shiner EU-1-INV-091219 EU-10-INV-082119 EU-11-inv EU-12-INV-082019 EU2-inv EU-4-INV-081919 EU-5-INV-082319 EU6-inv
26-Sep-19 26-Sep-19 26-Sep-19 26-Sep-19 12-Sep-19 21-Aug-19 31-Jul-19 20-Aug-19 25-Jul-19 19-Aug-19 23-Aug-19 25-Jul-19
Fish - Whole-body Fish - Whole-body Fish - Whole-body Fish - Whole-body Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert
EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs
320-54836-1 320-54836-1 320-54836-1 320-54836-1 320-54302-1 320-53607-1 320-52871-1 320-53490-1 320-52868-1 320-53490-1 320-53637-1 320-52868-1320-54836-8 320-54836-9 320-54836-10 320-54836-11 320-54302-5 320-53607-6 320-52871-17 320-53490-14 320-52868-8 320-53490-3 320-53637-3 320-52868-12
<4,300 <10,000 <1,000 <1,000 4,800 J <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,300 <2,300 <1,000 UJ
4,700 J 3,000 J <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ1,100 580 1,500 4,800 <1,000 <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ4706501,100 1,700 <1,000 <1,700 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ
1,900 280 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ 1,300 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 19,000 J <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 3,500 J <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ
<1,000 450 J <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 5,600 J <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,700 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ450 J <1,000 <1,000 4,200 280 J <1,700 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 800 J <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,700 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ
<1,000 UJ <1,600 UJ ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <85,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 UJ
<1,000 <2,000 ----<1,000 --<4,100 UJ <1,000 <7,200 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<10,000 <23,000 ----<10,000 --<47,000 UJ <11,000 <820,000 UJ <10,000 <10,000 <13,000 UJ
<14,000 <34,000 ----<10,000 --<10,000 UJ <10,000 <120,000 UJ <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 UJ<1,400 <3,300 ----330 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<2,700 <6,500 ----<1,500 --<1,300 UJ <1,000 --<1,000 <1,500 <1,000 UJ<10,000 <14,000 ----<10,000 --<28,000 UJ <10,000 <490,000 UJ <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 UJ
<2,800 <6,600 ----<1,500 --<1,300 UJ <1,000 <23,000 UJ <1,000 <1,500 <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,700 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <6,100 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<1,100 <1,800 ----<1,100 --<1,100 UJ <1,100 <6,200 UJ <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 UJ<14,000 <34,000 ----<10,000 --<10,000 UJ <10,000 <120,000 UJ <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 UJ
<7,400 <18,000 ----<4,000 --<3,600 UJ <1,000 --<1,000 <4,000 <1,000 UJ<1,200 <3,000 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<15,000 <36,000 ----<10,000 --<10,000 UJ <10,000 <130,000 UJ <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 UJ<1,000 <2,300 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <5,100 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<1,100 <2,600 ----<1,000 --<5,200 UJ <1,000 <9,100 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,400 UJ2,600 1,900 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <13,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ2,200 2,100 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <7,200 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<2,300 <5,500 ----<1,300 --<1,100 UJ <1,000 <20,000 UJ <1,000 <1,300 <1,000 UJ5,500 4,500 ----<1,400 --<1,200 UJ <1,000 <22,000 UJ <1,000 <1,400 <1,000 UJ<1,400 <3,200 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <11,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<1,100 <2,700 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <9,500 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<1,700 UJ <4,100 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <14,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<1,200 <2,900 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <10,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<1,600 <3,900 ----<1,000 --540 J <1,000 <14,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,800 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <6,500 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<1,400 <3,300 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<1,100 UJ <2,600 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <9,100 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<3,200 <7,600 ----<1,700 --<1,500 UJ <1,000 <27,000 UJ <1,000 <1,700 <1,000 UJ<1,000 <1,800 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <6,500 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<3,000 <7,100 ----<1,600 --<1,400 UJ <1,000 <25,000 UJ <1,000 <1,600 <3,900 UJ2,600 <5,000 ----<1,100 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <18,000 UJ <1,000 <1,100 <1,000 UJ
2,400 1,800 ----<1,100 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <17,000 UJ <1,000 <1,100 <1,000 UJ5,000 3,300 ----<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <12,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<3,300 <7,900 ----<1,800 --<1,600 UJ <1,000 <28,000 UJ <1,000 <1,800 <1,000 UJ
130,000 250,000 ----<4,200 --<3,700 UJ <2,500 <65,000 UJ <2,500 <4,200 <2,500 UJ
76.3 J 74.9 J ----74.8 68.6 J 73.1 --98.4 --76.6 --
------------------------
TR0795 Page 3 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
INV INV INV INV INV INV INV INV SED SED SED SEDEU-7 EU-8 EU-9 SLEA-CFR-ACINV-01 SLEA-CFR-ACINV-02 SLEA-CFR-ACINV-03 SLEA-CFR-INV-01-02-03 SLEA-CFR-INV-04 SLEA-SED1 SLEA-SED2 SLEA-SED3 SLEA-SED3EU-7-INV-081919 EU-8-INV-081619 EU-9-INV-082119 SLEA-CFR-ACINV-01-
20191021
SLEA-CFR-ACINV-02-
20191021
SLEA-CFR-ACINV-03-
20191021
SLEA-CFR-INV-01-02-
03 COMP
SLEA-CFR-INV-04-
20191021
SLEA-SED1-20191021 SLEA-SED2-20191021 SLEA-SED3-20191021 SLEA-SED3-20191021-
DUP19-Aug-19 16-Aug-19 21-Aug-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19
Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert Offsite- Invert CFR- Invert CFR- Invert CFR- Invert CFR- Invert CFR- Invert CFR- Sediment CFR- Sediment CFR- Sediment CFR- Sediment
EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs ECPs/Field Duplicate
320-53490-1 320-53490-1 320-53607-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1320-53490-6 320-53490-9 320-53607-3 320-55583-18 320-55583-19 320-55583-20 320-55583-21 320-55583-17 320-55583-7 320-55583-8 320-55583-9 320-55583-13
<1,000 <1,000 1,200 J <1,300 <1,300 <1,300 <1,300 --<250 <250 <250 <250
<1,000 4,600 <1,000 <1,000 R <1,000 R <1,000 R <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 1,400 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 1,600 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<10,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 --<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000
<10,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 --<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 --<1,000 <2,000 UJ <15,000 <2,000 UJ --680 280 J 460 510
<1,000 UJ <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <2,000 UJ <1,000 --260 300 J 220 320<10,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 --<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 --<210 <210 <210 <210
<1,100 <1,100 --<1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 --<210 <210 <210 <210<10,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 --<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200
<10,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 --<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<19,000 <1,500 <18,000 <20,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<12,000 <1,000 <11,000 <13,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200
<1,000 <1,000 --3,600 1,700 1,900 2,200 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ --<200 <200 <200 <200
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200
<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 --<200 <200 <200 <200
<2,500 <2,500 --<2,500 <2,500 5,200 <2,500 --570 <500 520 <500
----64.4 J ----------23 19.6 29.5 29.2
------------------------
TR0795 Page 4 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
SED SED SED Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil SoilSLEA-SED4 SLEA-SED5 SLEA-SED6 EU-01 EU-01 EU-10 EU-11 EU-12 EU-12 EU-2 EU-3 EU-4SLEA-SED4-20191021 SLEA-SED5-20191021 SLEA-SED6-20191021 EU-1-DiscreteSoil-0-.5-
081419
EU-1-SOIL-0-.5-091219 EU-10-SOIL-0-.5-
082119
EU-11-soil-0-0.5 EU-12-SOIL-0-.5-
082019
EU-12-SOIL-0-.5-
082019-D
EU2-soil-0-0.5 EU-3-soil-0-0.5 EU-4-SOIL-0-.5-081919
21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 14-Aug-19 12-Sep-19 21-Aug-19 31-Jul-19 20-Aug-19 20-Aug-19 25-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 19-Aug-19
CFR- Sediment CFR- Sediment CFR- Sediment Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil
EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs ECPs/Field Duplicate EPCs EPCs EPCs
320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-53747-1 320-54302-1 320-53607-1 320-52871-1 320-53490-1 320-53490-1 320-52868-1 320-52871-1 320-53490-1320-55583-10 320-55583-11 320-55583-12 320-53747-4 320-54302-3 320-53607-4 320-52871-15 320-53490-12 320-53490-15 320-52868-1 320-52871-1 320-53490-1
260 <250 <250 530 J 2,600 <250 <250 UJ <250 UJ <250 UJ <250 UJ 360 J <250 UJ
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ 2,300 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <500 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <500 UJ <500 UJ <200 UJ
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,400 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,500 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,500 UJ <2,500 UJ <2,000 UJ
<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <3,600 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <3,700 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <3,700 UJ <3,700 UJ <2,000 UJ740 J 210 200 <200 UJ 330 <200 <200 UJ 300 J 290 J 340 J 200 J 400 J
210 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 3,100 J <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ 690 J <200 UJ<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<210 <210 <210 <210 UJ <210 <210 <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ
<210 <210 <210 <210 UJ <210 <210 <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ
<200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ
<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 230 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ 460 J<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ 230 J<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 210 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ
<200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ
530 <500 <500 <500 UJ <500 540 1,500 J 1,300 J 600 J 550 J 1,100 J 940 J
32.2 20.1 21.6 0.1 J 29.4 10.4 1.7 J 7 11 4 J 3.4 J 6.4
------------------------
TR0795 Page 5 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil SoilEU-5 EU-6 EU-7 EU-8 EU-9 INTAKE-WORMSOIL INTAKE-WORMSOIL SEEP-A-RIVERSOIL SEEP-A-WORMSOIL SEEP-B-SOIL SEEP-B-WORMSOIL SEEP-C-SOILEU-5-SOIL-0-.5-082319 EU6-soil-0-0.5 EU-7-SOIL-0-.5-081919 EU-8-SOIL-0-.5-081619 EU-9-SOIL-0-.5-082119 INTAKE-WORMSOIL-
092419-D
INTAK-WORM-SOIL-
092419
SEEP-A-RIVERSOIL-
091319
SEEP-A-WORMSOIL-
091319
SEEP-B-SOIL-092519 SEEP-B-WORMSOIL-
092519
SEEP-C-SOIL-092619
23-Aug-19 25-Jul-19 19-Aug-19 16-Aug-19 21-Aug-19 24-Sep-19 24-Sep-19 13-Sep-19 13-Sep-19 25-Sep-19 25-Sep-19 26-Sep-19
Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Offsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil
EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs ECPs/Field Duplicate EPCs/BSAF EPCs EPCs/BSAF EPCs EPCs/BSAF EPCs
320-53637-1 320-52868-1 320-53490-1 320-53490-1 320-53607-1 320-54699-1 / 320-54699-2320-54699-1 / 320-54699-2320-54392-1 / 320-54392-2 320-54394-1 320-54770-1 / 320-54770-2320-54770-1 / 320-54770-2320-54770-1 / 320-54770-2320-53637-1 320-52868-3 320-53490-4 320-53490-7 320-53607-1 320-54699-3 320-54699-2 320-54392-2 320-54394-1 320-54770-9 320-54770-8 320-54770-7
<250 <250 UJ <250 UJ <250 UJ <250 35,000 J 24,000 J 17,000 J 13,000 J 1,400 25,000 1,300
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 4,200 J 2,600 J 5,200 21,000 J 2,500 150,000 9,1001,400 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 19,000 J 16,000 J 5,000 12,000 J 2,200 47,000 J 6,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 2,100 2,300 <2,800 5,100 <1,000 12,000 1,500
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 1,100 1,500 <2,800 5,100 <1,000 3,000 <1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 1,400 1,400 4,700 10,000 J <1,000 3,800 1,400
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 24,000 J 14,000 J <2,800 6,000 J <1,000 7,800 1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 7,500 J 4,800 J <2,800 2,600 <1,000 2,700 <1,000
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 2,000 <1,000 2,100 <1,000
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 1,200 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 UJ <1,000 2,400 <1,000 UJ<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 <1,000 1,300 <1,000
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 1,200 <1,000 1,200 <1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 R <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,800 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,800 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<200 <510 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 ------<2,000 <2,500 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <10,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000
<2,000 <3,800 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <10,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000<200 200 J 350 J 280 J <200 4,400 J 1,900 J 1,400 J 2,600 J ------
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 640 J 1,400 J ------<2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <10,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 ------<210 <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 <210 <210 <210 <1,000 <210 <210 <210
<210 <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 UJ <210 <210 <210 <210 <1,100 <210 <210 <210<2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <10,000 ------
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <1,300 UJ <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 UJ <1,000 UJ ------
<2,000 <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 UJ <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <10,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 2,300 J <200 230 <1,000 <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 420 550 240 <1,000 <200 430 330<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 360 550 310 <1,000 230 410 340<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 330 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 230 330 <200 <1,000 <200 200 <200
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 290 360 <200 <1,000 <200 250 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 UJ <200 <200 <200<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <620 <1,000 <200 <200 <200
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 640 500 230 <1,000 <200 1,300 270<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 210 <200 <1,000 <200 <200 <200
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 350 450 <200 <1,000 <200 350 230<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 630 620 400 <1,000 240 610 420
<200 <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 UJ <200 1,200 J 1,800 J 210 <1,000 240 350 280
<500 730 J 610 J 920 J <500 7,300 6,500 1,700 <2,500 1,400 4,300 2,500
12.7 J 5.1 J 9.3 12.1 7.8 59.2 J 48.7 J 34.5 J 38.3 J 8.4 43.9 10.6
----------200,000 180,000 14,000 --13,000 25,000 16,000
TR0795 Page 6 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil SW SW SW SW SW SW SWSEEP-C-WORMSOIL SEEP-D-RIVERSOIL SEEP-D-WORMSOIL WC-SOIL WC-WORMSOIL CFR-04 CFR-04 CFR-04 CFR-04 CFR-07 CFR-07 CFR-07SEEP-C-WORMSOIL-
092619
SEEP-D-RIVERSOIL-
091119
SEEP-D-WORMSOIL-
092619
WC-SOIL-092419 WC-WORMSOIL-
092419
CFR-04-CM-072519 CFR-04-CT-072519 CFR-04-E-072519 CFR-04-W-072519 CFR-07-CM-072519 CFR-07-CT-072519 CFR-07-E-072519
26-Sep-19 11-Sep-19 26-Sep-19 24-Sep-19 24-Sep-19 25-Jul-19 25-Jul-19 25-Jul-19 25-Jul-19 25-Jul-19 25-Jul-19 25-Jul-19
Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil Onsite-Soil CFR-Surface Water CFR-Surface Water CFR-Surface Water CFR-Surface Water CFR-Surface Water CFR-Surface Water CFR-Surface Water
EPCs/BSAF EPCs EPCs/BSAF EPCs EPCs/BSAF EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs
320-54770-1 / 320-54770-2320-54392-1 / 320-54392-2320-54770-1 / 320-54770-2320-54699-1 / 320-54699-2320-54699-1 / 320-54699-2 320-52969-1 320-52969-1 320-52969-1 320-52969-1 320-52969-1 320-52969-1 320-52969-1320-54770-6 320-54392-1 320-54770-3 320-54699-6 320-54699-8 320-52969-2 320-52969-1 320-52969-3 320-52969-9 320-52969-6 320-52969-5 320-52969-7
6,300 1,900 J 7,900 4,800 8,100 <2 2.1 <2 3.4 10 5.5 3.7
68,000 7,500 J 17,000 1,100 1,600 <5 <5 <5 8.8 36 21 9.924,000 J 6,700 J 15,000 J 9,300 8,600 2.2 2.3 2.2 4 13 8.1 4.55,200 2,000 7,700 J 2,000 2,100 <2 <2 <2 <2 3.2 2 <22,200 1,200 5,400 J 1,400 1,400 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <21,500 1,000 4,200 2,200 2,200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
6,100 <1,000 2,100 2,700 3,700 <10 <10 <10 <10 13 12 <101,500 <1,000 <1,000 1,300 1,300 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
3,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <21,100 <1,000 1,600 <1,000 <1,000 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 R <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2 5.5 J 7.6 J 4.8 J 5.4 J 8.9 J 7.5 J<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 R <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2 <2 <2 2.5 J 9.6 J 6.6 J 3.1 J
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 6.2 6.6 6.1 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.8
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 R <1,000 R <1,000 UJ 2.7 J 3.8 J <2 <2 3.6 J 2.7 J 2.9 J<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
--<200 --<200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20--1,100 J --1,100 1,300 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
--640 J --940 590 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
--<200 --<200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<210 <210 <210 <210 <210 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<210 <210 <210 <210 <210 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1--<2,000 --<2,000 <2,000 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<200 UJ <200 UJ <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2--<200 UJ --<200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2,000 <2,000 2,200 <2,000 <2,000 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4 4.2 4.3<200 280 <200 <200 <200 7.5 7.1 7.3 7.1 6.7 6.9 7<200 <200 260 270 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <23605101,000 850 790 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2360530620750610<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<200 <200 250 330 220 13 13 13 13 13 12 13<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<200 <200 200 200 200 6.5 6.4 7.2 6.9 6.5 7 6.4
<200 <200 <200 230 <200 18 18 18 18 19 19 19<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2210<200 410 530 290 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
540 300 500 290 410 19 20 20 19 20 19 19<200 <200 260 260 250 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<200 270 510 530 500 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <24606109301,100 890 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
430 400 790 830 650 8 7.9 7.9 7.9 8 7.7 7.6
4,100 3,600 9,700 6,600 5,200 16 15 15 16 16 16 16
42.6 20.1 J 34.2 15.5 25.2 J --------------
130,000 19,000 41,000 15,000 35,000 --------------
TR0795 Page 7 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW VEG VEG VEGCFR-07 CFR-07 Pond-1 Pond-1 Pond-1 Pond-1 POND-B-EAST POND-B-SOUTH POND-B-WEST EU-01 EU-10 EU-11CFR-07-E-072519-2 CFR-07-W-072519 Pond-1-NE-072419 Pond-1-NW-072419 Pond-1-SE-072419 Pond-1-SE-072419-2 POND-B-EAST-091219 POND-B-SOUTH-
091219
POND-B-WEST-091219 EU-1-VEG-091219 EU-10-VEG-082119 EU-11-veg
25-Jul-19 25-Jul-19 24-Jul-19 24-Jul-19 24-Jul-19 24-Jul-19 12-Sep-19 12-Sep-19 12-Sep-19 12-Sep-19 21-Aug-19 31-Jul-19
CFR-Surface Water CFR-Surface Water Pond-1-Surface Water Pond-1-Surface Water Pond-1-Surface Water Pond-1-Surface Water Pond-B-Discrete
Surface Water
Pond-B-Discrete
Surface Water
Pond-B-Discrete
Surface Water
Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg
ECPs/Field Duplicate EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs ECPs/Field Duplicate EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs
320-52969-1 320-52969-1 280-126823-1 280-126823-1 280-126823-1 280-126823-1 320-54303-1 320-54303-1 320-54303-1 320-54302-1 320-53607-1 320-52871-1320-52969-8 320-52969-4 280-126823-2 280-126823-3 280-126823-4 280-126823-1 320-54303-3 320-54303-4 320-54303-2 320-54302-4 320-53607-5 320-52871-16
4.3 15 940 730 760 770 310 290 310 8,900 1,700 3,700 J
12 71 240 250 260 250 67 71 65 20,000 <1,000 <5,700 UJ4.9 25 690 700 720 730 220 220 210 6,100 J <1,000 UJ 2,900 UJ<2 6.4 91 90 97 95 27 26 26 220 J <1,000 UJ <5,700 UJ
<2 2.3 37 38 40 40 8.9 8.4 8.7 260 J <1,000 UJ <5,700 UJ<2 <2 9.7 J 9.9 J 10 J 10 J 2.1 2.1 <2 <1,000 <1,000 <5,700 UJ
<10 19 820 820 850 850 350 J 350 340 12,000 J 530 J 52,000 J<20 <20 270 280 300 290 110 110 100 1,700 J <1,000 UJ <5,700 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 <1,000 <5,700 UJ<2 <2 31 31 32 33 25 25 25 <1,000 <1,000 <5,700 UJ
6.9 J 6.5 J 90 J 96 J 94 J 99 J 140 J 150 J 130 J 1,200 J <1,000 22,000 J3.1 J 19 J <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 570 J <5,700 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 <1,000 <5,700 UJ67.2 5.6 6.1 6.2 6.3 <2 <2 <2 5,000 <1,000 730,000 J
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <5,700 UJ<2 <2 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <5,700 UJ2.8 J 3.3 J 52 J 55 J 58 J 57 J 53 J 53 J 52 J 1,400 J 1,400 J 8,500 J<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 1,100 J 2,900 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,700 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <5,700 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <52,000 --<1,000 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <500,000 --<30,000 UJ
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <740,000 --<45,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <1,400 --<1,000 UJ<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <300,000 --<18,000 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,400 --<1,000 UJ<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <1,100 --<1,100 UJ<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <10,000 --<10,000 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3,900 --<23,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <10,000 --<10,000 UJ4.3 4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 4.2 4.2 4.3 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ6.9 7.4 11 11 12 11 6.2 6 6 <1,000 --850 J<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,200 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,300 --930 J<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ141344.2 4.2 4.2 <2 2.1 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <4 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ6.4 6.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ19195.1 4.7 5.2 5.1 2.5 2.3 2.2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 UJ <2 UJ <2 UJ <2 UJ <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,600 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ
20 20 16 15 15 15 <2 7.5 <2 <1,500 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,100 --<1,000 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ
7.9 7.5 9.1 9.6 8.7 9 4 4.1 3.8 <1,700 --<1,000 UJ
16 16 3.3 2.8 2.3 2.5 6.1 6.2 5.7 <4,000 --<2,500 UJ
------------------81.5 62.2 J 59.7
------------------------
TR0795 Page 8 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG VEGEU-12 EU-2 EU-3 EU-4 EU-5 EU-6 EU-7 EU-8 EU-9 SLEA-SED1-VEG SLEA-SED2-VEG SLEA-SED3-VEGEU-12-VEG-082019 EU2-veg EU-3-veg EU-4-VEG-081919 EU-5-VEG-082319 EU6-veg EU-7-VEG-081919 EU-8-VEG-081619 EU-9-VEG-082119 SLEA-SED1-VEG-
20191021
SLEA-SED2-VEG-
20191021
SLEA-SED3-VEG-
2019102120-Aug-19 25-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 19-Aug-19 23-Aug-19 25-Jul-19 19-Aug-19 16-Aug-19 21-Aug-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19
Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg Offsite-Veg CFR-Veg CFR-Veg CFR-Veg
EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs
320-53490-1 320-52868-1 320-52871-1 320-53490-1 320-53637-1 320-52868-1 320-53490-1 320-53490-1 320-53607-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1320-53490-13 320-52868-7 320-52871-2 320-53490-2 320-53637-2 320-52868-11 320-53490-5 320-53490-8 320-53607-2 320-55583-1 320-55583-2 320-55583-3
55,000 34,000 J 2,200 J 540 1,500 2,000 J 1,200 580 890 2,100 3,200 13,000
<1,000 R 59,000 J <1,000 R <1,000 R <1,000 R <1,000 R <1,000 R <5,000 UJ 970 J <1,000 <1,000 370,000 J
<1,000 UJ 6,600 J 4,800 J 1,200 J 790 J 1,200 J 1,100 J 1,500 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 29,000 J<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <2,400
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 530 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,400<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <5,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,400
390 J 34,000 J 3,700 J 2,200 J 1,900 J 8,200 J 2,900 J 4,200 J 2,000 J <1,000 <1,000 66,000<1,000 UJ 2,300 J 410 J <1,000 UJ 410 J 850 J <1,000 UJ <5,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <2,400
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,400<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <5,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,400
960 J 3,400 J <1,000 UJ 19,000 J 600 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 2,100 J 650 J <1,000 <1,000 3,300<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 370 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <5,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,400
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 <5,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,40024,000 J 1,700 J 650 J 2,700 J 26,000 J 18,000 J 3,700 J <5,000 6,700 J <1,000 <1,000 <2,400
<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <2,400<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,400<1,000 3,100 J 4,400 J <1,000 4,100 J 3,100 J 240 J 2,600 J <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 2,800<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 1,100 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,000 300 J <1,000 <1,000 <2,400320 J <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ 3,100 J <1,000 UJ <5,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <2,400<1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <2,400
<7,800 <4,000 UJ <3,600 UJ <19,000 <3,000 <3,500 UJ <5,700 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<6,600 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <6,400 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<75,000 <39,000 UJ <35,000 UJ <180,000 <29,000 <34,000 UJ <55,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000
<110,000 <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <110,000 <10,000 <10,000 UJ <81,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <10,000 <1,000 --240 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <20,000 <1,000 --<1,500 <1,400 --<2,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000<45,000 <23,000 UJ <21,000 UJ <110,000 <10,000 <20,000 UJ <33,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000
<22,000 <1,100 UJ <1,000 UJ <21,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,600 <1,400 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<5,600 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,500 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,100 <1,100 <1,100
<5,700 <1,100 UJ <1,100 UJ <5,500 <1,100 <1,100 UJ <1,100 <1,100 --<1,100 <1,100 <1,100<10,000 <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <110,000 <10,000 <10,000 UJ <10,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000
<2,900 --<2,700 UJ <56,000 <22,000 --<4,200 <3,800 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ<1,000 --<1,000 UJ <9,300 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<10,000 <10,000 UJ <10,000 UJ <110,000 <10,000 <10,000 UJ <10,000 <10,000 --<10,000 <10,000 <10,000<7,500 470 B <1,000 UJ <7,300 <1,000 <1,000 UJ 310 J 370 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 4,100 J 820 J <8,100 680 820 J 510 <1,000 --<1,000 1,400 2,400 J<12,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <11,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<6,600 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <6,400 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<18,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <17,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,300 <1,200 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 1,200 J 580 J <20,000 <1,000 1,400 J <1,500 <1,300 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<10,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <10,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <8,400 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <6,800 UJ <6,100 UJ <13,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ<9,300 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <9,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <12,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<6,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,800 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <10,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <4,400 UJ <1,000 UJ <8,100 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<1,200 <1,300 UJ <1,100 UJ <24,000 <1,000 <1,100 UJ <1,800 <1,600 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<6,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <5,800 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,200 <1,200 UJ 1,000 J <22,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ 480 <1,500 --<1,000 1,300 10,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <16,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,200 <1,100 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ
<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <15,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,100 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <10,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,000 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,300 <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ <25,000 <1,000 <1,200 UJ <1,900 <1,700 --<1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<60,000 <3,100 UJ <2,800 UJ <58,000 <2,500 <2,700 UJ <4,400 870 --4,700 3,000 <2,500
67.9 68.8 66 66.3 62.4 64.4 78 83.8 80.3 J ------
------------------------
TR0795 Page 9 of 10 December 2019
Appendix BData Summary Tables
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
MediaLocation IDField Sample ID
Sample Date
Sample Matrix
Eco SLEA Data Use
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ppt)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxAPFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPAPEPA
PFESA-BP1PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 4Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6NVHOS
EVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GOther PFAS (ppt)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONSADONA
NaDONAN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamideN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidPerfluorobutane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorobutanoic AcidPerfluorodecane Sulfonic AcidPerfluorodecanoic AcidPerfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)Perfluorododecanoic AcidPerfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)Perfluoroheptanoic AcidPerfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic AcidPerfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic AcidPerfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane SulfonamidePerfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic AcidPerfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic AcidPerfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Other Parameters
Percent Moisture
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
VEG VEG VEG Worm Worm Worm Worm Worm Worm WormSLEA-SED4-VEG SLEA-SED5-VEG SLEA-SED6-VEG INTAKE-WORM INTAKE-WORM SEEP-A-WORMS SEEP-B-WORM SEEP-C-WORM SEEP-D-WORM WC-WORMSLEA-SED4-VEG-
20191021
SLEA-SED5-VEG-
20191021
SLEA-SED6-VEG-
20191021
INTAKE-WORM-
092419
INTAKE-WORM-
092419-D
SEEP-A-WORMS-
091319
SEEP-B-WORMS-
092519
SEEP-C-WORM-
092619
SEEP-D-WORM-
092619
WC-WORM-092419
21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 21-Oct-19 24-Sep-19 24-Sep-19 13-Sep-19 25-Sep-19 26-Sep-19 26-Sep-19 24-Sep-19
CFR-Veg CFR-Veg CFR-Veg Onsite-Invert Onsite-Invert Onsite-Invert Onsite-Invert Onsite-Invert Onsite-Invert Onsite-Invert
EPCs EPCs EPCs EPCs/BSAF ECPs/BSAF/Field
Duplicate
EPCs/BSAF EPCs/BSAF EPCs/BSAF EPCs/BSAF EPCs/BSAF
320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-55583-1 320-54699-1 320-54699-1 320-54394-1 320-54770-1 320-54770-1 320-54770-1 320-54699-1320-55583-4 320-55583-5 320-55583-6 320-54699-9 320-54699-10 320-54394-2 320-54770-13 320-54770-12 320-54770-11 320-54699-11
26,000 <1,300 <1,300 4,900 5,200 6,200 J 19,000 1,400 5,200 5,700 Notes:
130,000 <1,000 <1,000 R <1,300 R <1,200 R 18,000 J 57,000 <1,200 R <1,000 R <1,000 R Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit38,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ 4,200 14,000 870 J 2,300 J <1,000 UJ B - analyte detected in an associated blank<1,300 UJ 1,100 J <1,000 UJ 240 J 230 J 2,600 6,700 J 520 J 3,500 J 610 J EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
<1,300 UJ 1,700 J 1,000 J <1,300 R <1,200 R 410 J 280 J <1,200 UJ 330 J <1,000 UJ J - Analyte detected. Value may not be accurate or precise<1,300 1,500 1,400 <1,500 380 14,000 J 5,500 J 850 3,100 J 1,800 mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
60,000 <1,000 <1,000 3,600 J 680 J 1,800 J 1,100 J <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ ppt - part per trillion12,000 J <1,000 <1,000 1,900 J 990 J 1,300 1,400 J 520 J 730 J 1,300 J QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
<1,300 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ 220 J 630 J <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ R - Result rejected based on QA/QC criteria<1,300 <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 UJ 210 J 1,500 4,200 J 420 2,100 J 360 J SDG - Sample Delivery Group
1,400 J 1,700 J <1,000 15,000 J 21,000 J 3,800 J 44,000 J 10,000 J 12,000 J 11,000 J SOP - standard operating procedure<1,300 <1,000 <1,000 2,100 J 1,900 J 6,200 J 20,000 J 450 J 480 J <1,100 < - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit
<1,300 <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ <2,200 <1,000 UJ <1,200 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ -- - No data reported34,000 J <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ 1,000 7,500 420 J 880 J <1,000 UJ
<1,300 UJ <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ <2,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,300 <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ 380 930 J <1,200 400 J <1,000 UJ1,700 J <1,000 <1,000 4,100 J 4,900 J 1,100 J 9,500 J 4,900 J 6,000 J 3,200<1,300 <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ <2,200 <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,300 UJ <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 UJ <1,200 UJ <2,200 <1,000 UJ <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ<1,300 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,300 R <1,200 R <2,200 <1,000 R <1,200 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 R
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,300 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,100 ------<1,000<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <12,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000
<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <11,000 <10,000 <18,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 250 <1,000 <2,000 UJ ------<1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,000 <2,000 <3,900 UJ ------<1,500<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,100 <2,000 <3,500 ------<1,600<1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100 <1,100<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <11,000 <10,000 <18,000 ------<10,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <5,500 <5,400 <11,000 UJ <4,500 <5,100 <4,800 UJ <4,200<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,800 UJ ------<1,000
<10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <11,000 <11,000 2,100 <10,000 2,000 5,600 5,900<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 240 230 260 430 610 3403,500 <1,000 <1,000 600 350 580 690 490 <1,000 480<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,100 <1,100 170 <1,000 <1,000 560 410<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 580 570 <1,000 670 450<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 <1,700 <2,900 <1,400 <1,600 <1,500 <1,300<1,000 1,300 1,000 350 540 1,700 1,300 870 1,900 2,500<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,700 <1,000 <1,000 230 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 310 730 <1,000 920 500<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 350 J 570 J 1,200 J 1,000 J 250 J 1,700 J 520 J<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 250 330 800 1,600 360 1,800 570
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 360 <1,200 <2,100 <1,000 <1,100 <1,100 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 540 670 <1,000 630 <1,000<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 UJ <1,000 <1,400 <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ <1,000 UJ
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,400 <2,300 420 J 400 <2,200 420 <1,800<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
2,500 <1,000 <1,000 <2,200 <2,200 <3,800 670 <2,000 <1,900 <1,700<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 1,200 1,900 2,600 2,400 1,100 4,200 J 3,000 J
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 470 J 1,100 J 1,600 1,400 720 1,700 1,600<1,000 1,700 <1,000 240 330 1,000 890 470 1,200 1,800
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,500 <2,400 540 610 <2,300 980 450
<2,500 <2,500 <2,500 3,000 3,100 7,400 6,700 3,100 12,000 6,100
------84.2 82.6 92 J 79.8 81.9 80.8 77.3
--------------------
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
TR0795 Page 10 of 10 December 2019
TR0795 December 2019
APPENDIX C
Photo Log
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 1 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU6_7
Comments: Leafy
vegetation taken as
sample. No
invertebrates found.
DU6_7
Comments: Leafy
vegetation taken as
sample. No
invertebrates found.
(34.814; -78.835)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 2 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU6_10

Comments: Moved
across the street to
avoid manure pile.
Leafy vegetation
collected. No
invertebrates found.
(34.815; -78.833)
DU6_16

Comments: Flowery
plant collected. No
invertebrates found.
(34.817; -78.832)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 3 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU6_5
Comments: Moved to
other side of highway to
avoid U-turn. No
invertebrates found.
Thin vegetation
collected. (34.811; -
78.834)
DU6_17
Comments: Moved out
of center of highway. No
invertebrates found.
Small leafy vegetation
collected. (34.809; -78.832)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 4 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU6_23
Comments: Moved
across highway. No
invertebrates found.
Weedy vegetation
collected. (34.805; -
78.828)
DU6_12
Comments: Moved off
highway. Rocky soil
found. No invertebrates found.
Long leafy vegetation collected.
(34.799; -78.822)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 5 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU6_22
Comments: No
invertebrates found.
Small ferns collected.
(34.799; -78.823)
DU10_26
Comments: No
invertebrates found.
(34.780532; -
78.836691)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 6 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU10_10
Comments: Point
moved off driveway. No visible invertebrates.
(34.78; -78.764)
DU6_27
Comments: No
invertebrates found. Thin leafy vegetation
collected. (34.799; -78.823)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 7 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU6_30
Comments: Long
bladed grass. (34.819; -
78.796)
DU6_15
Comments: No
invertebrates; thin leafy vegetation .
(34.834; -78.802)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 8 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU6_11
Comments: No
invertebrates found.
Long grasses collected.
(34.829; -78.807)
DU6_13
Comments: Moved back
from the EU border.
Ferns collected. No
invertebrates found.
(34.834; -78.812)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 9 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU2_23
Comments: Moved point out of street and
closer to sample
location.
(34.835311; -78.823966)
DU2_30
Comments: No visible
invertebrates.
(34.835525; -78.824683)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 10 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU2_25
Comments: No visible
invertebrates. (34.832244; -78.825641)
DU2_25
Comments: No visible
invertebrates.
(34.832244; -78.825641)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 11 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU2_2
Comments: multiple
crickets and grasshoppers caught.
(34.827473; -78.825059)
DU2_20
Comments: moved
closer to side of the road and took sample at
point. One cricket
caught at location.
(34.82626; -78.824887)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 12 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU2_6
Comments:
34.825906; -78.824892
DU2_8
Comments:
34.821777; -78.825388
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 13 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU2_22
Comments: EU2_22(0-
0.5ft). (34.820023; -
78.828723)
DU2_17
Comments: EU2_17(0-
0.5ft) one cricket caught.
(34.839601; -78.812775)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 14 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU2_12
Comments: EU2_12(0-
0.5ft) no invertebrates
caught. (34.839491; -
78.812656)
DU11_19
Comments: Moved to
avoid private drive. No invertebrates found.
Flowery vegetation collected. (34.839491; -
78.812656)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 15 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU11_1
Comments: No
invertebrates found.
Leafy vegetation
collected. (34.806; -
78.936)
DU11_16
Comments: (34.787; -
78.854)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 16 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU11_10
Comments: Moved
away from other point.
No invertebrates found.
Leafy vegetation
collected. (34.774; -
78.877)
DU11_7
Comments: No
invertebrates found.
Leafy vegetation
collected. (34.764; -
78.895)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 17 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU3_12
Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.836; -
78.857)
DU3_12
Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.836; -
78.857)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 18 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU3_19
Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.835; -
78.857)
DU3_30
Comments: No
invertebrates, grassy vegetation. (34.834; -
78.856)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 19 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU3_1
Comments: No
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.826; -
78.849)
DU3_3
Comments: No
invertebrates, grassy vegetation. (34.82; -
78.849)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 20 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU3_10
Comments: No
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.827; -
78.85)
DU3_4
Comments: No
invertebrates, grassy vegetation. (34.829; -
78.852)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 21 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
SS-4-4.5

Comments: EU-8-Soil-
4-4.5-081319. Duplicate
made. Shallow sample
taken as well at same
location. No
invertebrates found.
EU1-4-4.5

Comments: Shallow
taken as well. No
invertebrates in top 18
inches.

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 22 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU8-1

Comments: No
invertebrates, flowery
vegetation. (34.868; -
78.847)
DU8-1

Comments: No
invertebrates, flowery
vegetation. (34.868; -
78.847)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 23 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU8_6

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.867; -
78.87)
DU8_4

Comments: No
invertebrates, fern
collected. (34.87; -
78.868)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 24 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU8_19

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.868; -
78.88)
DU8_11

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.859; -
78.88)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 25 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU8_22

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.852; -
78.877)
DU8_13

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.855; -
78.877)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 26 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU4_11
Comments: Moved due
to private property. No
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.853;
-78.854)
DU4_17
Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.848; -
78.859)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 27 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU4_9

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.848; -
78.86)
DU4_16

Comments: 2
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.845; -
78.855)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 28 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU4_5

Comments: 1
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.845; -
78.855)
DU7_27

Comments: Leafy
vegetation collected. No
invertebrates found.
(34.833; -78.865)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 29 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU7_2

Comments: Leafy
vegetation collected. No
invertebrates found.
(34.83; -78.873)
DU7_10

Comments: Tall grass
collected. No
invertebrates found.
(34.813; -78.872)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 30 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU7_1

Comments: Long
grasses collected. No
invertebrates found.
(34.815; -78.865)
DU12_10

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation; (34.921; -
78.844)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 31 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU12_9

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.911; -
78.839)
DU12_27

Comments: 6
grasshopper, grassy vegetation. (34.901; -
78.853)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 32 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU12_5

Comments: No
invertebrates, flowery
vegetation. (34.886; -
78.849)
DU12_18

Comments: 1
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.905; -
78.856)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 33 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU12_22

Comments: 2
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.909; -
78.864)
DU12_1

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.902; -
78.911)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 34 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU12_15

Comments: No
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.893; -
78.916)
DU12_12

Comments: No
invertebrates, tall grassy
vegetation. (34.894; -
78.897)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 35 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU12_26

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.893; -
78.884)
DU12_28

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.857; -
78.908)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 36 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU12_3

Comments: 1
invertebrates, no
vegetation. (34.855; -
78.909)
DU9_6

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.892; -
78.827)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 37 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU9_16

Comments: No
invertebrates, fern
collected. (34.886; -
78.823)
DU9_12

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.924; -
78.823)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 38 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU9_10

Comments: 2
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.912; -
78.823)
DU9_19

Comments: No
invertebrates; grass.
(34.88; -78.807)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 39 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU9_5

Comments: 2
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.874; -
78.787)
DU9_20

Comments: No
invertebrates; leafy
vegetation. (34.894; -
78.797)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 40 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU9_30

Comments: Leafy
vegetation: 2
invertebrates, one a
dragonfly. (34.884; -
78.789)
DU10_24

Comments: No
invertebrates, tall grassy
vegetation. (34.826; -
78.735)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 41 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU10_20

Comments: No
invertebrates, fern
collected. (34.803; -
78.778)
DU10_17

Comments: 1
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.834; -
78.77)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 42 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU10_5

Comments: 1
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.76; -
78.805)
DU10_29

Comments: 1
invertebrates, grassy
vegetation. (34.761; -
78.806)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 43 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU5_8
Comments: Moved
due to private
property. 2
invertebrates found.
Long grasses
collected. (34.878;
-78.831)
DU5_8
Comments: Moved
due to private property. 2
invertebrates found.
Long grasses
collected. (34.878;
-78.831)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 44 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU5_3
Comments: Moved due
to private property.
Long grasses collected.
No invertebrates found.
(34.877; -78.821)
DU5_3
Comments: Moved due
to private property.
Long grasses collected. No invertebrates found.
(34.877; -78.821)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 45 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU5_5
Comments: 1
invertebrates found.
Tall grasses collected.
(34.865; -78.797)
DU5_22
Comments: Leafy
vegetation collected. No
invertebrates found.
(34.863; -78.834)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 46 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU5_9
Comments: No
invertebrates found.
Grasses collected.
(34.863; -78.832)
DU1_7
Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.856; -
78.833)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 47 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU1_20
Comments: Leafy
vegetation. No
invertebrates. (34.841; -
78.813)
DU1_22
Comments: Beetle,
grasshoper, leafy
vegetation. (34.857; -
78.836)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 48 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU1_17
Comments: No
invertebrates found.
Leafy vegetation.
(34.841; -78.813)
DU1_9
Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.858; -
78.836)
/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 49 19.12.13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU1_27
Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.86; -
78.836)
DU1_23
Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.861; -
78.834)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 50 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU1_30

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.858; -
78.832)
DU1_5

Comments: No
invertebrates. Leafy
vegetation. (34.862; -
78.838)

/PHOTOLOG_1_SJV 51 19.12.13

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Photographic Record
Client: Chemours Project Number: TR0795
Site Name: Fayetteville Works Site Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
DU1_19

Comments: No
invertebrate, leafy
vegetation. (34.857; -
78.832)
DU1_6

Comments: No
invertebrates, leafy
vegetation. (34.858; -
78.829)
TR0795 December 2019
APPENDIX D
ProUCL Output
6 0 6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 7093 36929080 6077 0.857
6 0 2 4 66.67% 1000 1200 13167 4.228E+8 20562 1.562
6 0 4 2 33.33% 1000 1200 3852 22031447 4694 1.219
6 0 6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 2360 6234197 2497 1.058
6 0 3 3 50.00% 1000 1200 340 2867 53.54 0.157
6 0 6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 4272 26092459 5108 1.196
6 0 3 3 50.00% 1000 1200 1348 210434 458.7 0.34
6 0 6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 1116 152020 389.9 0.349
6 0 2 4 66.67% 1000 1200 425 42025 205 0.482
6 0 6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 1465 2355153 1535 1.048
6 0 6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 16458 2.025E+8 14229 0.865
6 0 5 1 16.67% 1100 1100 4930 49534344 7038 1.428
6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 2200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0 4 2 33.33% 1000 1200 1865 6403787 2531 1.357
6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 2200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0 3 3 50.00% 1000 1200 570 64867 254.7 0.447
6 0 6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 4865 7972150 2823 0.58
6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 2200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 2200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 2200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0 1400 19000 7093 5450 36929080 6077 845.8 1.985 0.857
2 0 18000 57000 37500 37500 7.605E+8 27577 28910 N/A 0.735
4 0 870 14000 5343 3250 35172558 5931 2468 1.693 1.11
6 0 231.6 6700 2360 1605 6234197 2497 1822 1.195 1.058
3 0 280 410 340 330 4300 65.57 74.13 0.67 0.193
6 0 382.8 14000 4272 2450 26092459 5108 2718 1.816 1.196
3 0 1100 2156 1685 1800 288787 537.4 528.2 -0.916 0.319
6 0 520 1444 1116 1300 152020 389.9 180.8 -1.001 0.349
2 0 220 630 425 425 84050 289.9 303.9 N/A 0.682
6 0 208.8 4200 1465 960 2355153 1535 1002 1.349 1.048
6 0 3800 44000 16458 11500 2.025E+8 14229 5890 1.911 0.865
5 0 450 20000 5823 1984 68321039 8266 2274 1.834 1.42
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 0 420 7500 2450 940 11396933 3376 429.9 1.967 1.378
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 0 380 930 570 400 97300 311.9 29.65 1.724 0.547
6 0 1100 9500 4865 4695 7972150 2823 2076 0.573 0.58
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_d.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.112/2/2019 9:53:39 AM
User Selected Options
PFMOAA
Hfpo Dimer Acid
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_d.xls
Onsite Invertebrate General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
PFMOAA
Hfpo Dimer Acid
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
6 0 3230 5059 5094 5450 6075 6200 12600 15800 18360
6 0 1000 1000 1050 1200 13800 18000 37500 47250 55050
6 0 935 1000 1050 1750 3725 4200 9100 11550 13510
6 0 375.8 520 542.5 1605 3275 3500 5100 5900 6540
6 0 305 330 350 705 1150 1200 1200 1200 1200
6 0 616.4 850 1088 2450 4900 5500 9750 11875 13575
6 0 1000 1000 1025 1150 1650 1800 1978 2067 2138
6 0 625 730 872.5 1300 1375 1400 1422 1433 1442
6 0 425 630 722.5 1000 1150 1200 1200 1200 1200
6 0 284.4 360 375 960 1950 2100 3150 3675 4095
6 0 6900 10000 10250 11500 16459 17945 30973 37486 42697
6 0 465 480 635 1542 5146 6200 13100 16550 19310
6 0 1000 1000 1000 1100 1200 1200 1700 1950 2150
6 0 650 880 910 1000 1150 1200 4350 5925 7185
6 0 1000 1000 1000 1100 1200 1200 1700 1950 2150
6 0 390 400 532.5 965 1150 1200 1200 1200 1200
6 0 2150 3200 3523 4695 5725 6000 7750 8625 9325
6 0 1000 1000 1000 1100 1200 1200 1700 1950 2150
6 0 1000 1000 1000 1100 1200 1200 1700 1950 2150
6 0 1000 1000 1050 1200 1200 1200 1700 1950 2150
PFMOAA
Hfpo Dimer Acid
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
From File ReRun OffSite Veg and OnSite Invert_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.112/2/2019 11:47:20 AM
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 1400 Mean 7093
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Onsite Invertebrate UCLs
Hfpo Dimer Acid
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.857 Skewness 1.985
Maximum 19000 Median 5450
SD 6077 Std. Error of Mean 2481
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.392 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.739 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% A-D Critical Value 0.704 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.311 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.574 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
95% Student's-t UCL 12092 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 13322
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 12427
Theta hat (MLE) 3581 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6439
nu hat (MLE) 23.77 nu star (bias corrected) 13.22
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.981 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.102
5% K-S Critical Value 0.336 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50) 15524 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 21269
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0122 Adjusted Chi Square Value 4.408
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7093 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 6758
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 6.04
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.884 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 7.244 Mean of logged Data 8.594
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.302 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 17497 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 21993
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 30823
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 28475 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 14258
Maximum of Logged Data 9.852 SD of logged Data 0.829
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 33407 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 11443
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 12267
95% CLT UCL 11174 95% Jackknife UCL 12092
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 10838 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 25345
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFMOAA
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 21269
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 14536 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 17907
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 22586 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 31778
Minimum Detect 18000 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 57000 Maximum Non-Detect 1200
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 4
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Mean of Logged Detects 10.37 SD of Logged Detects 0.815
Median Detects 37500 CV Detects 0.735
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
Variance Detects 7.605E+8 Percent Non-Detects 66.67%
Mean Detects 37500 SD Detects 27577
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 13167 KM Standard Error of Mean 11872
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 87305 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 131288
95% KM (z) UCL 32694 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 48782 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 64914
KM SD 20562 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 37089 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Mean (detects) 37500
Theta hat (MLE) 11263 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 13.32 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.329 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (KM) 4.92 nu star (KM) 3.793
theta hat (KM) 32112 theta star (KM) 41650
Variance (KM)4.228E+8 SE of Mean (KM) 11872
k hat (KM) 0.41 k star (KM) 0.316
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 13167 SD (KM) 20562
Approximate Chi Square Value (3.79, α) 0.642 Adjusted Chi Square Value (3.79, β) 0.306
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 77819 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50)163087
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0122
80% gamma percentile (KM) 20439 90% gamma percentile (KM) 38578
95% gamma percentile (KM) 59219 99% gamma percentile (KM)112519
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 31736 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap t UCL N/A
Mean in Original Scale 13235 Mean in Log Scale 7.939
SD in Original Scale 22490 SD in Log Scale 2.047
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
KM SD (logged) 1.668 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 6.486
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.963 95% H-UCL (KM -Log)1609932
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 8.063 KM Geo Mean 3176
95% H-UCL (Log ROS)30799619
SD in Original Scale 22720 SD in Log Scale 2.134
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 31557 95% H-Stat UCL 51575792
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 12867 Mean in Log Scale 7.662
KM SD (logged) 1.668 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 6.486
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.963
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO2HxA
General Statistics
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 64914
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Maximum Detect 14000 Maximum Non-Detect 1200
Variance Detects 35172558 Percent Non-Detects 33.33%
Number of Distinct Detects 4 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Minimum Detect 870 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Number of Detects 4 Number of Non-Detects 2
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Skewness Detects 1.693 Kurtosis Detects 2.951
Mean of Logged Detects 8.1 SD of Logged Detects 1.163
Mean Detects 5343 SD Detects 5931
Median Detects 3250 CV Detects 1.11
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 3852 KM Standard Error of Mean 2213
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.375 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.326 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.827 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 17670 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 25867
95% KM (z) UCL 7491 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 10490 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 13496
KM SD 4694 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 8310 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.172 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.46
K-S Test Statistic 0.224 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.401 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.258 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.665 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 5343
Theta hat (MLE) 4558 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 11621
nu hat (MLE) 9.377 nu star (bias corrected) 3.678
k hat (MLE) 0.174 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.198
Theta hat (MLE) 20438 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 17966
Maximum 14000 Median 1585
SD 5359 CV 1.505
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 3562
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 3852 SD (KM) 4694
Approximate Chi Square Value (2.38, α) 0.215 Adjusted Chi Square Value (2.38, β) 0.104
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 39404 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 2.091 nu star (bias corrected) 2.379
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0122
80% gamma percentile (KM) 6284 90% gamma percentile (KM) 10654
95% gamma percentile (KM) 15385 99% gamma percentile (KM) 27146
nu hat (KM) 8.08 nu star (KM) 5.374
theta hat (KM) 5720 theta star (KM) 8601
Variance (KM)22031447 SE of Mean (KM) 2213
k hat (KM) 0.673 k star (KM) 0.448
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.997 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 15578 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 28116
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (5.37, α) 1.329 Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.37, β) 0.736
SD in Original Scale 5176 SD in Log Scale 1.193
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 8061 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 7386
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 3803 Mean in Log Scale 7.594
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.167 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.375 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
KM SD (logged) 1.034 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 4.248
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.488 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 25726
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.656 KM Geo Mean 2113
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 8521 95% Bootstrap t UCL 20446
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 52375
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 3745 Mean in Log Scale 7.502
KM SD (logged) 1.034 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 4.248
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.488
SD in Original Scale 5218 SD in Log Scale 1.293
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 8038 95% H-Stat UCL 81767
PFO3OA
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 8310
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD 2497 Std. Error of Mean 1019
Coefficient of Variation 1.058 Skewness 1.195
Minimum 231.6 Mean 2360
Maximum 6700 Median 1605
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Number of Missing Observations 0
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.258 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.858 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.325 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.716 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 4497
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 4414 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 4568
Theta hat (MLE) 2476 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 4015
nu hat (MLE) 11.44 nu star (bias corrected) 7.054
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.953 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.588
K-S Test Statistic 0.262 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.341 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0122 Adjusted Chi Square Value 1.353
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2360 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 3079
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 2.2
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.935 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 7567 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 12302
Maximum of Logged Data 8.81 SD of logged Data 1.307
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.445 Mean of logged Data 7.158
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.216 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7965 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10345
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 15022
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 62566 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6249
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 5418 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 6803
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 8726 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 12502
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 5651 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 3972
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 4405
95% CLT UCL 4037 95% Jackknife UCL 4414
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 3917 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 5187
PFO4DA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 4414
Variance Detects 4300 Percent Non-Detects 50%
Mean Detects 340 SD Detects 65.57
Minimum Detect 280 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 410 Maximum Non-Detect 1200
Number of Detects 3 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Mean of Logged Detects 5.817 SD of Logged Detects 0.191
Median Detects 330 CV Detects 0.193
Skewness Detects 0.67 Kurtosis Detects N/A
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 340 KM Standard Error of Mean 37.86
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.227 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.983 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 576.4 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 716.7
95% KM (z) UCL 402.3 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 453.6 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 505
KM SD 53.54 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 416.3 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Mean (detects) 340
Theta hat (MLE) 8.307 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 245.6 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 40.93 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Maximum 410 Median 334.2
SD 49.12 CV 0.145
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 280 Mean 339.5
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Approximate Chi Square Value (348.89, α) 306.6 Adjusted Chi Square Value (348.89, β) 292.2
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 386.4 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 695.1 nu star (bias corrected) 348.9
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0122
k hat (MLE) 57.93 k star (bias corrected MLE) 29.07
Theta hat (MLE) 5.862 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 11.68
nu hat (KM) 483.9 nu star (KM) 243.3
theta hat (KM) 8.431 theta star (KM) 16.77
Variance (KM) 2867 SE of Mean (KM) 37.86
k hat (KM) 40.33 k star (KM) 20.27
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 340 SD (KM) 53.54
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 397.3 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 421.2
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (243.29, α) 208.2 Adjusted Chi Square Value (243.29, β) 196.4
80% gamma percentile (KM) 401.4 90% gamma percentile (KM) 439.6
95% gamma percentile (KM) 473 99% gamma percentile (KM) 539.8
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 338.8 Mean in Log Scale 5.817
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.203 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.994 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 5.817 KM Geo Mean 335.9
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 370.9 95% Bootstrap t UCL 394.7
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 385.6
SD in Original Scale 48.94 SD in Log Scale 0.143
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 379 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 371
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 453.3 Mean in Log Scale 6.076
KM SD (logged) 0.156 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.01
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.11
KM SD (logged) 0.156 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.01
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.11 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 391.2
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 416.3
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 135.9 SD in Log Scale 0.316
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 565.1 95% H-Stat UCL 629.7
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 382.8 Mean 4272
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 6
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO5DA
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 1.196 Skewness 1.816
Maximum 14000 Median 2450
SD 5108 Std. Error of Mean 2085
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.257 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.794 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% K-S Critical Value 0.342 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
5% A-D Critical Value 0.717 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.141 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.198 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
95% Student's-t UCL 8474 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 9354
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 8732
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 4272 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 5637
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 2.112
Theta hat (MLE) 4611 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 7438
nu hat (MLE) 11.12 nu star (bias corrected) 6.892
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.926 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.574
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.11 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.994 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 13944 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 22854
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0122 Adjusted Chi Square Value 1.288
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 103541 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10909
Maximum of Logged Data 9.547 SD of logged Data 1.294
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.948 Mean of logged Data 7.731
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% CLT UCL 7702 95% Jackknife UCL 8474
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 7444 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 15919
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 13894 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 18036
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 26173
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 10528 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 13362
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 17295 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 25021
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 23218 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 7722
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 8733
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 8474
Number of Detects 3 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
PMPA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Median Detects 1800 CV Detects 0.319
Skewness Detects -0.916 Kurtosis Detects N/A
Variance Detects 288787 Percent Non-Detects 50%
Mean Detects 1685 SD Detects 537.4
Minimum Detect 1100 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 2156 Maximum Non-Detect 1200
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.966 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
Mean of Logged Detects 7.392 SD of Logged Detects 0.348
KM SD 458.7 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 1811 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 1348 KM Standard Error of Mean 229.6
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.251 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 13.26 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2782 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 3633
95% KM (z) UCL 1726 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 2037 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 2349
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
Mean (detects) 1685
Theta hat (MLE) 127.1 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 79.54 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
k hat (MLE) 1.941 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.082
Theta hat (MLE) 554.5 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 995.1
Maximum 2156 Median 874.6
SD 765.1 CV 0.711
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 185.3 Mean 1076
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 1348 SD (KM) 458.7
Approximate Chi Square Value (12.98, α) 5.878 Adjusted Chi Square Value (12.98, β) 4.274
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 2376 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 23.29 nu star (bias corrected) 12.98
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0122
80% gamma percentile (KM) 1837 90% gamma percentile (KM) 2206
95% gamma percentile (KM) 2545 99% gamma percentile (KM) 3264
nu hat (KM) 103.7 nu star (KM) 53.16
theta hat (KM) 156.1 theta star (KM) 304.3
Variance (KM)210434 SE of Mean (KM) 229.6
k hat (KM) 8.639 k star (KM) 4.43
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.933 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1916 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 2192
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (53.16, α) 37.41 Adjusted Chi Square Value (53.16, β) 32.71
SD in Original Scale 649.1 SD in Log Scale 0.542
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 1721 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1625
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 1187 Mean in Log Scale 6.956
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.284 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
KM SD (logged) 0.311 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.246
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.156 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 1837
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.155 KM Geo Mean 1280
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1628 95% Bootstrap t UCL 2200
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 2362
SD in Original Scale 717.7 SD in Log Scale 0.653
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1700 95% H-Stat UCL 2792
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1109 Mean in Log Scale 6.833
KM SD (logged) 0.311 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.246
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.156
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
PEPA
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 1811
SD 389.9 Std. Error of Mean 159.2
Coefficient of Variation 0.349 Skewness -1.001
Minimum 520 Mean 1116
Maximum 1444 Median 1300
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Number of Missing Observations 0
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.348 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.805 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.745 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.698 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 1426
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 1436 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 1308
Theta hat (MLE) 144.4 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 280.8
nu hat (MLE) 92.7 nu star (bias corrected) 47.68
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 7.725 k star (bias corrected MLE) 3.974
K-S Test Statistic 0.377 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.333 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 1620 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 1869
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0122 Adjusted Chi Square Value 28.46
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1116 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 559.7
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 32.84
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.782 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 6.254 Mean of logged Data 6.951
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.364 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1974 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2341
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3063
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 1825 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1709
Maximum of Logged Data 7.275 SD of logged Data 0.425
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 1274 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1357
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1317
95% CLT UCL 1377 95% Jackknife UCL 1436
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 1358 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 1385
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 1436
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1593 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1809
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2110 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2699
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 4
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
PFESA-BP1
General Statistics
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
Mean Detects 425 SD Detects 289.9
Median Detects 425 CV Detects 0.682
Maximum Detect 630 Maximum Non-Detect 1200
Variance Detects 84050 Percent Non-Detects 66.67%
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Minimum Detect 220 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
Mean of Logged Detects 5.92 SD of Logged Detects 0.744
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
95% KM (z) UCL 762.2 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1040 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1319
KM SD 205 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 838.1 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 425 KM Standard Error of Mean 205
Theta hat (MLE) 108 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 15.74 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.935 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 1705 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 2465
Variance (KM) 42025 SE of Mean (KM) 205
k hat (KM) 4.298 k star (KM) 2.26
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 425 SD (KM) 205
Mean (detects) 425
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0122
80% gamma percentile (KM) 627.1 90% gamma percentile (KM) 803.4
95% gamma percentile (KM) 970.3 99% gamma percentile (KM) 1338
nu hat (KM) 51.58 nu star (KM) 27.12
theta hat (KM) 98.88 theta star (KM) 188
Mean in Original Scale 425 Mean in Log Scale 5.92
SD in Original Scale 224.6 SD in Log Scale 0.576
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Approximate Chi Square Value (27.12, α) 16.25 Adjusted Chi Square Value (27.12, β) 13.3
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 709.5 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 866.4
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 5.92 KM Geo Mean 372.3
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 911.2
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 609.7 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap t UCL N/A
DL/2 Statistics
KM SD (logged) 0.526 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.701
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.526
KM SD (logged) 0.526 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.701
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.526 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 807.1
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 508.3 Mean in Log Scale 6.177
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1319
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 151.6 SD in Log Scale 0.396
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 633 95% H-Stat UCL 798.2
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 208.8 Mean 1465
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 6
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFESA-BP2
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 1.048 Skewness 1.349
Maximum 4200 Median 960
SD 1535 Std. Error of Mean 626.5
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.252 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.842 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% A-D Critical Value 0.714 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.268 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.337 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
95% Student's-t UCL 2727 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 2864
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 2785
Theta hat (MLE) 1350 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2242
nu hat (MLE) 13.02 nu star (bias corrected) 7.841
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.085 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.653
5% K-S Critical Value 0.34 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 4345 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 6819
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0122 Adjusted Chi Square Value 1.685
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1465 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1812
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 2.643
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.341 Mean of logged Data 6.762
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.231 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.933 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4471 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5768
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 8315
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 20714 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3537
Maximum of Logged Data 8.343 SD of logged Data 1.174
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 6490 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2445
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2760
95% CLT UCL 2495 95% Jackknife UCL 2727
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 2415 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 3355
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
Byproduct 4
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 2727
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3344 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 4196
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 5377 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 7699
SD 14229 Std. Error of Mean 5809
Coefficient of Variation 0.865 Skewness 1.911
Minimum 3800 Mean 16458
Maximum 44000 Median 11500
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Number of Missing Observations 0
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.292 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.784 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.377 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.704 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 28918
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 28163 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 30854
Theta hat (MLE) 8184 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 14740
nu hat (MLE) 24.13 nu star (bias corrected) 13.4
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2.011 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.117
K-S Test Statistic 0.239 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.336 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.954 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 35787 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 48893
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0122 Adjusted Chi Square Value 4.51
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 16458 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 15575
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 6.162
Maximum of Logged Data 10.69 SD of logged Data 0.8
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 8.243 Mean of logged Data 9.44
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.22 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 39249 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 49193
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 68726
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 60093 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 32085
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 33885 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 41779
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 52735 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 74257
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 79237 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 26300
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 28658
95% CLT UCL 26013 95% Jackknife UCL 28163
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 25211 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 46133
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Byproduct 5
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 28163
Variance Detects 68321039 Percent Non-Detects 16.67%
Mean Detects 5823 SD Detects 8266
Minimum Detect 450 Minimum Non-Detect 1100
Maximum Detect 20000 Maximum Non-Detect 1100
Number of Detects 5 Number of Non-Detects 1
Number of Distinct Detects 5 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Mean of Logged Detects 7.702 SD of Logged Detects 1.643
Median Detects 1984 CV Detects 1.42
Skewness Detects 1.834 Kurtosis Detects 3.318
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 4930 KM Standard Error of Mean 3212
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.282 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.343 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.756 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 24991 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 36893
95% KM (z) UCL 10214 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 43926
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 14567 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 18932
KM SD 7038 95% KM (BCA) UCL 10481
95% KM (t) UCL 11403 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 10486
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.634 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.387
K-S Test Statistic 0.232 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.369 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.355 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.704 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Theta hat (MLE) 9188 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 15053
nu hat (MLE) 6.337 nu star (bias corrected) 3.868
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 4852
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 5823
nu hat (MLE) 3.005 nu star (bias corrected) 2.836
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0122
k hat (MLE) 0.25 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.236
Theta hat (MLE) 19380 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 20534
Maximum 20000 Median 1232
SD 7766 CV 1.6
Variance (KM)49534344 SE of Mean (KM) 3212
k hat (KM) 0.491 k star (KM) 0.356
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 4930 SD (KM) 7038
Approximate Chi Square Value (2.84, α) 0.325 Adjusted Chi Square Value (2.84, β) 0.146
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 42280 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 94010
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.28, α) 0.834 Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.28, β) 0.419
80% gamma percentile (KM) 7830 90% gamma percentile (KM) 14196
95% gamma percentile (KM) 21306 99% gamma percentile (KM) 39413
nu hat (KM) 5.888 nu star (KM) 4.277
theta hat (KM) 10048 theta star (KM) 13831
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.224 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.343 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.913 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 25278 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 50373
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 12142 95% Bootstrap t UCL 43990
95% H-UCL (Log ROS)526407
SD in Original Scale 7709 SD in Log Scale 1.597
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 11273 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 10239
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 4932 Mean in Log Scale 7.446
KM SD (logged) 1.462 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 5.743
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.667
KM SD (logged) 1.462 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 5.743
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.667 95% H-UCL (KM -Log)212224
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.442 KM Geo Mean 1707
SD in Original Scale 7700 SD in Log Scale 1.575
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 11278 95% H-Stat UCL 462594
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 4944 Mean in Log Scale 7.47
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Byproduct 6
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 11403
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 5
The data set for variable Byproduct 6 was not processed!
NVHOS
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 6
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Variance Detects 11396933 Percent Non-Detects 33.33%
Mean Detects 2450 SD Detects 3376
Minimum Detect 420 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 7500 Maximum Non-Detect 1200
Number of Detects 4 Number of Non-Detects 2
Number of Distinct Detects 4 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Mean of Logged Detects 7.163 SD of Logged Detects 1.234
Median Detects 940 CV Detects 1.378
Skewness Detects 1.967 Kurtosis Detects 3.896
Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.416 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.375 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.698 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
KM Mean 1865 KM Standard Error of Mean 1196
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 9334 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 13765
95% KM (z) UCL 3832 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 5453 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 7078
KM SD 2531 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 4275 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.91 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.394
K-S Test Statistic 0.396 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.403 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.568 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.668 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 77.33 Mean 1741
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 2450
Theta hat (MLE) 2691 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6214
nu hat (MLE) 7.284 nu star (bias corrected) 3.154
nu hat (MLE) 8.055 nu star (bias corrected) 5.361
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0122
k hat (MLE) 0.671 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.447
Theta hat (MLE) 2593 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 3896
Maximum 7500 Median 723.2
SD 2841 CV 1.632
Variance (KM)6403787 SE of Mean (KM) 1196
k hat (KM) 0.543 k star (KM) 0.383
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 1865 SD (KM) 2531
Approximate Chi Square Value (5.36, α) 1.322 Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.36, β) 0.732
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 7056 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.59, α) 0.968 Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.59, β) 0.501
80% gamma percentile (KM) 2993 90% gamma percentile (KM) 5308
95% gamma percentile (KM) 7867 99% gamma percentile (KM) 14334
nu hat (KM) 6.515 nu star (KM) 4.591
theta hat (KM) 3434 theta star (KM) 4874
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.332 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.375 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.877 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 8842 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 17081
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 4174 95% Bootstrap t UCL 22238
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 12078
SD in Original Scale 2777 SD in Log Scale 1.028
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 4133 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 4037
Mean in Original Scale 1849 Mean in Log Scale 6.928
KM SD (logged) 0.957 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 3.966
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.472
KM SD (logged) 0.957 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 3.966
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.472 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 8852
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 6.933 KM Geo Mean 1025
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 2793 SD in Log Scale 1.055
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 4114 95% H-Stat UCL 12989
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1817 Mean in Log Scale 6.877
EVE Acid
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A a Adjusted KM-UCL (use when k<=1 and 15 < n < 50 but k<=1) 17081
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 5
The data set for variable EVE Acid was not processed!
Hydro-EVE Acid
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 6
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Variance Detects 97300 Percent Non-Detects 50%
Mean Detects 570 SD Detects 311.9
Minimum Detect 380 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 930 Maximum Non-Detect 1200
Number of Detects 3 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Median Detects 400 CV Detects 0.547
Skewness Detects 1.724 Kurtosis Detects N/A
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
Mean of Logged Detects 6.256 SD of Logged Detects 0.503
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 570 KM Standard Error of Mean 180.1
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.374 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.777 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 1695 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 2362
95% KM (z) UCL 866.2 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1110 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1355
KM SD 254.7 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 932.9 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Mean (detects) 570
Theta hat (MLE) 99.73 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 34.29 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 5.715 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Maximum 930 Median 475.9
SD 227.9 CV 0.404
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 380 Mean 564.6
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Approximate Chi Square Value (49.88, α) 34.66 Adjusted Chi Square Value (49.88, β) 30.15
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 812.5 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 97.1 nu star (bias corrected) 49.88
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0122
k hat (MLE) 8.091 k star (bias corrected MLE) 4.157
Theta hat (MLE) 69.78 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 135.8
nu hat (KM) 60.1 nu star (KM) 31.39
theta hat (KM) 113.8 theta star (KM) 217.9
Variance (KM) 64867 SE of Mean (KM) 180.1
k hat (KM) 5.009 k star (KM) 2.615
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 570 SD (KM) 254.7
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 913.4 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1097
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (31.39, α) 19.59 Adjusted Chi Square Value (31.39, β) 16.31
80% gamma percentile (KM) 826.5 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1042
95% gamma percentile (KM) 1245 99% gamma percentile (KM) 1688
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 552.6 Mean in Log Scale 6.256
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.367 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.793 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 6.256 KM Geo Mean 520.9
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 707.2 95% Bootstrap t UCL 941.3
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 817.4
SD in Original Scale 220.1 SD in Log Scale 0.366
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 733.7 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 703.9
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 568.3 Mean in Log Scale 6.296
KM SD (logged) 0.41 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.437
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.29
KM SD (logged) 0.41 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.437
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.29 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 886.2
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 932.9
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 200.6 SD in Log Scale 0.328
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 733.4 95% H-Stat UCL 798.8
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 1100 Mean 4865
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 6
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
R-EVE
Coefficient of Variation 0.58 Skewness 0.573
Maximum 9500 Median 4695
SD 2823 Std. Error of Mean 1153
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.177 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.972 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% A-D Critical Value 0.702 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.192 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.246 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
95% Student's-t UCL 7188 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 7049
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 7233
Theta hat (MLE) 1687 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 3133
nu hat (MLE) 34.6 nu star (bias corrected) 18.64
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2.884 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.553
5% K-S Critical Value 0.335 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.919 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 9203 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 11841
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0122 Adjusted Chi Square Value 7.656
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 4865 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 3904
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 9.851
Maximum of Logged Data 9.159 SD of logged Data 0.732
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 7.003 Mean of logged Data 8.307
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.223 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 11552 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 14374
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 19916
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 15451 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 9519
95% CLT UCL 6761 95% Jackknife UCL 7188
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 8323 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 9889
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 12064 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 16334
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 8903 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 6682
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 6750
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 6575 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 7554
PES
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 7188
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 3
The data set for variable PES was not processed!
PFECA B
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 6
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
The data set for variable PFECA B was not processed!
PFECA-G
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 6
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
The data set for variable PFECA-G was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 6
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 3
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 1:41:56 PM
User Selected Options
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_a.xls
Onsite Soil General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
9611 0.91
PFMOAA 11 0 11 0 0.00% N/A N/A 26036 2.058E+9 45371 1.743
0.00% N/A N/A 10564 92376545Hfpo Dimer Acid 11 0 11 0
12629 0.906
PFO3OA 11 0 9 2 18.18% 1000 2800 3873 10479862 3237 0.836
0.00% N/A N/A 13936 1.595E+8PFO2HxA 11 0 11 0
1541 0.696
PFO5DA 11 0 10 1 9.09% 1000 1000 3036 6418678 2534 0.834
27.27% 1000 2800 2214 2373692PFO4DA 11 0 8 3
5054 1.07
PEPA 11 0 6 5 45.45% 1000 2800 1913 2172189 1474 0.771
27.27% 1000 2800 4724 25539987PMPA 11 0 8 3
575 0.487
PFESA-BP2 11 0 4 7 63.64% 1000 2800 1280 179600 423.8 0.331
90.91% 1000 2800 1182 330579PFESA-BP1 11 0 1 10
417.6 0.36
Byproduct 5 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 2800 N/A N/A N/A N/A
81.82% 1000 2800 1160 174400Byproduct 4 11 0 2 9
N/A N/A
NVHOS 11 0 1 10 90.91% 1000 2800 1030 8100 90 0.0874
100.00% 1000 2800 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 11 0 0 11
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 11 0 2 9 81.82% 1000 2800 1040 6400 80 0.0769
100.00% 1000 2800 N/A N/A EVE Acid 11 0 0 11
N/A N/A
PES 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 2800 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 2800 N/A N/A R-EVE 11 0 0 11
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 2800 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 2800 N/A N/A PFECA B 11 0 0 11
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
1.041 0.91
PFMOAA 11 0 1100 150000 26036 7500 2.058E+9 45371 8747 2.49 1.743
10564 7900 92376545 9611 8895Hfpo Dimer Acid 11 0 1300 29500
2.047 0.906
PFO3OA 9 0 1500 12000 4422 2200 12479444 3533 1038 1.437 0.799
13936 9300 1.595E+8 12629 6375PFO2HxA 11 0 2200 47000
1.017 0.659
PFO5DA 10 0 1000 10000 3240 2200 7338222 2709 1483 1.969 0.836
2625 1800 2990714 1729 815.4PFO4DA 8 0 1200 5400
1.976 0.945
PEPA 6 0 1300 6150 2592 2050 3440417 1855 1038 1.854 0.716
6050 4850 32660000 5715 3632PMPA 8 0 1000 19000
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 4 0 1100 2100 1700 1800 206667 454.6 370.6 -0.894 0.267
3000 3000 N/A N/A 0PFESA-BP1 1 0 3000 3000
N/A 0.471
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1800 1800 720000 848.5 889.5Byproduct 4 2 0 1200 2400
N/A N/A
NVHOS 1 0 1300 1300 1300 1300 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 2 0 1200 1200 1200 1200 0 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
27250 29050
PFMOAA 11 0 1600 2500 2950 7500 19000 21000 68000 109000 141800
3350 7900 15000 17000 25000Hfpo Dimer Acid 11 0 1400 1900
35500 44700
PFO3OA 11 0 1500 2000 2000 2200 5150 5200 7700 9850 11570
6350 9300 16250 17500 24000PFO2HxA 11 0 5000 6000
5250 5370
PFO5DA 11 0 1000 1400 1400 2200 4000 4200 4700 7350 9470
1250 1400 2900 3000 5100PFO4DA 11 0 1000 1200
13400 17880
PEPA 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1300 2650 2700 2800 4475 5815
1550 2800 6050 6100 7800PMPA 11 0 1000 1000
2900 2980
PFESA-BP2 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1800 2000 2100 2450 2730
1000 1000 1000 1000 2800PFESA-BP1 11 0 1000 1000
2600 2760
Byproduct 5 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1900 2620
1000 1000 1100 1200 2400Byproduct 4 11 0 1000 1000
1900 2620
NVHOS 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1300 2050 2650
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Byproduct 6 11 0 1000 1000
1900 2620
Hydro-EVE Acid 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1200 1200 2000 2640
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000EVE Acid 11 0 1000 1000
1900 2620
PES 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1900 2620
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000R-EVE 11 0 1000 1000
1900 2620
PFECA-G 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1900 2620
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFECA B 11 0 1000 1000
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.144 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.929 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 19218 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 21296
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0278 Adjusted Chi Square Value 10.29
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 10564 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 10878
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 11.4
Theta hat (MLE) 8706 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 11201
nu hat (MLE) 26.7 nu star (bias corrected) 20.75
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.213 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.943
5% K-S Critical Value 0.261 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
5% A-D Critical Value 0.748 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.146 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.261 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
95% Student's-t UCL 15816 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 16302
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 15968
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.238 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.869 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Coefficient of Variation 0.91 Skewness 1.041
Maximum 29500 Median 7900
SD 9611 Std. Error of Mean 2898
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 1300 Mean 10564
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 11
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Hfpo Dimer Acid
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
Onsite Soil UCLs
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 4:56:48 PM
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.217 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.268 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.637 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.776 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 52542
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 50830 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 59513
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.362 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.607 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
SD 45371 Std. Error of Mean 13680
Coefficient of Variation 1.743 Skewness 2.49
Minimum 1100 Mean 26036
Maximum 150000 Median 7500
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 11
Number of Missing Observations 0
PFMOAA
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 15816
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 19257 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 23195
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 28661 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 39397
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 18158 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 15218
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 16345
95% CLT UCL 15330 95% Jackknife UCL 15816
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 15226 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 18219
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 28625 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 36141
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 50906
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 37078 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 23209
Maximum of Logged Data 10.29 SD of logged Data 1.102
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 7.17 Mean of logged Data 8.8
SD 12629 Std. Error of Mean 3808
Coefficient of Variation 0.906 Skewness 2.047
Minimum 2200 Mean 13936
Maximum 47000 Median 9300
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 11
Number of Missing Observations 0
PFO2HxA
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 76001
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 67076 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 85665
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 111466 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 162148
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 152278 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 50073
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 60164
95% CLT UCL 48538 95% Jackknife UCL 50830
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 47451 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 157981
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 73067 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 94697
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 137183
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 202191 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 57484
Maximum of Logged Data 11.92 SD of logged Data 1.531
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 7.003 Mean of logged Data 9.061
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.122 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.961 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50) 64742 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 76001
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0278 Adjusted Chi Square Value 3.547
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 26036 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 37954
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 4.163
Theta hat (MLE) 46187 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 55328
nu hat (MLE) 12.4 nu star (bias corrected) 10.35
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.564 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.471
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 25360 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 30534
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 37716 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 51824
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 48990 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 20355
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 22382
95% CLT UCL 20200 95% Jackknife UCL 20838
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 19814 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 27929
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 29689 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 36539
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 49995
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 29149 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 24753
Maximum of Logged Data 10.76 SD of logged Data 0.83
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 7.696 Mean of logged Data 9.231
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.104 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.993 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 22732 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 24703
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0278 Adjusted Chi Square Value 16.6
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 13936 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 12052
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 18.03
Theta hat (MLE) 7940 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 10423
nu hat (MLE) 38.61 nu star (bias corrected) 29.42
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.755 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.337
K-S Test Statistic 0.141 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.259 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.242 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.741 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 21230
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 20838 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 22711
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.207 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.786 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
Mean (detects) 4422
Theta hat (MLE) 2058 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2935
nu hat (MLE) 38.68 nu star (bias corrected) 27.12
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.149 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.506
K-S Test Statistic 0.306 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.282 Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.661 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.729 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 10344 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 14183
95% KM (z) UCL 5577 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 7298
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 6981 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 8389
KM SD 3237 95% KM (BCA) UCL 5636
95% KM (t) UCL 5751 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 5621
Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 3873 KM Standard Error of Mean 1036
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.291 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.802 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects 8.144 SD of Logged Detects 0.729
Median Detects 2200 CV Detects 0.799
Skewness Detects 1.437 Kurtosis Detects 1.635
Variance Detects 12479444 Percent Non-Detects 18.18%
Mean Detects 4422 SD Detects 3533
Minimum Detect 1500 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 12000 Maximum Non-Detect 2800
Number of Detects 9 Number of Non-Detects 2
Number of Distinct Detects 8 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 10
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO3OA
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 20838
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 3464 SD in Log Scale 0.898
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 5684 95% H-Stat UCL 8836
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 3791 Mean in Log Scale 7.887
KM SD (logged) 0.738 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.528
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.238
KM SD (logged) 0.738 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.528
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.238 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 6849
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.97 KM Geo Mean 2892
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 5955 95% Bootstrap t UCL 7264
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 8065
SD in Original Scale 3423 SD in Log Scale 0.836
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 5713 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 5530
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 3842 Mean in Log Scale 7.933
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.286 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.879 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 6691 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 7346
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (24.23, α) 14.02 Adjusted Chi Square Value (24.23, β) 12.77
80% gamma percentile (KM) 6181 90% gamma percentile (KM) 8707
95% gamma percentile (KM) 11214 99% gamma percentile (KM) 16995
nu hat (KM) 31.48 nu star (KM) 24.23
theta hat (KM) 2706 theta star (KM) 3516
Variance (KM)10479862 SE of Mean (KM) 1036
k hat (KM) 1.431 k star (KM) 1.101
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 3873 SD (KM) 3237
Approximate Chi Square Value (9.05, α) 3.359 Adjusted Chi Square Value (9.05, β) 2.818
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 10102 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 12042
nu hat (MLE) 10.61 nu star (bias corrected) 9.053
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
k hat (MLE) 0.482 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.411
Theta hat (MLE) 7769 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 9109
Maximum 12000 Median 2100
SD 3512 CV 0.937
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 3748
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
Mean (detects) 2625
Theta hat (MLE) 871.3 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1335
nu hat (MLE) 48.21 nu star (bias corrected) 31.46
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.013 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.966
K-S Test Statistic 0.284 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.296 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.669 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.721 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 5325 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 7171
95% KM (z) UCL 3034 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 4077
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 3709 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 4386
KM SD 1541 95% KM (BCA) UCL 3044
95% KM (t) UCL 3117 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 3018
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 2214 KM Standard Error of Mean 498.2
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.261 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.79 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects 7.698 SD of Logged Detects 0.617
Median Detects 1800 CV Detects 0.659
Skewness Detects 1.017 Kurtosis Detects -0.738
Variance Detects 2990714 Percent Non-Detects 27.27%
Mean Detects 2625 SD Detects 1729
Minimum Detect 1200 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 5400 Maximum Non-Detect 2800
Number of Detects 8 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 7 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
PFO4DA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 9
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL 7346 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 12042
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 1695 SD in Log Scale 0.788
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 3054 95% H-Stat UCL 4219
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 2127 Mean in Log Scale 7.387
KM SD (logged) 0.591 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.301
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.192
KM SD (logged) 0.591 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.301
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.192 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 3333
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.507 KM Geo Mean 1821
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 3049 95% Bootstrap t UCL 3942
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 4081
SD in Original Scale 1696 SD in Log Scale 0.77
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 3045 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2975
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 2119 Mean in Log Scale 7.389
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.269 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.846 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 3465 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 3738
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (34.38, α) 21.97 Adjusted Chi Square Value (34.38, β) 20.37
80% gamma percentile (KM) 3410 90% gamma percentile (KM) 4568
95% gamma percentile (KM) 5690 99% gamma percentile (KM) 8215
nu hat (KM) 45.44 nu star (KM) 34.38
theta hat (KM) 1072 theta star (KM) 1417
Variance (KM)2373692 SE of Mean (KM) 498.2
k hat (KM) 2.066 k star (KM) 1.563
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 2214 SD (KM) 1541
Approximate Chi Square Value (6.30, α) 1.794 Adjusted Chi Square Value (6.30, β) 1.431
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 7033 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 8818
nu hat (MLE) 6.826 nu star (bias corrected) 6.298
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
k hat (MLE) 0.31 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.286
Theta hat (MLE) 6456 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6998
Maximum 5400 Median 1400
SD 1816 CV 0.907
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 2003
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
Mean (detects) 3240
Theta hat (MLE) 1494 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2045
nu hat (MLE) 43.36 nu star (bias corrected) 31.68
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.168 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.584
K-S Test Statistic 0.218 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.27 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.473 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.735 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 8065 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 11048
95% KM (z) UCL 4361 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 5897
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 5452 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 6546
KM SD 2534 95% KM (BCA) UCL 4536
95% KM (t) UCL 4496 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 4427
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 3036 KM Standard Error of Mean 805.2
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.249 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.77 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects 7.835 SD of Logged Detects 0.713
Median Detects 2200 CV Detects 0.836
Skewness Detects 1.969 Kurtosis Detects 4.388
Variance Detects 7338222 Percent Non-Detects 9.091%
Mean Detects 3240 SD Detects 2709
Minimum Detect 1000 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 10000 Maximum Non-Detect 1000
Number of Detects 10 Number of Non-Detects 1
Number of Distinct Detects 8 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 8
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO5DA
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 3117
Suggested UCL to Use
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 2699 SD in Log Scale 0.834
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 4466 95% H-Stat UCL 6284
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 2991 Mean in Log Scale 7.688
KM SD (logged) 0.697 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.462
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.222
KM SD (logged) 0.697 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.462
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.222 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 5101
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.751 KM Geo Mean 2324
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 4903 95% Bootstrap t UCL 5633
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 6516
SD in Original Scale 2705 SD in Log Scale 0.856
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 4464 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 4358
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 2986 Mean in Log Scale 7.677
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.177 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.937 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 5240 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 5752
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (24.32, α) 14.09 Adjusted Chi Square Value (24.32, β) 12.83
80% gamma percentile (KM) 4845 90% gamma percentile (KM) 6821
95% gamma percentile (KM) 8782 99% gamma percentile (KM) 13302
nu hat (KM) 31.6 nu star (KM) 24.32
theta hat (KM) 2114 theta star (KM) 2747
Variance (KM)6418678 SE of Mean (KM) 805.2
k hat (KM) 1.436 k star (KM) 1.105
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 3036 SD (KM) 2534
Approximate Chi Square Value (9.26, α) 3.486 Adjusted Chi Square Value (9.26, β) 2.932
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 7826 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 9303
nu hat (MLE) 10.9 nu star (bias corrected) 9.262
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
k hat (MLE) 0.496 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.421
Theta hat (MLE) 5944 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6997
Maximum 10000 Median 2200
SD 2749 CV 0.933
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 2945
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 6050
Theta hat (MLE) 3790 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 5596
nu hat (MLE) 25.54 nu star (bias corrected) 17.3
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.596 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.081
K-S Test Statistic 0.15 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.299 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.243 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.728 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 14907 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 20949
95% KM (z) UCL 7406 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 10367
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 9616 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 11832
KM SD 5054 95% KM (BCA) UCL 7482
95% KM (t) UCL 7679 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 7373
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 4724 KM Standard Error of Mean 1631
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.255 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.788 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects 8.363 SD of Logged Detects 0.9
Median Detects 4850 CV Detects 0.945
Skewness Detects 1.976 Kurtosis Detects 4.48
Variance Detects 32660000 Percent Non-Detects 27.27%
Mean Detects 6050 SD Detects 5715
Minimum Detect 1000 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 19000 Maximum Non-Detect 2800
Number of Detects 8 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 8 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 9
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PMPA
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
95% KM (t) UCL 4496
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 7679
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 5379 SD in Log Scale 1.162
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 7557 95% H-Stat UCL 17393
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 4618 Mean in Log Scale 7.871
KM SD (logged) 0.947 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.897
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.309
KM SD (logged) 0.947 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.897
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.309 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 11080
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.998 KM Geo Mean 2974
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 8577 95% Bootstrap t UCL 10211
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 17942
SD in Original Scale 5390 SD in Log Scale 1.177
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 7546 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 7173
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 4601 Mean in Log Scale 7.855
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.146 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.987 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 9671 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 10949
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (15.31, α) 7.479 Adjusted Chi Square Value (15.31, β) 6.606
80% gamma percentile (KM) 7766 90% gamma percentile (KM) 11873
95% gamma percentile (KM) 16111 99% gamma percentile (KM) 26233
nu hat (KM) 19.22 nu star (KM) 15.31
theta hat (KM) 5407 theta star (KM) 6787
Variance (KM)25539987 SE of Mean (KM) 1631
k hat (KM) 0.874 k star (KM) 0.696
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 4724 SD (KM) 5054
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.62, α) 0.982 Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.62, β) 0.742
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 20708 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 27431
nu hat (MLE) 4.524 nu star (bias corrected) 4.624
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
k hat (MLE) 0.206 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.21
Theta hat (MLE) 21396 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 20936
Maximum 19000 Median 2700
SD 5554 CV 1.262
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 4400
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 2592
Theta hat (MLE) 835.4 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1559
nu hat (MLE) 37.23 nu star (bias corrected) 19.95
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.102 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.662
K-S Test Statistic 0.253 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.334 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.542 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.701 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 4982 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 6803
95% KM (z) UCL 2721 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 3675
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 3387 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 4055
KM SD 1474 95% KM (BCA) UCL 2686
95% KM (t) UCL 2803 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 2741
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 1913 KM Standard Error of Mean 491.5
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.31 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.757 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects 7.69 SD of Logged Detects 0.604
Median Detects 2050 CV Detects 0.716
Skewness Detects 1.854 Kurtosis Detects 3.644
Variance Detects 3440417 Percent Non-Detects 45.45%
Mean Detects 2592 SD Detects 1855
Minimum Detect 1300 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 6150 Maximum Non-Detect 2800
Number of Detects 6 Number of Non-Detects 5
Number of Distinct Detects 5 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 7
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PEPA
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 2803
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 1668 SD in Log Scale 0.841
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 2634 95% H-Stat UCL 3589
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1723 Mean in Log Scale 7.113
KM SD (logged) 0.561 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.258
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.189
KM SD (logged) 0.561 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.258
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.189 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 2755
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.364 KM Geo Mean 1578
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2972 95% Bootstrap t UCL 3542
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 3679
SD in Original Scale 1671 SD in Log Scale 0.861
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 2618 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2566
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 1705 Mean in Log Scale 7.094
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.234 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.859 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 3155 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 3435
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (28.28, α) 17.15 Adjusted Chi Square Value (28.28, β) 15.75
80% gamma percentile (KM) 3008 90% gamma percentile (KM) 4139
95% gamma percentile (KM) 5250 99% gamma percentile (KM) 7783
nu hat (KM) 37.05 nu star (KM) 28.28
theta hat (KM) 1136 theta star (KM) 1488
Variance (KM)2172189 SE of Mean (KM) 491.5
k hat (KM) 1.684 k star (KM) 1.285
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 1913 SD (KM) 1474
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.20, α) 0.8 Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.20, β) 0.593
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 7722 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 10424
nu hat (MLE) 3.935 nu star (bias corrected) 4.195
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
k hat (MLE) 0.179 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.191
Theta hat (MLE) 8235 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 7725
Maximum 6150 Median 1300
SD 1846 CV 1.253
Minimum 0.01 Mean 1473
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.276 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.394 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.359 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.657 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2246 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 2820
95% KM (z) UCL 1535 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1744 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1955
KM SD 423.8 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 1560 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 1280 KM Standard Error of Mean 154.7
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.375 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.245 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.918 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Skewness Detects -0.894 Kurtosis Detects -0.748
Mean of Logged Detects 7.408 SD of Logged Detects 0.295
Mean Detects 1700 SD Detects 454.6
Median Detects 1800 CV Detects 0.267
Maximum Detect 2100 Maximum Non-Detect 2800
Variance Detects 206667 Percent Non-Detects 63.64%
Number of Distinct Detects 4 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Minimum Detect 1100 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Number of Detects 4 Number of Non-Detects 7
PFESA-BP2
General Statistics
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFESA-BP1 was not processed!
Number of Detects 1 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFESA-BP1
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
DL/2 Statistics
KM SD (logged) 0.293 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.943
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.107
KM SD (logged) 0.293 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.943
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.107 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 1527
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.108 KM Geo Mean 1221
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1388 95% Bootstrap t UCL 1458
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 1598
SD in Original Scale 591.1 SD in Log Scale 0.558
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 1380 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1340
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 1057 Mean in Log Scale 6.823
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.244 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.375 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.891 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1568 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1622
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (147.29, α) 120.2 Adjusted Chi Square Value (147.29, β) 116.3
80% gamma percentile (KM) 1667 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1941
95% gamma percentile (KM) 2187 99% gamma percentile (KM) 2701
nu hat (KM) 200.7 nu star (KM) 147.3
theta hat (KM) 140.3 theta star (KM) 191.2
Variance (KM)179600 SE of Mean (KM) 154.7
k hat (KM) 9.122 k star (KM) 6.695
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 1280 SD (KM) 423.8
Approximate Chi Square Value (9.31, α) 3.514 Adjusted Chi Square Value (9.31, β) 2.958
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 2411 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 10.96 nu star (bias corrected) 9.308
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
k hat (MLE) 0.498 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.423
Theta hat (MLE) 1826 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2151
Maximum 2100 Median 835.8
SD 728.1 CV 0.8
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 910.2
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 1700
Theta hat (MLE) 102.8 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 395.1
nu hat (MLE) 132.3 nu star (bias corrected) 34.42
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 16.54 k star (bias corrected MLE) 4.302
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 1160 SD (KM) 417.6
Mean (detects) 1800
Theta hat (MLE) 208 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 34.61 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 8.653 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2326 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 3018
95% KM (z) UCL 1467 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1720 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1974
KM SD 417.6 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 1498 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 1160 KM Standard Error of Mean 186.8
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Mean of Logged Detects 7.437 SD of Logged Detects 0.49
Median Detects 1800 CV Detects 0.471
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
Variance Detects 720000 Percent Non-Detects 81.82%
Mean Detects 1800 SD Detects 848.5
Minimum Detect 1200 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 2400 Maximum Non-Detect 2800
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Byproduct 4
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 1560
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 650.9 SD in Log Scale 0.629
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1374 95% H-Stat UCL 1650
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1018 Mean in Log Scale 6.742
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Byproduct 5
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 2
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
Warning: One or more Recommended UCL(s) not available!
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 1498 KM H-UCL 1348
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 616.1 SD in Log Scale 0.565
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1155 95% H-Stat UCL 1205
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 818.2 Mean in Log Scale 6.53
KM SD (logged) 0.262 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.914
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.117
KM SD (logged) 0.262 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.914
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.117 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 1348
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.014 KM Geo Mean 1112
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 3542
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 853.7 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 845.5
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 959.5 95% Bootstrap t UCL 2220
Mean in Original Scale 456.3 Mean in Log Scale 5.143
SD in Original Scale 727.3 SD in Log Scale 1.498
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Approximate Chi Square Value (124.78, α) 99.98 Adjusted Chi Square Value (124.78, β) 96.37
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1448 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1502
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
80% gamma percentile (KM) 1538 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1811
95% gamma percentile (KM) 2060 99% gamma percentile (KM) 2581
nu hat (KM) 169.7 nu star (KM) 124.8
theta hat (KM) 150.3 theta star (KM) 204.5
Variance (KM)174400 SE of Mean (KM) 186.8
k hat (KM) 7.716 k star (KM) 5.672
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 9
Hydro-EVE Acid
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable EVE Acid was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 2
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
EVE Acid
General Statistics
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable NVHOS was not processed!
Number of Detects 1 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 3
The data set for variable Byproduct 6 was not processed!
NVHOS
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 2
The data set for variable Byproduct 5 was not processed!
Byproduct 6
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFECA-G was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 2
The data set for variable PFECA B was not processed!
PFECA-G
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 2
The data set for variable PES was not processed!
PFECA B
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 2
The data set for variable R-EVE was not processed!
PES
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
R-EVE
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 2
The data set for variable Hydro-EVE Acid was not processed!
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_g.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 1:47:29 PM
User Selected Options
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_g.xls
Onsite Surface Water General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
112.5 0.139
PFMOAA 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 248.3 58.33 7.638 0.0308
0.00% N/A N/A 811.7 12658Hfpo Dimer Acid 3 0 3 0
18.03 0.0256
PFO3OA 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 92.33 10.33 3.215 0.0348
0.00% N/A N/A 705 325PFO2HxA 3 0 3 0
1.528 0.0398
PFO5DA 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 9.867 0.0233 0.153 0.0155
0.00% N/A N/A 38.33 2.333PFO4DA 3 0 3 0
17.32 0.0209
PEPA 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 281.7 158.3 12.58 0.0447
0.00% N/A N/A 830 300PMPA 3 0 3 0
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 31.5 0.75 0.866 0.0275
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 3 0 0 3
3.617 0.0384
Byproduct 5 3 0 0 3 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.00% N/A N/A 94.17 13.08Byproduct 4 3 0 3 0
N/A N/A
NVHOS 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.983 0.116 0.34 0.0569
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 3 0 0 3
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 3.45 0.0075 0.0866 0.0251
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A EVE Acid 3 0 0 3
2.754 0.0502
PES 3 0 0 3 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.00% N/A N/A 54.83 7.583R-EVE 3 0 3 0
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 3 0 0 3 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A PFECA B 3 0 0 3
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
1.545 0.139
PFMOAA 3 0 240 255 248.3 250 58.33 7.638 7.413 -0.935 0.0308
811.7 765 12658 112.5 51.89Hfpo Dimer Acid 3 0 730 940
1.152 0.0256
PFO3OA 3 0 90 96 92.33 91 10.33 3.215 1.483 1.545 0.0348
705 700 325 18.03 14.83PFO2HxA 3 0 690 725
0.935 0.0398
PFO5DA 3 0 9.7 10 9.867 9.9 0.0233 0.153 0.148 -0.935 0.0155
38.33 38 2.333 1.528 1.483PFO4DA 3 0 37 40
1.732 0.0209
PEPA 3 0 270 295 281.7 280 158.3 12.58 14.83 0.586 0.0447
830 820 300 17.32 0PMPA 3 0 820 850
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 3 0 31 32.5 31.5 31 0.75 0.866 0 1.732 0.0275
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
-1.695 0.0384
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
94.17 96 13.08 3.617 0.741Byproduct 4 3 0 90 96.5
N/A N/A
NVHOS 3 0 5.6 6.25 5.983 6.1 0.116 0.34 0.222 -1.361 0.0569
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 3 0 3.4 3.55 3.45 3.4 0.0075 0.0866 0 1.732 0.0251
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
-0.271 0.0502
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
54.83 55 7.583 2.754 3.706R-EVE 3 0 52 57.5
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
922.5 936.5
PFMOAA 3 0 242 244 245 250 252.5 253 254 254.5 254.9
747.5 765 852.5 870 905Hfpo Dimer Acid 3 0 737 744
722.5 724.5
PFO3OA 3 0 90.2 90.4 90.5 91 93.5 94 95 95.5 95.9
695 700 712.5 715 720PFO2HxA 3 0 692 694
39.8 39.96
PFO5DA 3 0 9.74 9.78 9.8 9.9 9.95 9.96 9.98 9.99 9.998
37.5 38 39 39.2 39.6PFO4DA 3 0 37.2 37.4
847 849.4
PEPA 3 0 272 274 275 280 287.5 289 292 293.5 294.7
820 820 835 838 844PMPA 3 0 820 820
2 2
PFESA-BP2 3 0 31 31 31 31 31.75 31.9 32.2 32.35 32.47
2 2 2 2 2PFESA-BP1 3 0 2 2
96.45 96.49
Byproduct 5 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
93 96 96.25 96.3 96.4Byproduct 4 3 0 91.2 92.4
2 2
NVHOS 3 0 5.7 5.8 5.85 6.1 6.175 6.19 6.22 6.235 6.247
2 2 2 2 2Byproduct 6 3 0 2 2
2 2
Hydro-EVE Acid 3 0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.475 3.49 3.52 3.535 3.547
2 2 2 2 2EVE Acid 3 0 2 2
57.25 57.45
PES 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
53.5 55 56.25 56.5 57R-EVE 3 0 52.6 53.2
2 2
PFECA-G 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2PFECA B 3 0 2 2
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.32 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.883 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 488.3 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 81.38 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 9.973 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 1001 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 980.4
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 1011
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.328 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.871 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.139 Skewness 1.545
Maximum 940 Median 765
SD 112.5 Std. Error of Mean 64.96
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 730 Mean 811.7
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Hfpo Dimer Acid
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_g.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
Onsite Surface Water UCLs
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 5:06:33 PM
95% Student's-t UCL 261.2 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 253
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.253 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.964 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0308 Skewness -0.935
Maximum 255 Median 250
SD 7.638 Std. Error of Mean 4.41
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 240 Mean 248.3
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFMOAA
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 1001
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1007 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1095
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1217 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1458
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 918.5 95% Jackknife UCL 1001
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1086 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1204
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1437
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 1073 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1000
Maximum of Logged Data 6.846 SD of logged Data 0.135
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 6.593 Mean of logged Data 6.693
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 261.2
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 261.6 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 267.6
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 275.9 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 292.2
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 255.6 95% Jackknife UCL 261.2
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 267.7 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 276
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 292.4
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 261.6
Maximum of Logged Data 5.541 SD of logged Data 0.0309
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.481 Mean of logged Data 5.514
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.256 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.961 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 9451 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 1575 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.158 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 260.8
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 750.2 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 769.7
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 808.1
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 736.1
Maximum of Logged Data 6.586 SD of logged Data 0.0255
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 6.537 Mean of logged Data 6.558
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.274 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.945 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.305 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 13851 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2308 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 736.5
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 735.4 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 729.5
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.276 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
SD 18.03 Std. Error of Mean 10.41
Coefficient of Variation 0.0256 Skewness 1.152
Minimum 690 Mean 705
Maximum 725 Median 700
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Missing Observations 0
PFO2HxA
General Statistics
nu hat (MLE) 7512 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 1252 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0738 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 97.75 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 97.16
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 98.03
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.328 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.871 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0348 Skewness 1.545
Maximum 96 Median 91
SD 3.215 Std. Error of Mean 1.856
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 90 Mean 92.33
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO3OA
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 735.4
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 736.2 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 750.4
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 770 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 808.6
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 722.1 95% Jackknife UCL 735.4
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Coefficient of Variation 0.0398 Skewness 0.935
Maximum 40 Median 38
SD 1.528 Std. Error of Mean 0.882
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 37 Mean 38.33
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO4DA
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 97.75
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 97.9 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 100.4
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 103.9 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 110.8
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 95.39 95% Jackknife UCL 97.75
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 100.4 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 103.8
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 110.6
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.85
Maximum of Logged Data 4.564 SD of logged Data 0.0345
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 4.5 Mean of logged Data 4.525
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.326 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.874 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 40.91
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 40.98 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 42.18
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 43.84 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 47.11
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 39.78 95% Jackknife UCL 40.91
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 42.15 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 43.81
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 47.06
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 40.96
Maximum of Logged Data 3.689 SD of logged Data 0.0396
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 3.611 Mean of logged Data 3.646
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.249 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.968 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 5712 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 951.9 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0403 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 40.91 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 40.29
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 40.99
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.253 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.964 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.255 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.963 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 37426 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 6238 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.00158 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 10.12 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 9.961
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 10.12
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.253 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.964 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0155 Skewness -0.935
Maximum 10 Median 9.9
SD 0.153 Std. Error of Mean 0.0882
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 9.7 Mean 9.867
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO5DA
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Assuming Normal Distribution
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
SD 17.32 Std. Error of Mean 10
Coefficient of Variation 0.0209 Skewness 1.732
Minimum 820 Mean 830
Maximum 850 Median 820
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
Number of Missing Observations 0
PMPA
General Statistics
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 10.12
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 10.13 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 10.25
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 10.42 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 10.74
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 10.01 95% Jackknife UCL 10.12
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10.25 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10.42
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10.75
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10.13
Maximum of Logged Data 2.303 SD of logged Data 0.0155
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 2.272 Mean of logged Data 2.289
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 859.2
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 860 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 873.6
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 892.4 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 929.5
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 846.4 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 873.3 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 892.1
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 928.9
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 859.8
Maximum of Logged Data 6.745 SD of logged Data 0.0207
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 6.709 Mean of logged Data 6.721
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.239 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 20831 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 3472 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 860.9
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 859.2 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 857.1
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 313.2 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 326.9
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 303.4
Maximum of Logged Data 5.687 SD of logged Data 0.0445
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.598 Mean of logged Data 5.64
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.214 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.989 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.373 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 4532 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 755.4 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 303.3
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 302.9 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 296.2
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.219 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.987 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
SD 12.58 Std. Error of Mean 7.265
Coefficient of Variation 0.0447 Skewness 0.586
Minimum 270 Mean 281.7
Maximum 295 Median 280
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Missing Observations 0
PEPA
General Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0275 Skewness 1.732
Maximum 32.5 Median 31
SD 0.866 Std. Error of Mean 0.5
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 31 Mean 31.5
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
The data set for variable PFESA-BP1 was not processed!
PFESA-BP2
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFESA-BP1
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 302.9
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 303.5 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 313.3
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 327 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 354
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 293.6 95% Jackknife UCL 302.9
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 353.7
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 32.96
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 33 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 33.68
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 34.62 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 36.47
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 32.32 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 33.66 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 34.6
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 36.44
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 32.99
Maximum of Logged Data 3.481 SD of logged Data 0.0273
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 3.434 Mean of logged Data 3.45
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 12031 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 2005 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0157 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 32.96 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 32.86
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 33.04
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Maximum of Logged Data 4.57 SD of logged Data 0.0388
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 4.5 Mean of logged Data 4.545
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.361 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.806 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.094 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 6009 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1002 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 99.92
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 100.3 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 95.42
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.361 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.807 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
SD 3.617 Std. Error of Mean 2.088
Coefficient of Variation 0.0384 Skewness -1.695
Minimum 90 Mean 94.17
Maximum 96.5 Median 96
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Missing Observations 0
Byproduct 4
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
The data set for variable Byproduct 6 was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable Byproduct 5 was not processed!
Byproduct 6
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
Byproduct 5
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 100.3
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 100.4 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 103.3
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 107.2 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 114.9
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 97.6 95% Jackknife UCL 100.3
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 103.4 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 107.4
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 115.2
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 100.5
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6.852 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7.227
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6.581
Maximum of Logged Data 1.833 SD of logged Data 0.0577
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 1.723 Mean of logged Data 1.788
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.305 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.906 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 2731 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 455.2 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0131 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 6.557 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 6.142
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 6.531
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.301 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.912 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0569 Skewness -1.361
Maximum 6.25 Median 6.1
SD 0.34 Std. Error of Mean 0.196
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 5.6 Mean 5.983
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
NVHOS
Normal GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0251 Skewness 1.732
Maximum 3.55 Median 3.4
SD 0.0866 Std. Error of Mean 0.05
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 3.4 Mean 3.45
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
The data set for variable EVE Acid was not processed!
Hydro-EVE Acid
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
EVE Acid
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 6.557
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 6.573 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 6.84
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 7.21 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 7.938
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 6.307 95% Jackknife UCL 6.557
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7.965
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 3.596
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3.6 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3.668
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3.762 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 3.947
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 3.532 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.666 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.76
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.944
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.599
Maximum of Logged Data 1.267 SD of logged Data 0.0249
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 1.224 Mean of logged Data 1.238
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 14419 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 2403 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.00144 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 3.596 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 3.586
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 3.604
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.197 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.996 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0926 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 3554 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 592.4 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 59.43
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 59.48 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 57.18
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.191 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.997 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
SD 2.754 Std. Error of Mean 1.59
Coefficient of Variation 0.0502 Skewness -0.271
Minimum 52 Mean 54.83
Maximum 57.5 Median 55
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Missing Observations 0
R-EVE
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PES was not processed!
PFECA B
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PES
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 59.48
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 59.6 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 61.76
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 64.76 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 70.65
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 57.45 95% Jackknife UCL 59.48
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 61.78 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 64.79
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 70.7
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 59.62
Maximum of Logged Data 4.052 SD of logged Data 0.0504
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 3.951 Mean of logged Data 4.003
The data set for variable PFECA-G was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFECA B was not processed!
PFECA-G
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.681
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
540 540 135200 367.7 385.5R-EVE 2 0 280 800
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5600 5600 N/A N/A 0Byproduct 4 1 0 5600 5600
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3500 3500 N/A N/A 0PFESA-BP1 1 0 3500 3500
1.732 1.409
PEPA 1 0 1600 1600 1600 1600 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
7233 1400 1.038E+8 10190 148.3PMPA 3 0 1300 19000
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO4DA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.849
PFMOAA 1 0 4600 4600 4600 4600 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
3000 3000 6480000 2546 2669Hfpo Dimer Acid 2 0 1200 4800
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A PFECA B 11 0 0 11
260 0.481
PES 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
81.82% 1000 12000 540 67600R-EVE 11 0 2 9
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A EVE Acid 11 0 0 11
N/A N/A
NVHOS 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 11 0 0 11
1380 0.945
Byproduct 5 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
90.91% 1000 12000 1460 1904400Byproduct 4 11 0 1 10
718.7 0.586
PFESA-BP2 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
90.91% 1000 1700 1227 516529PFESA-BP1 11 0 1 10
5154 1.904
PEPA 11 0 1 10 90.91% 1000 12000 1067 35556 188.6 0.177
72.73% 1000 12000 2707 26565708PMPA 11 0 3 8
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A PFO4DA 11 0 0 11
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 11 0 0 11 100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 12000 N/A N/A PFO2HxA 11 0 0 11
1132 0.803
PFMOAA 11 0 1 10 90.91% 1000 12000 1360 1166400 1080 0.794
81.82% 1000 12000 1410 1281900Hfpo Dimer Acid 11 0 2 9
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_c.xls
Offsite Invertebrate General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_c.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 1:44:36 PM
User Selected Options
6850 10970
PFECA-G 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1150 1300 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1150 1300 1700PFECA B 11 0 1000 1000
6850 10970
PES 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1150 1300 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1000 1000 1700R-EVE 11 0 800 1000
6850 10970
Hydro-EVE Acid 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1150 1300 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1150 1300 1700EVE Acid 11 0 1000 1000
6850 10970
NVHOS 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1150 1300 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1150 1300 1700Byproduct 6 11 0 1000 1000
8800 11360
Byproduct 5 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1150 1300 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1350 1700 5600Byproduct 4 11 0 1000 1000
2600 3320
PFESA-BP2 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1150 1300 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1150 1300 1700PFESA-BP1 11 0 1000 1000
15500 18300
PEPA 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1450 1600 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1350 1400 12000PMPA 11 0 1000 1000
6850 10970
PFO5DA 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1150 1300 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1150 1300 1700PFO4DA 11 0 1000 1000
6850 10970
PFO3OA 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1150 1300 1700 6850 10970
1000 1000 1150 1300 1700PFO2HxA 11 0 1000 1000
8400 11280
PFMOAA 11 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1500 1700 4600 8300 11260
1000 1200 2000 2300 4800Hfpo Dimer Acid 11 0 1000 1000
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Hfpo Dimer Acid
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_c.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
Offsite Invertebrate UCLs
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 4:59:20 PM
Minimum Detect 1200 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 4800 Maximum Non-Detect 12000
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 5
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 7
Mean of Logged Detects 7.783 SD of Logged Detects 0.98
Median Detects 3000 CV Detects 0.849
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
Variance Detects 6480000 Percent Non-Detects 81.82%
Mean Detects 3000 SD Detects 2546
KM SD 1132 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 2329 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 1410 KM Standard Error of Mean 506.8
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.394 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 4575 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 6453
95% KM (z) UCL 2244 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 2930 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 3619
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 1410 SD (KM) 1132
Mean (detects) 3000
Theta hat (MLE) 1253 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 9.577 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
80% gamma percentile (KM) 2235 90% gamma percentile (KM) 3111
95% gamma percentile (KM) 3976 99% gamma percentile (KM) 5960
nu hat (KM) 34.12 nu star (KM) 26.15
theta hat (KM) 909.1 theta star (KM) 1186
Variance (KM)1281900 SE of Mean (KM) 506.8
k hat (KM) 1.551 k star (KM) 1.189
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Approximate Chi Square Value (26.15, α) 15.49 Adjusted Chi Square Value (26.15, β) 14.17
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 2380 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 2602
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 3715
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 1440 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1492
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1925 95% Bootstrap t UCL 8638
Mean in Original Scale 670.8 Mean in Log Scale 5.333
SD in Original Scale 1408 SD in Log Scale 1.46
KM SD (logged) 0.466 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.133
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.209
KM SD (logged) 0.466 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.133
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.209 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 1835
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.092 KM Geo Mean 1202
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 1935 SD in Log Scale 0.912
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 2617 95% H-Stat UCL 3318
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1559 Mean in Log Scale 6.874
PFMOAA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3619
PFO2HxA
General Statistics
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFMOAA was not processed!
Number of Detects 1 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
PFO3OA
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO2HxA was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
PFO4DA
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO3OA was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
PFO5DA
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO4DA was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
PMPA
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO5DA was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Number of Detects 3 Number of Non-Detects 8
Maximum Detect 19000 Maximum Non-Detect 12000
Variance Detects 1.038E+8 Percent Non-Detects 72.73%
Minimum Detect 1300 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Skewness Detects 1.732 Kurtosis Detects N/A
Mean of Logged Detects 8.089 SD of Logged Detects 1.528
Mean Detects 7233 SD Detects 10190
Median Detects 1400 CV Detects 1.409
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 2707 KM Standard Error of Mean 1903
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.383 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.754 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 14594 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 21646
95% KM (z) UCL 5838 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 8417 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 11004
KM SD 5154 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 6157 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Mean (detects) 7233
Theta hat (MLE) 9638 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 4.503 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.75 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Maximum 19000 Median 0.01
SD 5673 CV 2.876
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 1973
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Approximate Chi Square Value (2.83, α) 0.325 Adjusted Chi Square Value (2.83, β) 0.227
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 17206 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 2.063 nu star (bias corrected) 2.834
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
k hat (MLE) 0.0938 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.129
Theta hat (MLE) 21038 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 15316
nu hat (KM) 6.069 nu star (KM) 5.747
Variance (KM)26565708 SE of Mean (KM) 1903
k hat (KM) 0.276 k star (KM) 0.261
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 2707 SD (KM) 5154
theta hat (KM) 9813 theta star (KM) 10363
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 10290 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 13099
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (5.75, α) 1.512 Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.75, β) 1.188
80% gamma percentile (KM) 3991 90% gamma percentile (KM) 8098
95% gamma percentile (KM) 12931 99% gamma percentile (KM) 25720
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 2023 Mean in Log Scale 4.652
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.377 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.771 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.236 KM Geo Mean 1388
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 7289 95% Bootstrap t UCL 29600
95% H-UCL (Log ROS)1336402
SD in Original Scale 5654 SD in Log Scale 2.703
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 5113 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 5364
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 2836 Mean in Log Scale 6.952
KM SD (logged) 0.836 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.695
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.309
KM SD (logged) 0.836 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.695
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.309 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 4015
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 6157
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 5603 SD in Log Scale 1.241
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 5898 95% H-Stat UCL 8851
Number of Detects 1 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PEPA
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 1 Number of Non-Detects 10
PFESA-BP1
General Statistics
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PEPA was not processed!
PFESA-BP2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFESA-BP1 was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
The data set for variable PFESA-BP2 was not processed!
Byproduct 4
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Byproduct 5
General Statistics
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Byproduct 4 was not processed!
Number of Detects 1 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Byproduct 6
General Statistics
The data set for variable Byproduct 5 was not processed!
NVHOS
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Byproduct 6 was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
EVE Acid
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable NVHOS was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable EVE Acid was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Hydro-EVE Acid
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Hydro-EVE Acid was not processed!
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 9
R-EVE
General Statistics
Mean Detects 540 SD Detects 367.7
Median Detects 540 CV Detects 0.681
Maximum Detect 800 Maximum Non-Detect 12000
Variance Detects 135200 Percent Non-Detects 81.82%
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Minimum Detect 280 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 540 KM Standard Error of Mean 260
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
Mean of Logged Detects 6.16 SD of Logged Detects 0.742
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2164 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 3127
95% KM (z) UCL 967.7 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1320 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1673
KM SD 260 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 1011 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Mean (detects) 540
Theta hat (MLE) 136.7 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 15.8 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.951 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (KM) 94.9 nu star (KM) 70.35
theta hat (KM) 125.2 theta star (KM) 168.9
Variance (KM) 67600 SE of Mean (KM) 260
k hat (KM) 4.314 k star (KM) 3.198
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 540 SD (KM) 260
Approximate Chi Square Value (70.35, α) 52.04 Adjusted Chi Square Value (70.35, β) 49.48
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 730 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 767.7
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0278
80% gamma percentile (KM) 764.4 90% gamma percentile (KM) 944.9
95% gamma percentile (KM) 1113 99% gamma percentile (KM) 1476
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 902.7 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 884.6
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 932.9 95% Bootstrap t UCL 1146
Mean in Original Scale 622.1 Mean in Log Scale 6.16
SD in Original Scale 513.6 SD in Log Scale 0.783
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
KM SD (logged) 0.525 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.209
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.525 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 783.8
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 6.16 KM Geo Mean 473.3
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 1226
SD in Original Scale 1653 SD in Log Scale 0.79
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1942 95% H-Stat UCL 1711
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1039 Mean in Log Scale 6.479
KM SD (logged) 0.525 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.209
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.525
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PES
General Statistics
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1673
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
PFECA B
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PES was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
PFECA-G
General Statistics
The data set for variable PFECA B was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFECA-G was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 4
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 11
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 4 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PMPA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO4DA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.344
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1850 1850 405000 636.4 667.2PFO2HxA 2 0 1400 2300
N/A 1.07
PFMOAA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1480 1480 2508800 1584 1660Hfpo Dimer Acid 2 0 360 2600
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFECA B 12 0 0 12
N/A N/A
PES 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A R-EVE 12 0 0 12
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A EVE Acid 12 0 0 12
N/A N/A
NVHOS 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 12 0 0 12
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A Byproduct 4 12 0 0 12
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 12 0 0 12
N/A N/A
PEPA 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PMPA 12 0 0 12
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFO4DA 12 0 0 12
366.2 0.321
PFO3OA 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
83.33% 1000 1000 1142 134097PFO2HxA 12 0 2 10
647.5 1.423
PFMOAA 12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
83.33% 250 250 455 419192Hfpo Dimer Acid 12 0 2 10
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_b.xls
Offsite Soil General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 1:43:54 PM
User Selected Options
1000 1000
PFECA-G 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFECA B 12 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PES 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000R-EVE 12 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
Hydro-EVE Acid 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000EVE Acid 12 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
NVHOS 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Byproduct 6 12 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
Byproduct 5 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Byproduct 4 12 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFESA-BP2 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFESA-BP1 12 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PEPA 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PMPA 12 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFO5DA 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFO4DA 12 0 1000 1000
1805 2201
PFO3OA 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1360PFO2HxA 12 0 1000 1000
1368 2354
PFMOAA 12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
250 250 250 250 349Hfpo Dimer Acid 12 0 250 250
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
Offsite Soil UCLs
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 4:58:33 PM
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Hfpo Dimer Acid
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Variance Detects 2508800 Percent Non-Detects 83.33%
Mean Detects 1480 SD Detects 1584
Minimum Detect 360 Minimum Non-Detect 250
Maximum Detect 2600 Maximum Non-Detect 250
Mean of Logged Detects 6.875 SD of Logged Detects 1.398
Median Detects 1480 CV Detects 1.07
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 455 KM Standard Error of Mean 264.3
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
95% KM (z) UCL 889.8 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1248 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1607
KM SD 647.5 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 929.7 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.318 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2106 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 3085
Mean (detects) 1480
Theta hat (MLE) 1123 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 5.272 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Variance (KM)419192 SE of Mean (KM) 264.3
k hat (KM) 0.494 k star (KM) 0.426
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 455 SD (KM) 647.5
80% gamma percentile (KM) 739.2 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1271
95% gamma percentile (KM) 1850 99% gamma percentile (KM) 3296
nu hat (KM) 11.85 nu star (KM) 10.22
theta hat (KM) 921.3 theta star (KM) 1068
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (10.22, α) 4.082 Adjusted Chi Square Value (10.22, β) 3.509
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1140 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1325
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
Mean in Original Scale 249.4 Mean in Log Scale -0.512
SD in Original Scale 747.3 SD in Log Scale 4.764
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
95% H-UCL (Log ROS)5.148E+11
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 636.9 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 680.1
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 898.8 95% Bootstrap t UCL 28542
KM SD (logged) 0.646 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.335
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.264 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 608.1
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 5.747 KM Geo Mean 313.2
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 350.8 Mean in Log Scale 5.169
KM SD (logged) 0.646 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.335
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.264
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 711.5 SD in Log Scale 0.901
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 719.7 95% H-Stat UCL 555.6
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1607
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PFMOAA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFMOAA was not processed!
PFO2HxA
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
Variance Detects 405000 Percent Non-Detects 83.33%
Mean Detects 1850 SD Detects 636.4
Minimum Detect 1400 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 2300 Maximum Non-Detect 1000
Mean of Logged Detects 7.492 SD of Logged Detects 0.351
Median Detects 1850 CV Detects 0.344
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 1142 KM Standard Error of Mean 149.5
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
95% KM (z) UCL 1388 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1590 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1793
KM SD 366.2 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 1410 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 16.56 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2075 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 2629
Mean (detects) 1850
Theta hat (MLE) 111.7 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 66.24 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Variance (KM)134097 SE of Mean (KM) 149.5
k hat (KM) 9.72 k star (KM) 7.345
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 1142 SD (KM) 366.2
80% gamma percentile (KM) 1473 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1704
95% gamma percentile (KM) 1911 99% gamma percentile (KM) 2342
nu hat (KM) 233.3 nu star (KM) 176.3
theta hat (KM) 117.5 theta star (KM) 155.4
Approximate Chi Square Value (176.29, α) 146.6 Adjusted Chi Square Value (176.29, β) 142.5
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1373 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1413
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
Mean in Original Scale 531.9 Mean in Log Scale 5.638
SD in Original Scale 673 SD in Log Scale 1.196
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 1877
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 880.8 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 846.9
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 984.3 95% Bootstrap t UCL 1466
KM SD (logged) 0.24 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.875
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.0981 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 1300
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.005 KM Geo Mean 1102
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 725 Mean in Log Scale 6.428
KM SD (logged) 0.24 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.875
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.0981
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 559.4 SD in Log Scale 0.509
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1015 95% H-Stat UCL 979.2
95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
Warning: One or more Recommended UCL(s) not available!
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 1410 KM H-UCL 1300
PFO3OA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFO3OA was not processed!
PFO4DA
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
The data set for variable PFO4DA was not processed!
PFO5DA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFO5DA was not processed!
PMPA
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PMPA was not processed!
PEPA
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PEPA was not processed!
PFESA-BP1
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
The data set for variable PFESA-BP1 was not processed!
PFESA-BP2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFESA-BP2 was not processed!
Byproduct 4
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable Byproduct 4 was not processed!
Byproduct 5
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable Byproduct 5 was not processed!
Byproduct 6
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
The data set for variable Byproduct 6 was not processed!
NVHOS
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable NVHOS was not processed!
EVE Acid
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable EVE Acid was not processed!
Hydro-EVE Acid
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable Hydro-EVE Acid was not processed!
R-EVE
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable R-EVE was not processed!
PES
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PES was not processed!
PFECA B
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFECA B was not processed!
PFECA-G
The data set for variable PFECA-G was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
-1.732 0.011
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
52.67 53 0.333 0.577 0R-EVE 3 0 52 53
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
0 0.0714
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
140 140 100 10 14.83Byproduct 4 3 0 130 150
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 3 0 25 25 25 25 0 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
-1.732 0.0167
PEPA 3 0 100 110 106.7 110 33.33 5.774 0 -1.732 0.0541
346.7 350 33.33 5.774 0PMPA 3 0 340 350
-0.586 0.029
PFO5DA 2 0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0 0 0 N/A N/A
8.667 8.7 0.0633 0.252 0.297PFO4DA 3 0 8.4 8.9
-1.732 0.0266
PFO3OA 3 0 26 27 26.33 26 0.333 0.577 0 1.732 0.0219
216.7 220 33.33 5.774 0PFO2HxA 3 0 210 220
-1.732 0.0381
PFMOAA 3 0 65 71 67.67 67 9.333 3.055 2.965 0.935 0.0451
303.3 310 133.3 11.55 0Hfpo Dimer Acid 3 0 290 310
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 3 0 0 3 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A PFECA B 3 0 0 3
0.577 0.011
PES 3 0 0 3 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.00% N/A N/A 52.67 0.333R-EVE 3 0 3 0
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 3 0 0 3 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A EVE Acid 3 0 0 3
N/A N/A
NVHOS 3 0 0 3 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 3 0 0 3
10 0.0714
Byproduct 5 3 0 0 3 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.00% N/A N/A 140 100Byproduct 4 3 0 3 0
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 25 0 0 N/A
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 3 0 0 3
5.774 0.0167
PEPA 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 106.7 33.33 5.774 0.0541
0.00% N/A N/A 346.7 33.33PMPA 3 0 3 0
0.252 0.029
PFO5DA 3 0 2 1 33.33% 2 2 2.067 0.00222 0.0471 0.0228
0.00% N/A N/A 8.667 0.0633PFO4DA 3 0 3 0
5.774 0.0266
PFO3OA 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 26.33 0.333 0.577 0.0219
0.00% N/A N/A 216.7 33.33PFO2HxA 3 0 3 0
11.55 0.0381
PFMOAA 3 0 3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 67.67 9.333 3.055 0.0451
0.00% N/A N/A 303.3 133.3Hfpo Dimer Acid 3 0 3 0
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_f.xls
Offsite Surface Water General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_f.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 1:46:49 PM
User Selected Options
2 2
PFECA-G 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2PFECA B 3 0 2 2
53 53
PES 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
52.5 53 53 53 53R-EVE 3 0 52.2 52.4
2 2
Hydro-EVE Acid 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2EVE Acid 3 0 2 2
2 2
NVHOS 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2Byproduct 6 3 0 2 2
149 149.8
Byproduct 5 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
135 140 145 146 148Byproduct 4 3 0 132 134
2 2
PFESA-BP2 3 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
2 2 2 2 2PFESA-BP1 3 0 2 2
350 350
PEPA 3 0 102 104 105 110 110 110 110 110 110
345 350 350 350 350PMPA 3 0 342 344
8.88 8.896
PFO5DA 3 0 2.02 2.04 2.05 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
8.55 8.7 8.8 8.82 8.86PFO4DA 3 0 8.46 8.52
220 220
PFO3OA 3 0 26 26 26 26 26.5 26.6 26.8 26.9 26.98
215 220 220 220 220PFO2HxA 3 0 212 214
310 310
PFMOAA 3 0 65.4 65.8 66 67 69 69.4 70.2 70.6 70.92
300 310 310 310 310Hfpo Dimer Acid 3 0 294 298
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_f.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
Offsite Surface Water UCLs
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 5:03:57 PM
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 290 Mean 303.3
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Hfpo Dimer Acid
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0381 Skewness -1.732
Maximum 310 Median 310
SD 11.55 Std. Error of Mean 6.667
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
k hat (MLE) 1020 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.298 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 322.8 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 307.2
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 321.7
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 6118 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.67 Mean of logged Data 5.714
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 332.7 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 345.4
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 370.4
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 323.6
Maximum of Logged Data 5.737 SD of logged Data 0.0385
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 314.3 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 322.8
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 323.3 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 332.4
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 345 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 369.7
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 65 Mean 67.67
PFMOAA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0451 Skewness 0.935
Maximum 71 Median 67
SD 3.055 Std. Error of Mean 1.764
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.253 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.964 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
95% Student's-t UCL 72.82 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 71.59
k hat (MLE) 742.3 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0912 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 72.98
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 4454 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 4.174 Mean of logged Data 4.214
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.248 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.968 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 75.3 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 78.61
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 85.1
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 72.92
Maximum of Logged Data 4.263 SD of logged Data 0.0449
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 70.57 95% Jackknife UCL 72.82
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 72.82
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 72.96 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 75.36
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 78.68 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 85.22
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 210 Mean 216.7
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO2HxA
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0266 Skewness -1.732
Maximum 220 Median 220
SD 5.774 Std. Error of Mean 3.333
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
k hat (MLE) 2090 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.104 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 226.4 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 218.6
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 225.8
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 12543 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.347 Mean of logged Data 5.378
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 231.3 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 237.6
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 250.1
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 226.7
Maximum of Logged Data 5.394 SD of logged Data 0.0269
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 222.1 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 226.7 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 231.2
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 226.4
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 237.5 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 249.8
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 26 Mean 26.33
PFO3OA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0219 Skewness 1.732
Maximum 27 Median 26
SD 0.577 Std. Error of Mean 0.333
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
k hat (MLE) 3146 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.00837 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 27.31 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 27.24
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 27.36
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 18879 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 3.258 Mean of logged Data 3.271
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 27.78 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 28.4
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 29.63
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 27.33
Maximum of Logged Data 3.296 SD of logged Data 0.0218
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 26.88 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 27.31
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 27.33 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 27.79
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 28.41 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 29.65
Minimum 8.4 Mean 8.667
Maximum 8.9 Median 8.7
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Missing Observations 0
PFO4DA
General Statistics
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.987 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
SD 0.252 Std. Error of Mean 0.145
Coefficient of Variation 0.029 Skewness -0.586
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.219 Lilliefors GOF Test
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 9.091 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 8.853
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Theta hat (MLE) 0.00489 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 10630 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1772 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 9.083
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 2.128 Mean of logged Data 2.159
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.223 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.985 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 9.302 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 9.577
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10.12
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 9.104
Maximum of Logged Data 2.186 SD of logged Data 0.0291
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 8.906 95% Jackknife UCL 9.091
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 9.091
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 9.103 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 9.3
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 9.574 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 10.11
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO5DA was not processed!
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 1
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PFO5DA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 340 Mean 346.7
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
PMPA
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0167 Skewness -1.732
Maximum 350 Median 350
SD 5.774 Std. Error of Mean 3.333
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
k hat (MLE) 5373 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0645 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 356.4 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 348.6
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 355.8
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 32238 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.829 Mean of logged Data 5.848
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 361.3 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 367.6
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 380
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 356.7
Maximum of Logged Data 5.858 SD of logged Data 0.0167
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 352.1 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 356.4
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 356.7 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 361.2
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 367.5 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 379.8
PEPA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Coefficient of Variation 0.0541 Skewness -1.732
Maximum 110 Median 110
SD 5.774 Std. Error of Mean 3.333
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 100 Mean 106.7
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 116.4 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 108.6
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 115.8
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 3006 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 501 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.213 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 116.8
Maximum of Logged Data 4.7 SD of logged Data 0.055
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 4.605 Mean of logged Data 4.669
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% CLT UCL 112.1 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 121.4 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 127.8
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 140.4
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 116.4
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 116.7 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 121.2
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 127.5 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 139.8
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
PFESA-BP1
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFESA-BP1 was not processed!
PFESA-BP2
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
If possible, compute and collect Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) based sample size and analytical results.
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Warning: There is only one distinct observation value in this data set - resulting in '0' variance!
ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
The data set for variable PFESA-BP2 was not processed!
It is suggested to collect at least 8 to 10 observations using these statistical methods!
Maximum 25 Median 25
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 25 Mean 25
Maximum 150 Median 140
SD 10 Std. Error of Mean 5.774
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 130 Mean 140
Byproduct 4
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 1 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0714 Skewness 0
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.175 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
95% Student's-t UCL 156.9 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 149.5
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 156.9
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
nu hat (MLE) 1760 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 293.4 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.477 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 1 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
Maximum of Logged Data 5.011 SD of logged Data 0.0716
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 4.868 Mean of logged Data 4.94
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.177 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 165.2 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 176.1
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 197.5
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 157.3
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 157.3 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 165.2
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 176.1 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 197.4
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% CLT UCL 149.5 95% Jackknife UCL 156.9
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Byproduct 5
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 156.9
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable Byproduct 5 was not processed!
Byproduct 6
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable Byproduct 6 was not processed!
NVHOS
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable NVHOS was not processed!
EVE Acid
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable EVE Acid was not processed!
Hydro-EVE Acid
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 2
The data set for variable Hydro-EVE Acid was not processed!
R-EVE
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Coefficient of Variation 0.011 Skewness -1.732
Maximum 53 Median 53
SD 0.577 Std. Error of Mean 0.333
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 52 Mean 52.67
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Gamma GOF Test
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
95% Student's-t UCL 53.64 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 52.86
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 53.58
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) N/A
Adjusted Level of Significance N/A Adjusted Chi Square Value N/A
nu hat (MLE) 74574 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A
k hat (MLE) 12429 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Theta hat (MLE) 0.00424 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.385 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.75 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) N/A 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Maximum of Logged Data 3.97 SD of logged Data 0.011
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 3.951 Mean of logged Data 3.964
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 53.67
95% CLT UCL 53.21 95% Jackknife UCL N/A
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 54.12 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 54.75
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 55.99
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 53.64
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 53.67 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 54.12
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 54.75 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 55.98
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be
reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.
PES
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PES was not processed!
PFECA B
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
The data set for variable PFECA B was not processed!
PFECA-G
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
The data set for variable PFECA-G was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 3 Number of Distinct Observations 1
12 0 12 0 0.00% N/A N/A 9351 2.947E+8 17166 1.836
12 0 3 9 75.00% 1000 5700 7392 2.696E+8 16418 2.221
12 0 9 3 25.00% 1000 1000 2380 4423633 2103 0.884
12 0 1 11 91.67% 1000 5700 220 0 0 N/A
12 0 2 10 83.33% 1000 5700 395 18225 135 0.342
12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 5700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 0 12 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10335 2.584E+8 16074 1.555
12 0 5 7 58.33% 1000 5700 845.3 385732 621.1 0.735
12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 5700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 5700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 0 8 4 33.33% 1000 1000 4405 52797275 7266 1.65
12 0 2 10 83.33% 1000 5700 470 10000 100 0.213
12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 5700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 0 10 2 16.67% 1000 5000 68415 3.987E+10 199668 2.918
12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 5700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 5700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 0 9 3 25.00% 1000 1000 2463 5477856 2340 0.95
12 0 4 8 66.67% 1000 5000 681.8 585124 764.9 1.122
12 0 2 10 83.33% 1000 5700 598 695556 834 1.395
12 0 0 12 100.00% 1000 5700 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 0 540 55000 9351 1850 2.947E+8 17166 1653 2.28 1.836
3 0 970 59000 26657 20000 8.751E+8 29582 28213 0.961 1.11
9 0 790 6600 2910 1500 5371400 2318 1053 0.79 0.796
1 0 220 220 220 220 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
2 0 260 530 395 395 36450 190.9 200.1 N/A 0.483
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 0 390 52000 10335 3300 2.584E+8 16074 3091 2.128 1.555
5 0 410 2300 1134 850 702230 838 652.3 0.697 0.739
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 0 600 22000 6239 1650 78962584 8886 1520 1.431 1.424
2 0 370 570 470 470 20000 141.4 148.3 N/A 0.301
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 0 650 730000 81845 5850 5.195E+10 227934 6931 3.152 2.785
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
9 0 240 8500 3204 3100 5745178 2397 1927 1.318 0.748
4 0 300 2900 1350 1100 1210000 1100 593 1.27 0.815
2 0 320 3100 1710 1710 3864200 1966 2061 N/A 1.15
0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_e.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/11/2019 1:46:00 PM
User Selected Options
PFMOAA
Hfpo Dimer Acid
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Terr_e.xls
Offsite Vegetation General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
PFMOAA
Hfpo Dimer Acid
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
12 0 611 952 1123 1850 5000 7860 31490 43450 52690
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 5175 5560 18570 37550 54710
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1200 3375 4420 5970 6325 6545
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 577 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 667 1920 1975 3300 9150 11240 31800 42100 50020
12 0 454 880 962.5 1000 1850 2180 4730 5315 5623
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 681 968 990 1000 2425 3140 17440 20350 21670
12 0 613 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 1070 1900 2450 5000 19500 22800 25800 342800 652560
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
12 0 1000 1000 1000 2000 3350 3900 4370 6245 8049
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1100 2720 3845 4769
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1525 2680 4810 5315 5623
12 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4600 5315 5623
PFMOAA
Hfpo Dimer Acid
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
Byproduct 4
PFESA-BP2
PFESA-BP1
PEPA
PMPA
PFO5DA
PFO4DA
PFO3OA
PFO2HxA
PFECA-G
PFECA B
PES
R-EVE
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
NVHOS
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 5
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
From File ReRun OffSite Veg and OnSite Invert.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.112/2/2019 11:47:08 AM
Minimum 540 Mean 9351
Maximum 55000 Median 1850
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 12
Number of Missing Observations 0
Offsite Vegetation UCLs
Hfpo Dimer Acid
General Statistics
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.379 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.578 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
SD 17166 Std. Error of Mean 4955
Coefficient of Variation 1.836 Skewness 2.28
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 1.263 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.783 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 18794
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 18250 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 20987
Theta hat (MLE) 17881 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 20883
nu hat (MLE) 12.55 nu star (bias corrected) 10.75
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.523 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.448
K-S Test Statistic 0.305 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.258 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.879 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 22768 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 26350
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.029 Adjusted Chi Square Value 3.814
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 9351 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 13974
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 4.413
Maximum of Logged Data 10.92 SD of logged Data 1.494
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 6.292 Mean of logged Data 7.937
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.231 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 22227 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 28700
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 41415
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 49091 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 17563
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 24217 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 30951
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 40298 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 58657
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 68965 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 17888
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 20513
95% CLT UCL 17502 95% Jackknife UCL 18250
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 17115 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 65264
PFMOAA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 30951
Variance Detects 8.751E+8 Percent Non-Detects 75%
Mean Detects 26657 SD Detects 29582
Minimum Detect 970 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 59000 Maximum Non-Detect 5700
Number of Detects 3 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Mean of Logged Detects 9.255 SD of Logged Detects 2.129
Median Detects 20000 CV Detects 1.11
Skewness Detects 0.961 Kurtosis Detects N/A
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 7392 KM Standard Error of Mean 5805
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.256 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.962 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 43643 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 65149
95% KM (z) UCL 16940 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 24806 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 32694
KM SD 16418 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 17816 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Mean (detects) 26657
Theta hat (MLE) 40853 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 3.915 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.653 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Maximum 59000 Median 256.9
SD 17217 CV 2.098
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 8207
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Approximate Chi Square Value (3.39, α) 0.498 Adjusted Chi Square Value (3.39, β) 0.362
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 55960 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 2.745 nu star (bias corrected) 3.392
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
k hat (MLE) 0.114 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.141
Theta hat (MLE) 71752 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 58067
nu hat (KM) 4.864 nu star (KM) 4.982
theta hat (KM) 36469 theta star (KM) 35611
Variance (KM)2.696E+8 SE of Mean (KM) 5805
k hat (KM) 0.203 k star (KM) 0.208
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 7392 SD (KM) 16418
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 32196 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 41310
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.98, α) 1.144 Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.98, β) 0.891
80% gamma percentile (KM) 9926 90% gamma percentile (KM) 22355
95% gamma percentile (KM) 37715 99% gamma percentile (KM) 79749
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 7858 Mean in Log Scale 7.392
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.286 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.93 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.472 KM Geo Mean 1758
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 21802 95% Bootstrap t UCL 77214
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 95993
SD in Original Scale 17032 SD in Log Scale 1.801
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 16687 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 16755
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 7402 Mean in Log Scale 7.254
KM SD (logged) 1.348 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 3.583
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.476
KM SD (logged) 1.348 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 3.583
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.476 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 18688
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 17816
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 17164 SD in Log Scale 1.637
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 16300 95% H-Stat UCL 42461
Number of Detects 9 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 8 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PFO2HxA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 9
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Median Detects 1500 CV Detects 0.796
Skewness Detects 0.79 Kurtosis Detects -1.288
Variance Detects 5371400 Percent Non-Detects 25%
Mean Detects 2910 SD Detects 2318
Minimum Detect 790 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 6600 Maximum Non-Detect 1000
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.284 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.814 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects 7.681 SD of Logged Detects 0.817
95% KM (z) UCL 3439 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 3996
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 4312 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 5187
KM SD 2103 95% KM (BCA) UCL 3483
95% KM (t) UCL 3537 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 3433
Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 2380 KM Standard Error of Mean 644
K-S Test Statistic 0.265 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.283 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.654 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.731 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 6402 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 8788
Mean (detects) 2910
Theta hat (MLE) 1578 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2233
nu hat (MLE) 33.19 nu star (bias corrected) 23.46
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.844 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.303
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
Maximum 6600 Median 1200
SD 2357 CV 1.071
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 2200
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Approximate Chi Square Value (6.82, α) 2.073 Adjusted Chi Square Value (6.82, β) 1.698
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 7241 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 8840
nu hat (MLE) 7.317 nu star (bias corrected) 6.821
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
k hat (MLE) 0.305 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.284
Theta hat (MLE) 7217 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 7742
nu hat (KM) 30.73 nu star (KM) 24.38
theta hat (KM) 1859 theta star (KM) 2343
Variance (KM)4423633 SE of Mean (KM) 644
k hat (KM) 1.28 k star (KM) 1.016
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 2380 SD (KM) 2103
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 4104 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 4477
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (24.38, α) 14.14 Adjusted Chi Square Value (24.38, β) 12.96
80% gamma percentile (KM) 3826 90% gamma percentile (KM) 5459
95% gamma percentile (KM) 7090 99% gamma percentile (KM) 10874
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 2319 Mean in Log Scale 7.325
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.229 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.876 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.429 KM Geo Mean 1684
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 3550 95% Bootstrap t UCL 3889
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 5507
SD in Original Scale 2249 SD in Log Scale 0.962
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 3485 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 3378
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 2308 Mean in Log Scale 7.314
KM SD (logged) 0.797 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.566
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.244
KM SD (logged) 0.797 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.566
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.244 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 4288
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL 4477 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 8840
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 2257 SD in Log Scale 0.962
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 3478 95% H-Stat UCL 5446
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 1 Number of Non-Detects 11
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO3OA
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
PFO4DA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO3OA was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Variance Detects 36450 Percent Non-Detects 83.33%
Mean Detects 395 SD Detects 190.9
Minimum Detect 260 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 530 Maximum Non-Detect 5700
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Mean of Logged Detects 5.917 SD of Logged Detects 0.504
Median Detects 395 CV Detects 0.483
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
95% KM (z) UCL 617.1 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 800 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 983.5
KM SD 135 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 637.4 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 395 KM Standard Error of Mean 135
Theta hat (MLE) 48.09 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 32.86 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 8.214 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 1238 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 1738
Variance (KM) 18225 SE of Mean (KM) 135
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 395 SD (KM) 135
Mean (detects) 395
k hat (KM) 8.561 k star (KM) 6.476
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
80% gamma percentile (KM) 516.3 90% gamma percentile (KM) 602.4
95% gamma percentile (KM) 680 99% gamma percentile (KM) 842.3
nu hat (KM) 205.5 nu star (KM) 155.4
theta hat (KM) 46.14 theta star (KM) 60.99
Mean in Original Scale 426.6 Mean in Log Scale 5.917
SD in Original Scale 243.8 SD in Log Scale 0.554
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Approximate Chi Square Value (155.43, α) 127.6 Adjusted Chi Square Value (155.43, β) 123.8
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 481.1 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 496.1
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 5.917 KM Geo Mean 371.2
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 625.5
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 553 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 540.5
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 561.5 95% Bootstrap t UCL 626.1
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 845 Mean in Log Scale 6.444
KM SD (logged) 0.356 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.981
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.356
KM SD (logged) 0.356 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.981
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.356 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 489.2
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 983.5
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 860.9 SD in Log Scale 0.702
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1291 95% H-Stat UCL 1342
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
PFO5DA
General Statistics
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO5DA was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 12
PMPA
Coefficient of Variation 1.555 Skewness 2.128
Maximum 52000 Median 3300
SD 16074 Std. Error of Mean 4640
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 390 Mean 10335
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.315 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.649 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% K-S Critical Value 0.257 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
5% A-D Critical Value 0.775 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.239 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.633 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
95% Student's-t UCL 18668 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 21013
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 19143
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 10335 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 14184
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 5.72
Theta hat (MLE) 16306 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 19466
nu hat (MLE) 15.21 nu star (bias corrected) 12.74
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.634 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.531
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.149 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.959 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50) 23024 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 26235
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.029 Adjusted Chi Square Value 5.02
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 64114 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 23875
Maximum of Logged Data 10.86 SD of logged Data 1.474
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 5.966 Mean of logged Data 8.276
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 30178 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 38927
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 56112
95% CLT UCL 17967 95% Jackknife UCL 18668
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 17650 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 43795
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 26235
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 24256 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 30561
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 39313 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 56504
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 54398 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 18133
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 20416
Number of Detects 5 Number of Non-Detects 7
Number of Distinct Detects 4 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
PEPA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 7
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Median Detects 850 CV Detects 0.739
Skewness Detects 0.697 Kurtosis Detects -1.645
Variance Detects 702230 Percent Non-Detects 58.33%
Mean Detects 1134 SD Detects 838
Minimum Detect 410 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 2300 Maximum Non-Detect 5700
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.233 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.343 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.875 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects 6.791 SD of Logged Detects 0.794
95% KM (z) UCL 1232 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1551 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1871
KM SD 621.1 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 1268 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 845.3 KM Standard Error of Mean 235.3
K-S Test Statistic 0.255 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.36 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.394 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.684 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2315 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 3187
Mean (detects) 1134
Theta hat (MLE) 511.5 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1112
nu hat (MLE) 22.17 nu star (bias corrected) 10.2
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.217 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.02
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
Maximum 2300 Median 722.9
SD 615.2 CV 0.74
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 125.1 Mean 831.9
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Approximate Chi Square Value (40.68, α) 27.06 Adjusted Chi Square Value (40.68, β) 25.38
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 1250 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 1333
nu hat (MLE) 52.46 nu star (bias corrected) 40.68
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
k hat (MLE) 2.186 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.695
Theta hat (MLE) 380.6 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 490.8
nu hat (KM) 44.46 nu star (KM) 34.68
theta hat (KM) 456.3 theta star (KM) 585
Variance (KM)385732 SE of Mean (KM) 235.3
k hat (KM) 1.853 k star (KM) 1.445
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 845.3 SD (KM) 621.1
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1320 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1417
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (34.68, α) 22.21 Adjusted Chi Square Value (34.68, β) 20.7
80% gamma percentile (KM) 1313 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1778
95% gamma percentile (KM) 2230 99% gamma percentile (KM) 3253
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 824.5 Mean in Log Scale 6.526
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.235 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.343 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.879 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 6.525 KM Geo Mean 682.2
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1201 95% Bootstrap t UCL 1568
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 1259
SD in Original Scale 597 SD in Log Scale 0.614
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 1134 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1106
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1127 Mean in Log Scale 6.734
KM SD (logged) 0.618 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.296
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.26
KM SD (logged) 0.618 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.296
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.26 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 1267
Suggested UCL to Use
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 935.6 SD in Log Scale 0.773
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1612 95% H-Stat UCL 2041
12 9
8 4
8 1
600 1000
22000 1000
78962584 33.33%
6239 8886
1650 1.424
1.431 0.159
7.808 1.428
0.669
0.818
0.375
0.283
4405 2243
7266 7717
8433 7935
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
95% KM (t) UCL 1268
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
PFESA-BP1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
The data set for variable PFESA-BP1 was not processed!
PFESA-BP2
Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
The data set for variable PFESA-BP2 was not processed!
Byproduct 4
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects
Median Detects CV Detects
Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects
Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects
Mean Detects SD Detects
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect
KM SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL
95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL
Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean KM Standard Error of Mean
Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
8094 33483
11133 14181
18411 26720
0.81
0.752
0.256
0.306
0.655 0.493
9518 12655
10.49 7.888
6239
0.01 4213
22000 805
7696 1.827
0.197 0.203
21427 20751
4.718 4.872
0.029
1.094 0.849
18768 24176
4405 7266
52797275 2243
0.367 0.331
8.819 7.948
11987 13301
6904 12824
19510 36682
2.705 2.261
12943 15485
0.858
0.818
0.192
0.283
4403 7.345
7593 1.38
8340 7907
9112 33876
18325
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL
95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL
Theta hat (MLE)Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE)nu star (bias corrected)
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)k star (bias corrected MLE)
K-S Test Statistic Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
k hat (MLE)k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
Maximum Median
SD CV
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum Mean
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects)
nu hat (KM)nu star (KM)
theta hat (KM)theta star (KM)
Variance (KM)SE of Mean (KM)
k hat (KM)k star (KM)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)SD (KM)
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.87, α)Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.87, β)
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50)95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50)
nu hat (MLE)nu star (bias corrected)
Adjusted Level of Significance (β)
Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50)95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50)
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (7.95, α)Adjusted Chi Square Value (7.95, β)
80% gamma percentile (KM)90% gamma percentile (KM)
95% gamma percentile (KM)99% gamma percentile (KM)
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL
95% H-UCL (Log ROS)
SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale
7.399 1634
1.24 3.37
0.387 12431
1.24 3.37
0.387
4326 7.277
7631 1.383
8282 17279
33483 15485
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged)KM Geo Mean
SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-Stat UCL
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale
KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log)
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged)
KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log)
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log)
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Byproduct 5
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM Bootstrap t UCL a Adjusted KM-UCL (use when k<=1 and 15 < n < 50 but k<=1)
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Minimum Detect 370 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 570 Maximum Non-Detect 5700
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Mean of Logged Detects 6.13 SD of Logged Detects 0.306
Median Detects 470 CV Detects 0.301
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
Variance Detects 20000 Percent Non-Detects 83.33%
Mean Detects 470 SD Detects 141.4
KM SD 100 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 649.6 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 470 KM Standard Error of Mean 100
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 1094 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 1465
95% KM (z) UCL 634.5 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 770 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 905.9
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 21.75 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 470 SD (KM) 100
Mean (detects) 470
Theta hat (MLE) 21.61 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 87.01 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
80% gamma percentile (KM) 563.3 90% gamma percentile (KM) 622.5
95% gamma percentile (KM) 674.3 99% gamma percentile (KM) 778.8
nu hat (KM) 530.2 nu star (KM) 399
theta hat (KM) 21.28 theta star (KM) 28.27
Variance (KM) 10000 SE of Mean (KM) 100
k hat (KM) 22.09 k star (KM) 16.62
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Approximate Chi Square Value (398.95, α) 353.7 Adjusted Chi Square Value (398.95, β) 347.1
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 530.2 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 540.1
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 592.6
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 568.8 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 558.3
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 572.4 95% Bootstrap t UCL 585.1
Mean in Original Scale 483.5 Mean in Log Scale 6.13
SD in Original Scale 164.5 SD in Log Scale 0.336
KM SD (logged) 0.216 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.855
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.216
KM SD (logged) 0.216 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.855
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.216 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 530.5
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 6.13 KM Geo Mean 459.2
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 853.4 SD in Log Scale 0.666
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1300 95% H-Stat UCL 1309
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 857.5 Mean in Log Scale 6.48
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Byproduct 6
Warning: Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
Warning: One or more Recommended UCL(s) not available!
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 649.6 KM H-UCL 530.5
General Statistics
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Byproduct 6 was not processed!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 10 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
Minimum Detect 650 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 11
Number of Detects 10 Number of Non-Detects 2
NVHOS
General Statistics
Skewness Detects 3.152 Kurtosis Detects 9.953
Mean of Logged Detects 9.091 SD of Logged Detects 1.951
Mean Detects 81845 SD Detects 227934
Median Detects 5850 CV Detects 2.785
Maximum Detect 730000 Maximum Non-Detect 5000
Variance Detects 5.195E+10 Percent Non-Detects 16.67%
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 68415 KM Standard Error of Mean 60757
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.497 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.401 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 447843 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 672941
95% KM (z) UCL 168352 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 1894137
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 250687 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 333249
KM SD 199668 95% KM (BCA) UCL 188408
95% KM (t) UCL 177528 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 187575
Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.309 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.283
K-S Test Statistic 0.368 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.288 Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 1.385 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.812 Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 81845
Theta hat (MLE)264943 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)289300
nu hat (MLE) 6.178 nu star (bias corrected) 5.658
Minimum 0.01 Mean 68204
nu hat (MLE) 4.175 nu star (bias corrected) 4.465
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
k hat (MLE) 0.174 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.186
Theta hat (MLE)392058 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)366632
Maximum 730000 Median 4350
SD 208621 CV 3.059
Variance (KM)3.987E+10 SE of Mean (KM) 60757
k hat (KM) 0.117 k star (KM) 0.144
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 68415 SD (KM)199668
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.46, α) 0.913 Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.46, β) 0.698
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50)333377 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50)436203
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (3.45, α) 0.516 Adjusted Chi Square Value (3.45, β) 0.377
80% gamma percentile (KM) 71778 90% gamma percentile (KM)201547
95% gamma percentile (KM)379653 99% gamma percentile (KM)901223
nu hat (KM) 2.818 nu star (KM) 3.447
theta hat (KM)582728 theta star (KM)476398
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.191 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.916 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50)456820 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50)625569
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 248841 95% Bootstrap t UCL 1945202
95% H-UCL (Log ROS)1079733
SD in Original Scale 208572 SD in Log Scale 2.049
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data)176472 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 187365
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 68343 Mean in Log Scale 8.662
KM SD (logged) 1.897 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 4.738
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.581
KM SD (logged) 1.897 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 4.738
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.581 95% H-UCL (KM -Log)558390
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 8.724 KM Geo Mean 6149
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Lognormal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 208533 SD in Log Scale 1.97
95% t UCL (Assumes normality)176563 95% H-Stat UCL 802095
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 68454 Mean in Log Scale 8.746
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
Suggested UCL to Use
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 447843 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 672941
EVE Acid
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
The data set for variable EVE Acid was not processed!
Hydro-EVE Acid
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Number of Detects 9 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 7 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 8
The data set for variable Hydro-EVE Acid was not processed!
R-EVE
Median Detects 3100 CV Detects 0.748
Skewness Detects 1.318 Kurtosis Detects 2.632
Variance Detects 5745178 Percent Non-Detects 25%
Mean Detects 3204 SD Detects 2397
Minimum Detect 240 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 8500 Maximum Non-Detect 1000
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.198 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.896 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of Logged Detects 7.741 SD of Logged Detects 1.016
95% KM (z) UCL 3642 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 4175
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 4613 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 5587
KM SD 2340 95% KM (BCA) UCL 3805
95% KM (t) UCL 3750 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 3717
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 2463 KM Standard Error of Mean 716.6
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 6939 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 9594
K-S Test Statistic 0.169 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.284 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
A-D Test Statistic 0.302 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.733 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Mean (detects) 3204
Theta hat (MLE) 1936 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2722
nu hat (MLE) 29.79 nu star (bias corrected) 21.19
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.655 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.177
Maximum 8500 Median 2000
SD 2475 CV 1.017
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 2435
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Approximate Chi Square Value (6.80, α) 2.062 Adjusted Chi Square Value (6.80, β) 1.688
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 8030 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 9808
nu hat (MLE) 7.29 nu star (bias corrected) 6.801
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
k hat (MLE) 0.304 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.283
Theta hat (MLE) 8015 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 8592
nu hat (KM) 26.59 nu star (KM) 21.27
theta hat (KM) 2224 theta star (KM) 2779
Variance (KM)5477856 SE of Mean (KM) 716.6
k hat (KM) 1.108 k star (KM) 0.886
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 2463 SD (KM) 2340
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 4443 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 4883
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (21.27, α) 11.79 Adjusted Chi Square Value (21.27, β) 10.73
80% gamma percentile (KM) 4000 90% gamma percentile (KM) 5843
95% gamma percentile (KM) 7703 99% gamma percentile (KM) 12061
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 2505 Mean in Log Scale 7.289
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.215 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.883 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 7.176 KM Geo Mean 1307
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 3885 95% Bootstrap t UCL 4250
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 10150
SD in Original Scale 2406 SD in Log Scale 1.209
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 3752 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 3674
KM SD (logged) 1.283 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 3.454
KM SD (logged) 1.283 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 3.454
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.393 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 11324
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 2528 Mean in Log Scale 7.359
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.393
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 3750
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 2382 SD in Log Scale 1.108
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 3763 95% H-Stat UCL 8207
Minimum Detect 300 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 2900 Maximum Non-Detect 5000
Number of Detects 4 Number of Non-Detects 8
Number of Distinct Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2
PES
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Mean of Logged Detects 6.921 SD of Logged Detects 0.931
Median Detects 1100 CV Detects 0.815
Skewness Detects 1.27 Kurtosis Detects 2.426
Variance Detects 1210000 Percent Non-Detects 66.67%
Mean Detects 1350 SD Detects 1100
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 681.8 KM Standard Error of Mean 266.3
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.34 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.375 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.879 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2345 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 3332
95% KM (z) UCL 1120 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1481 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1843
KM SD 764.9 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 1160 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.89 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.639
K-S Test Statistic 0.26 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.398 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.331 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.661 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Theta hat (MLE) 714.2 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2112
nu hat (MLE) 15.12 nu star (bias corrected) 5.114
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 596.6
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 1350
nu hat (MLE) 5.829 nu star (bias corrected) 5.705
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
k hat (MLE) 0.243 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.238
Theta hat (MLE) 2457 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2510
Maximum 2900 Median 319.2
SD 826.3 CV 1.385
Variance (KM)585124 SE of Mean (KM) 266.3
k hat (KM) 0.794 k star (KM) 0.651
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 681.8 SD (KM) 764.9
Approximate Chi Square Value (5.70, α) 1.491 Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.70, β) 1.189
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 2283 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (15.63, α) 7.705 Adjusted Chi Square Value (15.63, β) 6.871
80% gamma percentile (KM) 1123 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1740
95% gamma percentile (KM) 2382 99% gamma percentile (KM) 3922
nu hat (KM) 19.07 nu star (KM) 15.63
theta hat (KM) 858.2 theta star (KM) 1047
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.285 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.375 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.935 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1384 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1551
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1233 95% Bootstrap t UCL 1585
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 1516
SD in Original Scale 776.6 SD in Log Scale 0.949
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 1072 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1063
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 669.7 Mean in Log Scale 6.065
KM SD (logged) 0.761 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.508
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.265
KM SD (logged) 0.761 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.508
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.265 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 1109
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 6.146 KM Geo Mean 467
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
SD in Original Scale 857.6 SD in Log Scale 0.71
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1395 95% H-Stat UCL 1566
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 950 Mean in Log Scale 6.584
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
PFECA B
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 1160
Variance Detects 3864200 Percent Non-Detects 83.33%
Mean Detects 1710 SD Detects 1966
Minimum Detect 320 Minimum Non-Detect 1000
Maximum Detect 3100 Maximum Non-Detect 5700
Number of Detects 2 Number of Non-Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Mean of Logged Detects 6.904 SD of Logged Detects 1.606
Median Detects 1710 CV Detects 1.15
Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A
95% KM (z) UCL 1211 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1717 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 2224
KM SD 834 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 1268 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 598 KM Standard Error of Mean 373
Theta hat (MLE) 1612 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 4.243 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.061 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2927 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 4309
Variance (KM)695556 SE of Mean (KM) 373
k hat (KM) 0.514 k star (KM) 0.441
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 598 SD (KM) 834
Mean (detects) 1710
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.029
80% gamma percentile (KM) 974.5 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1659
95% gamma percentile (KM) 2401 99% gamma percentile (KM) 4249
nu hat (KM) 12.34 nu star (KM) 10.59
theta hat (KM) 1163 theta star (KM) 1356
Approximate Chi Square Value (10.59, α) 4.312 Adjusted Chi Square Value (10.59, β) 3.721
Mean in Original Scale 631.3 Mean in Log Scale 5.955
SD in Original Scale 827.1 SD in Log Scale 0.982
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1468 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1702
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 5.995 KM Geo Mean 401.6
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 1468
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 1060 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1062
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1300 95% Bootstrap t UCL 2087
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1064 Mean in Log Scale 6.609
KM SD (logged) 0.681 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.386
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.305
KM SD (logged) 0.681 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.386
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.305 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 826.8
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
975% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 2927
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 1066 SD in Log Scale 0.814
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1617 95% H-Stat UCL 1950
The data set for variable PFECA-G was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
PFECA-G
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 3
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
0.656 0.145
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3.114 2.9 0.205 0.453 0.297R-EVE 7 0 2.7 3.8
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 9 0 6 7.2 6.533 6.6 0.143 0.377 0.297 0.151 0.0578
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
0.265 0.206
Byproduct 5 6 0 2.5 19 7.317 4.85 40.2 6.34 3.039 1.583 0.867
6.638 6.7 1.868 1.367 1.557Byproduct 4 8 0 4.8 8.9
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
1.597 0.258
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
14.67 13 14.33 3.786 1.483PMPA 3 0 12 19
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2.3 2.3 N/A N/A 0PFO4DA 1 0 2.3 2.3
1.993 1.017
PFO3OA 3 0 2 6.4 3.867 3.2 5.173 2.274 1.779 1.206 0.588
7.356 4.5 55.99 7.482 3.41PFO2HxA 9 0 2.2 25
1.417 0.731
PFMOAA 6 0 8.8 71 26.45 16.5 580 24.08 10.6 1.634 0.91
6.286 4.3 21.14 4.598 1.779Hfpo Dimer Acid 7 0 2.1 15
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 9 0 0 9 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A PFECA B 9 0 0 9
0.593 0.207
PES 9 0 0 9 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
22.22% 2 2 2.867 0.351R-EVE 9 0 7 2
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 9 0 0 9 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A EVE Acid 9 0 0 9
N/A N/A
NVHOS 9 0 9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 6.533 0.143 0.377 0.0578
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 9 0 0 9
1.891 0.309
Byproduct 5 9 0 6 3 33.33% 2 2 5.544 28.61 5.349 0.965
11.11% 2 2 6.122 3.577Byproduct 4 9 0 8 1
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 9 0 0 9 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 9 0 0 9
2.833 0.245
PEPA 9 0 0 9 100.00% 20 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A
66.67% 10 10 11.56 8.025PMPA 9 0 3 6
0.0943 0.0464
PFO5DA 9 0 0 9 100.00% 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
88.89% 2 2 2.033 0.00889PFO4DA 9 0 1 8
7.482 1.017
PFO3OA 9 0 3 6 66.67% 2 2 2.622 1.924 1.387 0.529
0.00% N/A N/A 7.356 55.99PFO2HxA 9 0 9 0
4.155 0.779
PFMOAA 9 0 6 3 33.33% 5 5 19.3 424.4 20.6 1.067
22.22% 2 2 5.333 17.27Hfpo Dimer Acid 9 0 7 2
From File: CFR SW.xls
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File CFR SW.xls
Full Precision OFF
Cape Fear River Surface Water General Statistics
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/13/2019 4:42:28 PM
User Selected Options
2 2
PFECA-G 9 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2PFECA B 9 0 2 2
3.72 3.784
PES 9 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2.7 2.8 3.3 3.42 3.64R-EVE 9 0 2 2.42
2 2
Hydro-EVE Acid 9 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2EVE Acid 9 0 2 2
2 2
NVHOS 9 0 6.08 6.16 6.2 6.6 6.7 6.74 6.88 7.04 7.168
2 2 2 2 2Byproduct 6 9 0 2 2
8.38 8.796
Byproduct 5 9 0 2 2 2 3.1 6.6 7.8 11.48 15.24 18.25
5.4 6.5 7.5 7.54 7.86Byproduct 4 9 0 4.24 5.16
2 2
PFESA-BP2 9 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2PFESA-BP1 9 0 2 2
16.6 18.52
PEPA 9 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
10 10 12 12.4 14.2PMPA 9 0 10 10
2.18 2.276
PFO5DA 9 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2.06PFO4DA 9 0 2 2
20.2 24.04
PFO3OA 9 0 2 2 2 2 2 2.48 3.84 5.12 6.144
2.3 4.5 8.1 10.06 15.4PFO2HxA 9 0 2.2 2.26
13 14.6
PFMOAA 9 0 5 5 5 9.9 21 27 43 57 68.2
2.1 3.7 5.5 7.3 11Hfpo Dimer Acid 9 0 2 2.06
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean (detects) 6.286
Theta hat (MLE) 2.399 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 3.948
nu hat (MLE) 36.67 nu star (bias corrected) 22.29
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.62 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.592
K-S Test Statistic 0.215 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.314 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.369 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.713 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 14.68 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 20.22
95% KM (z) UCL 7.794 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 12.65
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 9.822 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 11.85
KM SD 4.155 95% KM (BCA) UCL 7.733
95% KM (t) UCL 8.115 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 7.767
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 5.333 KM Standard Error of Mean 1.496
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.282 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.835 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Mean of Logged Detects 1.635 SD of Logged Detects 0.672
Median Detects 4.3 CV Detects 0.731
Skewness Detects 1.417 Kurtosis Detects 1.278
Variance Detects 21.14 Percent Non-Detects 22.22%
Mean Detects 6.286 SD Detects 4.598
Minimum Detect 2.1 Minimum Non-Detect 2
Maximum Detect 15 Maximum Non-Detect 2
Number of Detects 7 Number of Non-Detects 2
Number of Distinct Detects 7 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 8
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Hfpo Dimer Acid
From File CFR SW.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
Cape Fear River Surface Water UCLs
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/13/2019 4:44:13 PM
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
SD in Original Scale 4.614 SD in Log Scale 0.926
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 7.971 95% H-Stat UCL 15.02
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 5.111 Mean in Log Scale 1.272
KM SD (logged) 0.674 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.575
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.243
KM SD (logged) 0.674 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.575
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.243 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 9.646
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 1.426 KM Geo Mean 4.162
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 8.036 95% Bootstrap t UCL 11.33
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 15.93
SD in Original Scale 4.622 SD in Log Scale 0.952
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 7.969 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 7.667
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 5.104 Mean in Log Scale 1.259
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.175 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.955 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 9.646 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 11.01
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (21.10, α) 11.67 Adjusted Chi Square Value (21.10, β) 10.22
80% gamma percentile (KM) 8.464 90% gamma percentile (KM) 11.81
95% gamma percentile (KM) 15.11 99% gamma percentile (KM) 22.7
nu hat (KM) 29.65 nu star (KM) 21.1
theta hat (KM) 3.238 theta star (KM) 4.549
Variance (KM) 17.27 SE of Mean (KM) 1.496
k hat (KM) 1.647 k star (KM) 1.172
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 5.333 SD (KM) 4.155
Approximate Chi Square Value (7.07, α) 2.207 Adjusted Chi Square Value (7.07, β) 1.68
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 15.66 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 20.57
nu hat (MLE) 8.601 nu star (bias corrected) 7.067
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0231
k hat (MLE) 0.478 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.393
Theta hat (MLE) 10.24 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 12.46
Maximum 15 Median 3.7
SD 4.849 CV 0.991
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 4.891
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 26.45
Theta hat (MLE) 14.63 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 26.06
nu hat (MLE) 21.69 nu star (bias corrected) 12.18
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.808 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.015
K-S Test Statistic 0.251 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.336 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.413 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.706 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 66.28 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 94.15
95% KM (z) UCL 31.67 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 60.81
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 41.87 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 52.09
KM SD 20.6 95% KM (BCA) UCL 31.31
95% KM (t) UCL 33.29 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 31.42
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 19.3 KM Standard Error of Mean 7.523
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.256 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.798 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Mean of Logged Detects 2.974 SD of Logged Detects 0.822
Median Detects 16.5 CV Detects 0.91
Skewness Detects 1.634 Kurtosis Detects 2.415
Variance Detects 580 Percent Non-Detects 33.33%
Mean Detects 26.45 SD Detects 24.08
Minimum Detect 8.8 Minimum Non-Detect 5
Maximum Detect 71 Maximum Non-Detect 5
Number of Detects 6 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 6 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PFMOAA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 7
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 8.115
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
SD in Original Scale 22.49 SD in Log Scale 1.217
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 32.41 95% H-Stat UCL 103.3
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 18.47 Mean in Log Scale 2.288
KM SD (logged) 0.888 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.996
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.324
KM SD (logged) 0.888 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.996
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.324 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 47.21
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 2.519 KM Geo Mean 12.42
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 36.57 95% Bootstrap t UCL 53.56
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 139.8
SD in Original Scale 22.55 SD in Log Scale 1.313
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 32.38 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 30.91
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 18.41 Mean in Log Scale 2.234
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.224 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.91 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 44.57 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 53.97
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (11.86, α) 5.138 Adjusted Chi Square Value (11.86, β) 4.243
80% gamma percentile (KM) 31.78 90% gamma percentile (KM) 49.13
95% gamma percentile (KM) 67.13 99% gamma percentile (KM) 110.3
nu hat (KM) 15.8 nu star (KM) 11.86
theta hat (KM) 21.99 theta star (KM) 29.28
Variance (KM) 424.4 SE of Mean (KM) 7.523
k hat (KM) 0.878 k star (KM) 0.659
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 19.3 SD (KM) 20.6
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.77, α) 1.049 Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.77, β) 0.732
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 80.24 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 115
nu hat (MLE) 5.162 nu star (bias corrected) 4.774
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0231
k hat (MLE) 0.287 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.265
Theta hat (MLE) 61.5 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 66.49
Maximum 71 Median 9.9
SD 23.18 CV 1.314
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 17.64
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50) 13.56 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 15.55
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0231 Adjusted Chi Square Value 9.454
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7.356 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 6.98
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 10.84
Theta hat (MLE) 4.731 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6.624
nu hat (MLE) 27.98 nu star (bias corrected) 19.99
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.555 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.11
K-S Test Statistic 0.245 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.284 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.554 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.734 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 12.27
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 11.99 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 13.23
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.295 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.736 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
SD 7.482 Std. Error of Mean 2.494
Coefficient of Variation 1.017 Skewness 1.993
Minimum 2.2 Mean 7.356
Maximum 25 Median 4.5
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 8
Number of Missing Observations 0
PFO2HxA
General Statistics
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 33.29
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
Mean of Logged Detects 1.238 SD of Logged Detects 0.585
Median Detects 3.2 CV Detects 0.588
Skewness Detects 1.206 Kurtosis Detects N/A
Variance Detects 5.173 Percent Non-Detects 66.67%
Mean Detects 3.867 SD Detects 2.274
Minimum Detect 2 Minimum Non-Detect 2
Maximum Detect 6.4 Maximum Non-Detect 2
Number of Detects 3 Number of Non-Detects 6
Number of Distinct Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PFO3OA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 3
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 15.55
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 14.84 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 18.23
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 22.93 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 32.17
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 28.95 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 11.54
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 13.07
95% CLT UCL 11.46 95% Jackknife UCL 11.99
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 11.24 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 20.66
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 15.94 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 19.8
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 27.38
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 17.65 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 13.16
Maximum of Logged Data 3.219 SD of logged Data 0.847
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 0.788 Mean of logged Data 1.641
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.191 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.902 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.988 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 3.869 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 4.214
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (44.22, α) 29.97 Adjusted Chi Square Value (44.22, β) 27.52
80% gamma percentile (KM) 3.831 90% gamma percentile (KM) 4.863
95% gamma percentile (KM) 5.837 99% gamma percentile (KM) 7.97
nu hat (KM) 64.33 nu star (KM) 44.22
theta hat (KM) 0.734 theta star (KM) 1.067
Variance (KM) 1.924 SE of Mean (KM) 0.566
k hat (KM) 3.574 k star (KM) 2.457
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 2.622 SD (KM) 1.387
Approximate Chi Square Value (4.27, α) 0.83 Adjusted Chi Square Value (4.27, β) 0.563
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 6.662 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 4.4 nu star (bias corrected) 4.266
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0231
k hat (MLE) 0.244 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.237
Theta hat (MLE) 5.3 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 5.466
Maximum 6.4 Median 0.01
SD 2.239 CV 1.728
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 1.296
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 3.867
Theta hat (MLE) 0.857 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 27.08 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 4.513 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 6.159 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 8.257
95% KM (z) UCL 3.554 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 4.321 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 5.091
KM SD 1.387 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 3.675 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 2.622 KM Standard Error of Mean 0.566
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.282 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.936 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
PFO5DA
General Statistics
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO4DA was not processed!
Number of Detects 1 Number of Non-Detects 8
Number of Distinct Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PFO4DA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 2
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 3.675
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 1.83 SD in Log Scale 0.684
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 3.09 95% H-Stat UCL 3.575
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 1.956 Mean in Log Scale 0.413
KM SD (logged) 0.377 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.104
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.154
KM SD (logged) 0.377 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.104
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.154 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 3.407
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 0.875 KM Geo Mean 2.398
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 3.093 95% Bootstrap t UCL 4.858
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 17.51
SD in Original Scale 2.089 SD in Log Scale 1.451
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 2.847 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.762
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 1.552 Mean in Log Scale -0.403
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.217 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
Mean (detects) 14.67
Theta hat (MLE) 0.606 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 145.1 nu star (bias corrected) N/A
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 24.19 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 18.78 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 23.06
95% KM (z) UCL 13.46 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 15.02 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 16.6
KM SD 2.833 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A
95% KM (t) UCL 13.71 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 11.56 KM Standard Error of Mean 1.156
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.337 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.855 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Skewness Detects 1.597 Kurtosis Detects N/A
Mean of Logged Detects 2.665 SD of Logged Detects 0.245
Mean Detects 14.67 SD Detects 3.786
Median Detects 13 CV Detects 0.258
Maximum Detect 19 Maximum Non-Detect 10
Variance Detects 14.33 Percent Non-Detects 66.67%
Number of Distinct Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
Minimum Detect 12 Minimum Non-Detect 10
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Detects 3 Number of Non-Detects 6
PMPA
General Statistics
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable PFO5DA was not processed!
Suggested UCL to Use
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 5.191 SD in Log Scale 0.542
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 11.44 95% H-Stat UCL 12.79
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 8.222 Mean in Log Scale 1.961
KM SD (logged) 0.206 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.914
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.0842
KM SD (logged) 0.206 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.914
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.0842 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 13.25
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 2.423 KM Geo Mean 11.28
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 12.03 95% Bootstrap t UCL 12.94
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 14.51
SD in Original Scale 5.148 SD in Log Scale 0.589
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 11.8 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 11.38
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 8.612 Mean in Log Scale 2
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.325 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.425 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.876 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.767 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 13.73 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 14.25
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (201.01, α) 169.2 Adjusted Chi Square Value (201.01, β) 163
80% gamma percentile (KM) 14.32 90% gamma percentile (KM) 16.15
95% gamma percentile (KM) 17.77 99% gamma percentile (KM) 21.08
nu hat (KM) 299.5 nu star (KM) 201
theta hat (KM) 0.694 theta star (KM) 1.035
Variance (KM) 8.025 SE of Mean (KM) 1.156
k hat (KM) 16.64 k star (KM) 11.17
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 11.56 SD (KM) 2.833
Approximate Chi Square Value (5.89, α) 1.584 Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.89, β) 1.161
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 23.78 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) N/A
nu hat (MLE) 6.835 nu star (bias corrected) 5.89
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0231
k hat (MLE) 0.38 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.327
Theta hat (MLE) 16.84 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 19.54
Maximum 19 Median 4.456
SD 6.846 CV 1.071
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 6.395
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Minimum Detect 4.8 Minimum Non-Detect 2
Maximum Detect 8.9 Maximum Non-Detect 2
Number of Detects 8 Number of Non-Detects 1
Number of Distinct Detects 8 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 9
The data set for variable PFESA-BP2 was not processed!
Byproduct 4
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFESA-BP1 was not processed!
PFESA-BP2
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PEPA was not processed!
PFESA-BP1
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PEPA
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
95% KM (t) UCL 13.71
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 6.122 SD (KM) 1.891
Approximate Chi Square Value (186.88, α) 156.3 Adjusted Chi Square Value (186.88, β) 150.3
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 7.532 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 7.828
nu hat (MLE) 278.3 nu star (bias corrected) 186.9
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0231
k hat (MLE) 15.46 k star (bias corrected MLE) 10.38
Theta hat (MLE) 0.407 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.607
Maximum 8.9 Median 6.5
SD 1.635 CV 0.26
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 3.58 Mean 6.298
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 6.638
Theta hat (MLE) 0.247 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.393
nu hat (MLE) 430.2 nu star (bias corrected) 270.2
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 26.89 k star (bias corrected MLE) 16.89
K-S Test Statistic 0.186 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.294 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.234 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.716 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 10.33 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 12.83
95% KM (z) UCL 7.231 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 7.181
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 8.144 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 9.06
KM SD 1.891 95% KM (BCA) UCL 7.078
95% KM (t) UCL 7.376 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 7.156
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 6.122 KM Standard Error of Mean 0.674
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.172 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.963 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Mean of Logged Detects 1.874 SD of Logged Detects 0.208
Median Detects 6.7 CV Detects 0.206
Skewness Detects 0.265 Kurtosis Detects -0.673
Variance Detects 1.868 Percent Non-Detects 11.11%
Mean Detects 6.638 SD Detects 1.367
Minimum Detect 2.5 Minimum Non-Detect 2
Number of Detects 6 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 5 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
Byproduct 5
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 7.376
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 2.273 SD in Log Scale 0.654
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 7.42 95% H-Stat UCL 11.79
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 6.011 Mean in Log Scale 1.666
KM SD (logged) 0.414 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.149
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.147
KM SD (logged) 0.414 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.149
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.147 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 8.523
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 1.743 KM Geo Mean 5.713
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 7.189 95% Bootstrap t UCL 7.306
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 7.619
SD in Original Scale 1.573 SD in Log Scale 0.259
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 7.307 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 7.143
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 6.332 Mean in Log Scale 1.817
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.168 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.965 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 7.625 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 7.995
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (127.07, α) 102 Adjusted Chi Square Value (127.07, β) 97.3
80% gamma percentile (KM) 7.93 90% gamma percentile (KM) 9.198
95% gamma percentile (KM) 10.34 99% gamma percentile (KM) 12.71
nu hat (KM) 188.6 nu star (KM) 127.1
theta hat (KM) 0.584 theta star (KM) 0.867
Variance (KM) 3.577 SE of Mean (KM) 0.674
k hat (KM) 10.48 k star (KM) 7.059
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Approximate Chi Square Value (5.43, α) 1.355 Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.43, β) 0.975
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 19.56 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 27.18
nu hat (MLE) 6.141 nu star (bias corrected) 5.428
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0231
k hat (MLE) 0.341 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.302
Theta hat (MLE) 14.31 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 16.19
Maximum 19 Median 3.1
SD 6.202 CV 1.271
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean 4.881
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 7.317
Theta hat (MLE) 3.756 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6.742
nu hat (MLE) 23.38 nu star (bias corrected) 13.02
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.948 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.085
K-S Test Statistic 0.287 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.336 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.432 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.705 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 17.74 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 24.98
95% KM (z) UCL 8.757 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 15.44
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 11.4 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 14.06
KM SD 5.349 95% KM (BCA) UCL 8.811
95% KM (t) UCL 9.177 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 8.811
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 5.544 KM Standard Error of Mean 1.953
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.247 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.808 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Mean of Logged Detects 1.712 SD of Logged Detects 0.795
Median Detects 4.85 CV Detects 0.867
Skewness Detects 1.583 Kurtosis Detects 2.341
Variance Detects 40.2 Percent Non-Detects 33.33%
Mean Detects 7.317 SD Detects 6.34
Maximum Detect 19 Maximum Non-Detect 2
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
Byproduct 6
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 9.177
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 5.924 SD in Log Scale 1.062
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 8.883 95% H-Stat UCL 19.56
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 5.211 Mean in Log Scale 1.141
KM SD (logged) 0.763 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.738
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.279
KM SD (logged) 0.763 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.738
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.279 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 11.04
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 1.372 KM Geo Mean 3.945
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 9.284 95% Bootstrap t UCL 13.81
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 33.67
SD in Original Scale 6.004 SD in Log Scale 1.262
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 8.838 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 8.551
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 5.116 Mean in Log Scale 1.002
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.267 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.902 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 11.73 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 13.9
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (14.23, α) 6.726 Adjusted Chi Square Value (14.23, β) 5.675
80% gamma percentile (KM) 9.067 90% gamma percentile (KM) 13.52
95% gamma percentile (KM) 18.06 99% gamma percentile (KM) 28.8
nu hat (KM) 19.34 nu star (KM) 14.23
theta hat (KM) 5.161 theta star (KM) 7.016
Variance (KM) 28.61 SE of Mean (KM) 1.953
k hat (KM) 1.074 k star (KM) 0.79
Mean (KM) 5.544 SD (KM) 5.349
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.935 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 6.779 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 6.833
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0231 Adjusted Chi Square Value 3874
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 6.533 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.435
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 3905
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0194 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.029
nu hat (MLE) 6076 nu star (bias corrected) 4052
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 337.6 k star (bias corrected MLE) 225.1
5% K-S Critical Value 0.279 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
5% A-D Critical Value 0.72 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.248 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.398 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
95% Student's-t UCL 6.767 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 6.747
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 6.768
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.237 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.935 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Coefficient of Variation 0.0578 Skewness 0.151
Maximum 7.2 Median 6.6
SD 0.377 Std. Error of Mean 0.126
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 6 Mean 6.533
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 7
The data set for variable Byproduct 6 was not processed!
NVHOS
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable EVE Acid was not processed!
Hydro-EVE Acid
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
EVE Acid
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 6.767
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 6.911 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 7.082
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 7.319 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 7.785
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 6.766 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 6.722
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 6.733
95% CLT UCL 6.74 95% Jackknife UCL 6.767
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 6.726 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 6.753
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7.082 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7.319
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7.785
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL N/A 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6.911
Maximum of Logged Data 1.974 SD of logged Data 0.0577
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 1.792 Mean of logged Data 1.875
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.247 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 1.943 Mean 2.881
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
Mean (detects) 3.114
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0544 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0949
nu hat (MLE) 801.6 nu star (bias corrected) 459.4
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 57.26 k star (bias corrected MLE) 32.81
K-S Test Statistic 0.259 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.311 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.509 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.708 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 4.199 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 4.989
95% KM (z) UCL 3.218 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 3.233
90% KM Chebyshev UCL 3.507 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 3.797
KM SD 0.593 95% KM (BCA) UCL 3.167
95% KM (t) UCL 3.263 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 3.189
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs
KM Mean 2.867 KM Standard Error of Mean 0.213
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.254 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.861 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Mean of Logged Detects 1.127 SD of Logged Detects 0.142
Median Detects 2.9 CV Detects 0.145
Skewness Detects 0.656 Kurtosis Detects -1.519
Variance Detects 0.205 Percent Non-Detects 22.22%
Mean Detects 3.114 SD Detects 0.453
Minimum Detect 2.7 Minimum Non-Detect 2
Maximum Detect 3.8 Maximum Non-Detect 2
Number of Detects 7 Number of Non-Detects 2
Number of Distinct Detects 6 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 7
The data set for variable Hydro-EVE Acid was not processed!
R-EVE
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (t) UCL 3.263
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level
SD in Original Scale 1.011 SD in Log Scale 0.512
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 3.271 95% H-Stat UCL 4.114
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 2.644 Mean in Log Scale 0.877
KM SD (logged) 0.214 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.922
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.0772
KM SD (logged) 0.214 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 1.922
KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.0772 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 3.318
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean (logged) 1.031 KM Geo Mean 2.803
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 3.216 95% Bootstrap t UCL 3.33
95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 3.33
SD in Original Scale 0.572 SD in Log Scale 0.199
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 3.26 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 3.208
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale 2.905 Mean in Log Scale 1.049
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.242 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.866 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 3.311 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 3.416
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
Approximate Chi Square Value (282.19, α) 244.3 Adjusted Chi Square Value (282.19, β) 236.8
80% gamma percentile (KM) 3.452 90% gamma percentile (KM) 3.825
95% gamma percentile (KM) 4.152 99% gamma percentile (KM) 4.814
nu hat (KM) 421.3 nu star (KM) 282.2
theta hat (KM) 0.122 theta star (KM) 0.183
Variance (KM) 0.351 SE of Mean (KM) 0.213
k hat (KM) 23.41 k star (KM) 15.68
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 2.867 SD (KM) 0.593
Approximate Chi Square Value (293.52, α) 254.8 Adjusted Chi Square Value (293.52, β) 247.2
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 3.319 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 3.421
nu hat (MLE) 438.3 nu star (bias corrected) 293.5
Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0231
k hat (MLE) 24.35 k star (bias corrected MLE) 16.31
Theta hat (MLE) 0.118 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.177
Maximum 3.8 Median 2.8
SD 0.609 CV 0.211
The data set for variable PFECA-G was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PFECA B was not processed!
PFECA-G
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
The data set for variable PES was not processed!
PFECA B
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
Number of Detects 0 Number of Non-Detects 9
Number of Distinct Detects 0 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 1
PES
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 1
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 4 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PMPA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO4DA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.26 0.26 N/A N/A 0Hfpo Dimer Acid 1 0 0.26 0.26
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A PFECA B 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PES 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A R-EVE 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A EVE Acid 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
NVHOS 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A Byproduct 4 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PEPA 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A PMPA 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A PFO4DA 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A PFO2HxA 6 0 0 6
0.00373 0.0148
PFMOAA 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
83.33% 0.25 0.25 0.252 1.3889E-5Hfpo Dimer Acid 6 0 1 5
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic.xls
Sediment General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/13/2019 12:41:09 PM
User Selected Options
1 1
PFECA-G 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1PFECA B 6 0 1 1
1 1
PES 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1R-EVE 6 0 1 1
1 1
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1EVE Acid 6 0 1 1
1 1
NVHOS 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1Byproduct 6 6 0 1 1
1 1
Byproduct 5 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1Byproduct 4 6 0 1 1
1 1
PFESA-BP2 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1PFESA-BP1 6 0 1 1
1 1
PEPA 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1PMPA 6 0 1 1
1 1
PFO5DA 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1PFO4DA 6 0 1 1
1 1
PFO3OA 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1PFO2HxA 6 0 1 1
0.258 0.26
PFMOAA 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.255Hfpo Dimer Acid 6 0 0.25 0.25
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.346
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2.25 2.25 0.605 0.778 0.815R-EVE 2 0 1.7 2.8
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 1 0 34 34 34 34 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
1.565 0.479
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2.133 1.7 1.043 1.021 0.445Byproduct 4 3 0 1.4 3.3
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.0673
PEPA 1 0 12 12 12 12 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
63 63 18 4.243 4.448PMPA 2 0 60 66
N/A 0.367
PFO5DA 2 0 1.4 1.5 1.45 1.45 0.005 0.0707 0.0741 N/A 0.0488
1.35 1.35 0.245 0.495 0.519PFO4DA 2 0 1 1.7
N/A 0.19
PFO3OA 1 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
33.5 33.5 40.5 6.364 6.672PFO2HxA 2 0 29 38
1.036 1.001
PFMOAA 2 0 130 370 250 250 28800 169.7 177.9 N/A 0.679
11.08 8.1 123 11.09 8.08Hfpo Dimer Acid 4 0 2.1 26
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A PFECA B 6 0 0 6
0.669 0.472
PES 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
66.67% 1 1 1.417 0.448R-EVE 6 0 2 4
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A EVE Acid 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
NVHOS 6 0 1 5 83.33% 1 2.4 6.5 151.3 12.3 1.892
100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 6 0 0 6
0.818 0.522
Byproduct 5 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
50.00% 1 1 1.567 0.669Byproduct 4 6 0 3 3
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1 2.4 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 6 0 0 6
29.28 1.351
PEPA 6 0 1 5 83.33% 1 2.4 2.833 16.81 4.099 1.447
66.67% 1 1 21.67 857.2PMPA 6 0 2 4
0.28 0.246
PFO5DA 6 0 2 4 66.67% 1 2.4 1.18 0.0496 0.223 0.189
66.67% 1 2.4 1.14 0.0784PFO4DA 6 0 2 4
15.54 1.313
PFO3OA 6 0 1 5 83.33% 1 2.4 1.025 0.00188 0.0433 0.0422
66.67% 1 1 11.83 241.5PFO2HxA 6 0 2 4
9.096 1.164
PFMOAA 6 0 2 4 66.67% 1 1 84 18578 136.3 1.623
33.33% 1.3 1.3 7.817 82.74Hfpo Dimer Acid 6 0 4 2
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic_a.xls
Aquatic Vegetation General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/13/2019 12:44:15 PM
User Selected Options
2.125 2.345
PFECA-G 6 0 1 1 1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85 2.125 2.345
1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85PFECA B 6 0 1 1
2.525 2.745
PES 6 0 1 1 1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85 2.125 2.345
1 1 1.525 1.7 2.25R-EVE 6 0 1 1
2.125 2.345
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 1 1 1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85 2.125 2.345
1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85EVE Acid 6 0 1 1
2.125 2.345
NVHOS 6 0 1 1 1 1 2.05 2.4 18.2 26.1 32.42
1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85Byproduct 6 6 0 1 1
2.9 3.22
Byproduct 5 6 0 1 1 1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85 2.125 2.345
1 1.2 1.625 1.7 2.5Byproduct 4 6 0 1 1
2.125 2.345
PFESA-BP2 6 0 1 1 1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85 2.125 2.345
1 1 1.225 1.3 1.85PFESA-BP1 6 0 1 1
64.5 65.7
PEPA 6 0 1 1 1 1 2.05 2.4 7.2 9.6 11.52
1 1 45.25 60 63PMPA 6 0 1 1
2.225 2.365
PFO5DA 6 0 1 1 1.075 1.35 1.475 1.5 1.95 2.175 2.355
1 1.15 1.6 1.7 2.05PFO4DA 6 0 1 1
35.75 37.55
PFO3OA 6 0 1 1 1 1.05 1.25 1.3 1.85 2.125 2.345
1 1 22 29 33.5PFO2HxA 6 0 1 1
22.75 25.35
PFMOAA 6 0 1 1 1 1 97.75 130 250 310 358
1.5 2.65 10.55 13 19.5Hfpo Dimer Acid 6 0 1.3 1.3
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 4 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.221
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
320 320 5000 70.71 74.13PMPA 2 0 270 370
N/A 1.148
PFO5DA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1435 1435 2714450 1648 1727PFO4DA 2 0 270 2600
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A PFECA B 4 0 0 4
N/A N/A
PES 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A R-EVE 4 0 0 4
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A EVE Acid 4 0 0 4
N/A N/A
NVHOS 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 4 0 0 4
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A Byproduct 4 4 0 0 4
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 4 0 0 4
50 0.156
PEPA 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
50.00% 1000 1000 320 2500PMPA 4 0 2 2
1009 1.183
PFO5DA 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
50.00% 1000 1000 852.5 1017919PFO4DA 4 0 2 2
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A PFO2HxA 4 0 0 4
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 4 0 0 4
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic_b.xls
Largemouth Bass Fillet General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/13/2019 12:45:45 PM
User Selected Options
1085 1097
PFECA-G 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070PFECA B 4 0 1000 1000
1085 1097
PES 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070R-EVE 4 0 1000 1000
1085 1097
Hydro-EVE Acid 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070EVE Acid 4 0 1000 1000
1085 1097
NVHOS 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070Byproduct 6 4 0 1000 1000
1085 1097
Byproduct 5 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070Byproduct 4 4 0 1000 1000
1085 1097
PFESA-BP2 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070PFESA-BP1 4 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PEPA 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
345 685 1000 1000 1000PMPA 4 0 300 330
2360 2552
PFO5DA 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
817.5 1000 1400 1640 2120PFO4DA 4 0 489 708
1085 1097
PFO3OA 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070PFO2HxA 4 0 1000 1000
1085 1097
PFMOAA 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070Hfpo Dimer Acid 4 0 1000 1000
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
From File Fish_ProUCL Input_ReRun.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.112/2/2019 1:22:19 PM
User Selected Options
From File: Fish_ProUCL Input_ReRun.xls
Largemouth Bass Whole Body General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 2 0 1 1 50.00% 1000 1000 3050 4202500 2050 0.672
100.00% 1000 1300 N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFO2HxA 2 0 0 2
282.8 0.166
PFO5DA 2 0 1 1 50.00% 1000 1000 1050 2500 50 0.0476
0.00% N/A N/A 1700 80000PFO4DA 2 0 2 0
N/A N/A
PEPA 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PMPA 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 2 0 0 2
2700 0.73
Byproduct 5 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
50.00% 1000 1000 3700 7290000Byproduct 4 2 0 1 1
N/A N/A
NVHOS 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A EVE Acid 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
PES 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A R-EVE 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFECA B 2 0 0 2
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 1 0 5100 5100 5100 5100 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.166
PFO5DA 1 0 1100 1100 1100 1100 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
1700 1700 80000 282.8 296.5PFO4DA 2 0 1500 1900
N/A N/A
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PMPA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6400 6400 N/A N/A 0Byproduct 4 1 0 6400 6400
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
1285 1297
PFMOAA 2 0 1410 1820 2025 3050 4075 4280 4690 4895 5059
1075 1150 1225 1240 1270Hfpo Dimer Acid 2 0 1030 1060
1000 1000
PFO3OA 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFO2HxA 2 0 1000 1000
1880 1896
PFO5DA 2 0 1010 1020 1025 1050 1075 1080 1090 1095 1099
1600 1700 1800 1820 1860PFO4DA 2 0 1540 1580
1000 1000
PEPA 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PMPA 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFESA-BP2 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFESA-BP1 2 0 1000 1000
6130 6346
Byproduct 5 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
2350 3700 5050 5320 5860Byproduct 4 2 0 1540 2080
1000 1000
NVHOS 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Byproduct 6 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
Hydro-EVE Acid 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000EVE Acid 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PES 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000R-EVE 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFECA-G 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFECA B 2 0 1000 1000
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4200 4200 N/A N/A 0R-EVE 1 0 4200 4200
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 4 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PMPA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.191
PFO5DA 2 0 1700 3100 2400 2400 980000 989.9 1038 N/A 0.412
5550 5550 1125000 1061 1112PFO4DA 2 0 4800 6300
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 1 0 3200 3200 3200 3200 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFECA B 2 0 0 2
1600 0.615
PES 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
50.00% 1000 1000 2600 2560000R-EVE 2 0 1 1
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A EVE Acid 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
NVHOS 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A Byproduct 4 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
PEPA 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PMPA 2 0 0 2
1061 0.191
PFO5DA 2 0 2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 2400 980000 989.9 0.412
0.00% N/A N/A 5550 1125000PFO4DA 2 0 2 0
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 2 0 0 2 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFO2HxA 2 0 0 2
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 2 0 1 1 50.00% 1000 1000 2100 1210000 1100 0.524
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 2 0 0 2
From File: Fish_ProUCL Input_ReRun_a.xls
Dusky and Comely Shiner General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File Fish_ProUCL Input_ReRun_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.112/2/2019 1:23:18 PM
User Selected Options
1000 1000
PFECA-G 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFECA B 2 0 1000 1000
4040 4168
PES 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1800 2600 3400 3560 3880R-EVE 2 0 1320 1640
1000 1000
Hydro-EVE Acid 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000EVE Acid 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
NVHOS 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Byproduct 6 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
Byproduct 5 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Byproduct 4 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFESA-BP2 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFESA-BP1 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PEPA 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PMPA 2 0 1000 1000
6225 6285
PFO5DA 2 0 1840 1980 2050 2400 2750 2820 2960 3030 3086
5175 5550 5925 6000 6150PFO4DA 2 0 4950 5100
1000 1000
PFO3OA 2 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFO2HxA 2 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFMOAA 2 0 1220 1440 1550 2100 2650 2760 2980 3090 3178
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Hfpo Dimer Acid 2 0 1000 1000
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic_d.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/13/2019 12:52:05 PM
User Selected Options
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic_d.xls
Sunfish Whole Body General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 4 0 4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 4125 589167 767.6 0.186
100.00% 2200 10000 N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 4 0 0 4
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A PFO2HxA 4 0 0 4
20707 1.124
PFO5DA 4 0 4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 882.5 307425 554.5 0.628
0.00% N/A N/A 18420 4.288E+8PFO4DA 4 0 4 0
710.4 1.06
PEPA 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
25.00% 1000 1000 670 504600PMPA 4 0 3 1
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 4 0 0 4
145.2 0.276
Byproduct 5 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
25.00% 1000 1000 526.7 21089Byproduct 4 4 0 3 1
N/A N/A
NVHOS 4 0 1 3 75.00% 1000 1000 710 0 0 N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 4 0 0 4
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A EVE Acid 4 0 0 4
914.1 0.804
PES 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
25.00% 1000 1000 1136 835523R-EVE 4 0 3 1
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 4 0 0 4 100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1100 N/A N/A PFECA B 4 0 0 4
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 4 0 3000 4700 4125 4400 589167 767.6 296.5 -1.733 0.186
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 0 0 N/A N/A
0.197 1.124
PFO5DA 4 0 470 1700 882.5 680 307425 554.5 177.9 1.793 0.628
18420 16050 4.288E+8 20707 22550PFO4DA 4 0 580 41000
1.729 1.174
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
806.7 280 896933 947.1 59.3PMPA 3 0 240 1900
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
1.579 0.338
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
526.7 450 31633 177.9 74.13Byproduct 4 3 0 400 730
N/A N/A
NVHOS 1 0 710 710 710 710 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
1.589 0.928
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1310 780 1476300 1215 489.3R-EVE 3 0 450 2700
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
9280 9856
PFMOAA 4 0 3390 3780 3975 4400 4550 4580 4640 4670 4694
3775 4750 6400 7120 8560Hfpo Dimer Acid 4 0 2830 3460
1085 1097
PFO3OA 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070PFO2HxA 4 0 1000 1000
39500 40700
PFO5DA 4 0 524 578 605 680 957.5 1106 1403 1552 1670
970 16050 33500 35000 38000PFO4DA 4 0 736 892
1765 1873
PEPA 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
270 640 1225 1360 1630PMPA 4 0 252 264
1085 1097
PFESA-BP2 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070PFESA-BP1 4 0 1000 1000
959.5 991.9
Byproduct 5 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
437.5 590 797.5 838 919Byproduct 4 4 0 415 430
1085 1097
NVHOS 4 0 797 884 927.5 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070Byproduct 6 4 0 1000 1000
1085 1097
Hydro-EVE Acid 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070EVE Acid 4 0 1000 1000
2445 2649
PES 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
697.5 890 1425 1680 2190R-EVE 4 0 549 648
1085 1097
PFECA-G 4 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1025 1040 1070 1085 1097
1000 1000 1025 1040 1070PFECA B 4 0 1000 1000
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 4 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A 0.0257
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
275 275 50 7.071 7.413PMPA 2 0 270 280
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO4DA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A PFECA B 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PES 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A R-EVE 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A EVE Acid 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
NVHOS 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A Byproduct 4 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 6 0 0 6
5 0.0182
PEPA 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
66.67% 1000 1000 275 25PMPA 6 0 2 4
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A PFO4DA 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A PFO2HxA 6 0 0 6
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 6 0 0 6 100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1200 N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 6 0 0 6
From File: ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic_c.xls
Catfish Fillet General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File ProUCL_Inputdata_Aquatic_c.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/13/2019 12:46:34 PM
User Selected Options
1150 1190
PFECA-G 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100PFECA B 6 0 1000 1000
1150 1190
PES 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100R-EVE 6 0 1000 1000
1150 1190
Hydro-EVE Acid 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100EVE Acid 6 0 1000 1000
1150 1190
NVHOS 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100Byproduct 6 6 0 1000 1000
1150 1190
Byproduct 5 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100Byproduct 4 6 0 1000 1000
1150 1190
PFESA-BP2 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100PFESA-BP1 6 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PEPA 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
460 1000 1000 1000 1000PMPA 6 0 275 280
1150 1190
PFO5DA 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100PFO4DA 6 0 1000 1000
1150 1190
PFO3OA 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100PFO2HxA 6 0 1000 1000
1150 1190
PFMOAA 6 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1100 1150 1190
1000 1000 1000 1000 1100Hfpo Dimer Acid 6 0 1000 1000
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
Percentiles using all Detects (Ds) and Non-Detects (NDs)
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFECA B 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PES 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R-EVE 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EVE Acid 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
NVHOS 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 6 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Byproduct 4 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PEPA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PMPA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO4DA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PFO2HxA 0 0 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 0 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1000 1000 N/A N/A 0Hfpo Dimer Acid 1 0 1000 1000
General Statistics for Raw Data Sets using Detected Data Only
Variable NumObs # Missing Minimum Maximum Mean Median Var SD MAD/0.675 Skewness CV
N/A N/A
PFECA-G 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFECA B 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
PES 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A R-EVE 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
Hydro-EVE Acid 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A EVE Acid 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
NVHOS 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A Byproduct 6 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
Byproduct 5 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A Byproduct 4 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
PFESA-BP2 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFESA-BP1 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
PEPA 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PMPA 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
PFO5DA 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFO4DA 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
PFO3OA 1 0 0 1 100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
100.00% 1000 1000 N/A N/A PFO2HxA 1 0 0 1
N/A N/A
PFMOAA 0 1 0 0 NaN% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.00% N/A N/A N/A N/A Hfpo Dimer Acid 1 0 1 0
From File: Fish_ProUCL Input_ReRun_b.xls
American Eel General Statistics
General Statistics for Censored Data Set (with NDs) using Kaplan Meier Method
Variable NumObs # Missing Num Ds NumNDs % NDs Min ND Max ND KM Mean KM Var KM SD KM CV
From File Fish_ProUCL Input_ReRun_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
General Statistics on Uncensored Data
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.112/2/2019 1:23:54 PM
User Selected Options
1000 1000
PFECA-G 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFECA B 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PES 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000R-EVE 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
Hydro-EVE Acid 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000EVE Acid 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
NVHOS 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Byproduct 6 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
Byproduct 5 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Byproduct 4 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFESA-BP2 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFESA-BP1 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PEPA 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PMPA 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFO5DA 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFO4DA 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFO3OA 1 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000PFO2HxA 1 0 1000 1000
1000 1000
PFMOAA 0 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Hfpo Dimer Acid 1 0 1000 1000
Variable NumObs # Missing 10%ile 20%ile 25%ile(Q1)50%ile(Q2)75%ile(Q3)80%ile 90%ile 95%ile 99%ile
TR0795 December 2019
APPENDIX E
Laboratory Report and Data Validation
Summaries
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 SLEA Samp update rev.doc 1 of 3
ADQM DATA REVIEW NARRATIVE
Site Chemours FAY – Fayetteville Project 2019 SLEA Sampling (updated) Project Reviewer Michael Aucoin, AECOM as a Chemours contractor Sampling Dates July 24, 25, 30, and 31, 2019 August 1, 2, 13 - 16, 19 – 23, and 27, 2019 September 10 -13, and 23 – 27, 2019 October 21, 2019 Analytical Protocol
Laboratory Analytical Method Parameter(s)
TestAmerica - Sacramento 537 Modified PFAS1
TestAmerica - Sacramento Cl. Spec. Table 3 Compound SOP Table 3+ compounds
TestAmerica – Sacramento/Denver/Seattle 9060A Total Organic Carbon
TestAmerica - Sacramento D2216-90 Percent Moisture

1 Perfluoroalkylsubstances, a list of 33 or 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:
o August 1, 3, 6, 16, 21, 23, 24, and 28, 2019.
o September 13, 17, 25, 27, and 30, 2019
o 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:
• Non-detect results for Byproduct 4, Byproduct 5, PFECA-G, PFMOAA, PFO4DA, and R-EVE in one or more soil or tissue samples were qualified R and are considered to be unusable due to very poor matrix spike (MS) relative percent recoveries (RPR).
• The result for PFBS in one tissue sample has been qualified B, and may be biased high, or may be a false positive, because an associated lab method blank contained a comparable concentration.
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY 2019 SLEA Samp update rev.doc 2 of 3
• Several analytical results have been qualified J as estimated, and non-detect results qualified UJ indicating an estimated reporting limit, due to poor or very poor recovery of surrogate, laboratory blank spike, or matrix spike compounds; sample preparation and/or analysis which exceeded the laboratory hold times; and poor field duplicate or lab replicate precision. See the Data
Verification Module (DVM) Narrative Report for which samples were qualified, the specific reasons for qualification, and potential bias in 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 SLEA Samp update rev.doc 3 of 3
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 ReportAssociated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non-detect result isunusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCFR-05-1 LMB-Carcass 08/01/2019 320-52951-22 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR-05-1 LMB-Carcass 08/01/2019 320-52951-22 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-10 R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-10 R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-10 Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-10 Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-10 Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-10 Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-12-SOIL-4-4.5-082219 08/22/2019 320-53607-11 R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-12-SOIL-4-4.5-082219 08/22/2019 320-53607-11 R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-12-SOIL-4-4.5-082219 08/22/2019 320-53607-11 Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-12-SOIL-4-4.5-082219 08/22/2019 320-53607-11 Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-12-SOIL-4-4.5-082219 08/22/2019 320-53607-11 Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-12-SOIL-4-4.5-082219 08/22/2019 320-53607-11 Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-12-VEG-082019 08/20/2019 320-53490-13 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-12-VEG-082019 08/20/2019 320-53490-13 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 1 of 210
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non-detect result isunusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU-3-veg07/31/2019 320-52871-2PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-3-veg07/31/2019 320-52871-2PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-4-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-3R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-4-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-3R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-4-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-3Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-4-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-3Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-4-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-3Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-4-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-3Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-4-VEG-081919 08/19/2019 320-53490-2PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-4-VEG-081919 08/19/2019 320-53490-2PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-5-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-8R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-5-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-8R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-5-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-8Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-5-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-8Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-5-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-8Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-5-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-8Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-5-VEG-082319 08/23/2019 320-53637-2PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 2 of 210
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non-detect result isunusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPEU-5-VEG-082319 08/23/2019 320-53637-2PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-6-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-9R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-6-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-9R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-7-Soil-4-4.5-081419 08/14/2019 320-53349-4R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-7-Soil-4-4.5-081419 08/14/2019 320-53349-4R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-7-Soil-4-4.5-081419 08/14/2019 320-53349-4Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-7-Soil-4-4.5-081419 08/14/2019 320-53349-4Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-7-Soil-4-4.5-081419 08/14/2019 320-53349-4Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-7-Soil-4-4.5-081419 08/14/2019 320-53349-4Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-7-VEG-081919 08/19/2019 320-53490-5PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-7-VEG-081919 08/19/2019 320-53490-5PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-1R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-1R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-1Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-1Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-1Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 3 of 210
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non-detect result isunusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319 08/13/2019 320-53349-1Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319-D 08/13/2019 320-53349-2R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319-D 08/13/2019 320-53349-2R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319-D 08/13/2019 320-53349-2Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319-D 08/13/2019 320-53349-2Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319-D 08/13/2019 320-53349-2Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319-D 08/13/2019 320-53349-2Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU6-veg07/25/2019 320-52868-11 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU6-veg07/25/2019 320-52868-11 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-9PFO4DA1.3 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.3PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-9PFO4DA1.3 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.3PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-9PFMOAA1.3 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.3PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-9PFMOAA1.3 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.3PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-9PFECA-G1.3 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.3PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-9PFECA-G1.3 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.3PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419-D 09/24/2019 320-54699-10 PFO4DA1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419-D 09/24/2019 320-54699-10 PFO4DA1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLPage 4 of 210
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non-detect result isunusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPINTAKE-WORM-092419-D 09/24/2019 320-54699-10 PFMOAA1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419-D 09/24/2019 320-54699-10 PFMOAA1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419-D 09/24/2019 320-54699-10 PFECA-G1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419-D 09/24/2019 320-54699-10 PFECA-G1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLSEEP-A-WORMSOIL-09131909/13/2019 320-54394-1R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-A-WORMSOIL-09131909/13/2019 320-54394-1R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-B-WORMS-092519 09/25/2019 320-54770-13 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLSEEP-B-WORMS-092519 09/25/2019 320-54770-13 PFECA-G1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLSEEP-C-WORM-092619 09/26/2019 320-54770-12 PFMOAA1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLSEEP-C-WORM-092619 09/26/2019 320-54770-12 PFMOAA1.2 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.2PQLSEEP-D-WORM-092619 09/26/2019 320-54770-11 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.1PQLSEEP-D-WORM-092619 09/26/2019 320-54770-11 PFMOAA1.1 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.1PQLSEEP-D-WORMSOIL-09261909/26/2019 320-54770-3R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-D-WORMSOIL-09261909/26/2019 320-54770-3R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-D-WORMSOIL-09261909/26/2019 320-54770-3Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-D-WORMSOIL-09261909/26/2019 320-54770-3Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 5 of 210
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non-detect result isunusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-D-WORMSOIL-09261909/26/2019 320-54770-3Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-D-WORMSOIL-09261909/26/2019 320-54770-3Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-01-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-18 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-01-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-18 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-02-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-19 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-02-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-19 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-03-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-20 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-03-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-20 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLWC-SOIL-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-6R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLWC-SOIL-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-6R-EVE1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED6-VEG-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-6PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED6-VEG-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-6PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLWC-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-11 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLWC-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-11 PFMOAA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLWC-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-11 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLWC-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-11 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPRShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 6 of 210
Contamination detected in Method Blank(s). Sample result does not differ significantly from the analyte concentration detected in the associated methodblank(s).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU2-veg07/25/2019 320-52868-7PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid1.5 UG/KG537 ModifiedBShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 7 of 210
Only 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 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU-7-Soil-4-4.5-081419 08/14/2019 320-53349-4N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLEU-7-Soil-4-4.5-081419 08/14/2019 320-53349-4N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLEU-5-INV-082319 08/23/2019 320-53637-3Perfluorobutanoic Acid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-04-Redbreast 09/27/2019 320-54836-14 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-01-Bluegill 09/26/2019 320-54836-6PFOA1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-01-Bluegill 09/26/2019 320-54836-6PerfluoroheptanoicAcid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-01-Channelcatfish09/27/2019 320-54836-15 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-01-Channelcatfish09/27/2019 320-54836-15 Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-02-Redbreast 09/27/2019 320-54836-12 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-02-Redbreast 09/27/2019 320-54836-12 Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-03-Redbreast 09/27/2019 320-54836-13 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-03-Redbreast 09/27/2019 320-54836-13 Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR Bladen-04-Redbreast 09/27/2019 320-54836-14 Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-D-WORM-092619 09/26/2019 320-54770-11 N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide4.8 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D4.8PQLSLEA-SED3-VEG-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-3Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-INV-01-02-03COMP10/21/2019 320-55583-21 PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-INV-01-02-03COMP10/21/2019 320-55583-21 N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED3-VEG-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-3Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED3-VEG-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-3N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED1-VEG-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-1N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED1-VEG-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-1N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED3-VEG-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-3PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 8 of 210
Only 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 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSLEA-SED4-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-10 N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLSLEA-SED4-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-10 N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-03-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-20 N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-03-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-20 PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-03-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-20 N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-02-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-19 N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-02-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-19 PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-02-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-19 N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-CFR-ACINV-01-2019102110/21/2019 320-55583-18 PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-C-WORMSOIL-09261909/26/2019 320-54770-6N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLSEEP-C-WORM-092619 09/26/2019 320-54770-12 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSEEP-B-WORMS-092519 09/25/2019 320-54770-13 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSeep B-02-RedbreastSunfish09/26/2019 320-54836-8Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.1 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.1PQLSeep B-02-RedbreastSunfish09/26/2019 320-54836-8Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)1.7 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLINTAKE-WORM-092419 09/24/2019 320-54699-9Perfluorooctadecanoicacid1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 9 of 210
Surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319-D 08/13/2019 320-53349-22-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLEU-8-Soil-4-4.5-081319-D 08/13/2019 320-53349-22-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLEU-5-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-82-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLEU-5-SOIL-4-4.5-081519 08/15/2019 320-53349-82-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.20 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D0.20PQLPage 10 of 210
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above 10%. The actual detectionlimits may be higher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFECA B1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFECA B1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PEPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PEPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFESA-BP11.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFESA-BP11.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFO2HxA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFO2HxA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFO3OA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFO3OA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFO4DA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFO4DA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFESA-BP21.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFESA-BP21.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 11 of 210
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above 10%. The actual detectionlimits may be higher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PMPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3PMPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-9-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-3Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PMPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PMPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 Hfpo Dimer Acid1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 Hfpo Dimer Acid1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFECA B1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFECA B1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PEPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PEPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFESA-BP11.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFESA-BP11.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFO2HxA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 12 of 210
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above 10%. The actual detectionlimits may be higher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFO2HxA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFO3OA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFO3OA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFO4DA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFO4DA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFESA-BP21.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFESA-BP21.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 Byproduct 41.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-11-inv07/31/2019 320-52871-17 Byproduct 51.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6Byproduct 41.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6Byproduct 41.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6Byproduct 51.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLPage 13 of 210
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above 10%. The actual detectionlimits may be higher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6Byproduct 51.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLCFR-05-1-LMB08/01/2019 320-52951-13 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate4.2 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D4.2PQLCFR-05-1 LMB-Carcass 08/01/2019 320-52951-22 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.5 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.5PQLCFR-05-2 FH08/01/2019 320-52951-14 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR-05-3 BC08/01/2019 320-52951-15 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLCFR-05-4 CC08/01/2019 320-52951-16 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate7.3 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D7.3PQLCFR-05-4 CC-Carcass 08/01/2019 320-52951-23 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.5 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.5PQLCFR-06-2 BC-Carcass 07/31/2019 320-52951-20 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate3.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D3.0PQLCFR-09-2 BC-Carcass 07/31/2019 320-52951-21 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6Hfpo Dimer Acid1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6Hfpo Dimer Acid1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFECA B1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFECA B1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PEPA1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PEPA1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFESA-BP11.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFESA-BP11.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFO2HxA1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFO2HxA1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLPage 14 of 210
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above 10%. The actual detectionlimits may be higher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFO3OA1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFO3OA1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFO4DA1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFO4DA1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFESA-BP21.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFESA-BP21.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFECA-G1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLEU-10-INV-082119 08/21/2019 320-53607-6PFECA-G1.7 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.7PQLSLEA-SED6-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-12 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED6-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-12 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-EQBLK-091119 09/11/2019 320-54392-3PFO5DA0.0020 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSLEA-EQBLK-091119 09/11/2019 320-54392-3PFO5DA0.0020 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSLEA-SED2-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-8PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED2-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-8PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED3-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-9PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED3-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-9PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED3-20191021-DUP10/21/2019 320-55583-13 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPage 15 of 210
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above 10%. The actual detectionlimits may be higher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPSLEA-SED3-20191021-DUP10/21/2019 320-55583-13 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED1-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-7PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED1-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-7PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-EQBLK-091319 09/13/2019 320-54392-4PFO5DA0.0020 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSLEA-EQBLK-091319 09/13/2019 320-54392-4PFO5DA0.0020 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSLEA-SED4-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-10 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED4-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-10 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED5-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-11 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSLEA-SED5-20191021 10/21/2019 320-55583-11 PFECA-G1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLSeep B-01-Spotted bass 09/24/2019 320-54836-210:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLMM-68-1 FH08/01/2019 320-52951-10 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.1 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.1PQLMM-68-2 CC08/01/2019 320-52951-11 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLMM-68-3 BC08/01/2019 320-52951-12 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLMM-68-4 LMB08/02/2019 320-52951-17 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate5.9 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D5.9PQLMM-68-4 LMB-Carcass 08/02/2019 320-52951-24 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate6.1 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D6.1PQLMM-68-5 LMB08/01/2019 320-52951-18 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate1.0 UG/KG537 ModifiedUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLPond-1-NE-072419 07/24/2019 280-126823-2 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0020 ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPond-1-SE-072419-2 07/24/2019 280-126823-1 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0020 ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPage 16 of 210
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above 10%. The actual detectionlimits may be higher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:2019 SLEA SAMPLINGAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsPond-1-NW-072419 07/24/2019 280-126823-3 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0020 ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPond-1-SE-072419 07/24/2019 280-126823-4 Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0020 ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLEU6-inv07/25/2019 320-52868-12 PMPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU6-inv07/25/2019 320-52868-12 PMPA1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU6-inv07/25/2019 320-52868-12 Hfpo Dimer Acid1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU6-inv07/25/2019 320-52868-12 Hfpo Dimer Acid1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU6-inv07/25/2019 320-52868-12 PFECA B1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJShake_Bath_14D1.0PQLEU6-inv07/25/2019 320-52868-12 PFECA B1.0 UG/KGCl. Spec. Tab