Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
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 Modif