CHARACTERIZATION OF PFAS IN
PROCESS AND NON-PROCESSWASTEWATER AND STORMWATER
Quarterly Report #1
Prepared for
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
22828 NC-87
Fayetteville, NC 28306

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

July 31, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Activities Completed in Quarter 2 2019 ...................................................... 1
1.3 Report Organization .................................................................................... 22.

METHODS ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Sample Locations ........................................................................................ 3
2.2 Field Methods .............................................................................................. 3
2.2.1 General Field Methods .................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Decontamination Methods .............................................................. 4
2.2.3 Grab Sampling Methods ................................................................. 4
2.2.4 Temporal Composite Sampling Methods ....................................... 5
2.2.5 Sample Shipping, Chain of Custody, and Holding Times .............. 5
2.2.6 Field QA/QC Samples .................................................................... 5
2.2.7 Documentation ................................................................................ 6
2.3

Laboratory Methods .................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Analytical Methods ......................................................................... 6
2.3.2 Laboratory and Field QA/QC.......................................................... 6

3.

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS .................................................................... 7
3.1 Data Quality ................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Data Management and Reporting.................................................... 8
3.1.2 QA/QC Samples .............................................................................. 8
3.2
3.3
3.4

Results – April 2019 Event .......................................................................... 8
Reporting Limits .......................................................................................... 9
Observations – April 2019 Event ................................................................ 94.

SAMPLING PROGRAM STATUS ................................................................... 12
4.1 Activities Planned for Next Quarter .......................................................... 12
4.2 Supplemental Sampling Activities in Progress ......................................... 125.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 14
5.1 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 14

6.

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 16

TR0795ii

31-July-19

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

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Paragraph 11(b) Sample Locations
Figure 3A: HFPO-DA and PFMOAA Concentrations – Locations that Reach
Outfall 002 – April 2019 Event
Figure 3B: HFPO-DA and PFMOAA Concentrations – Locations for Offsite Disposal –April 2019 Event
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Parameters
Appendix B: June 18, 2019 Letter re. Laboratory Analyses for MTP, MMF, DFSA, andPPF Acid, and Supporting Technical Summaries from TestAmerica and Lancaster
Appendix C: Laboratory Reports and Data Review Narrative Whitebook

TR0795iii

31-July-19

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
COC – Chain of Custody
DEQ – The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
DFSA – Difluoro-sulfo-acetic acid
DO – Dissolved oxygen
DQO – data quality objectives
DVM – Data Verification Module
EIM – Environmental Information Management
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
HDPE – High Density Polyethylene
HFPO-DA – Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
mg/L – Milligrams per liter
mL – Milliliter
MMF – Difluoromalonic acid
MS – Matrix spike
MSD – Matrix spike duplicates
MTP – Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acidmV – Millivolts
ng/L – Nanograms per liter
NTU – Nephelometric turbidity units
ORP – Oxidation/Reduction Potential
PFAS – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFMOAA – 2,2-difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acidPFO5DA – Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic) acid
PPF Acid – Pentafluoropentionic acid
QA/QC – Quality assurance/ quality control
RPD – Relative percent difference
SC – Specific conductance
SOP –Standard Operating Procedure
TestAmerica – TestAmerica Sacramento
WWTP – Wastewater treatment plantoC – Degrees Celsiusµmho - micromhos

TR0795iv

31-July-19

“I certify that I am personally familiar with the information contained in this submittal,
including any and all supporting documents accompanying this report, and that thematerial and information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,true, accurate and complete.”

July 31, 2019

Adrienne Nemura, North Carolina Licensed Professional Engineer 038141
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC is licensed to practice engineering in North Carolina.
The certification number (Firm’s License Number) is C-3500.

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC is licensed to practice geology in North Carolina. The
certification number (Firm’s License Number) is C-295.

TR0795v

31-July-19

1.

INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared by Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C. (Geosyntec) for The
Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours) to provide a quarterly update on theidentification and concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) inprocess wastewater, non-process wastewater, and stormwater at the Chemours
Fayetteville Works, North Carolina site (the Facility, Figure 1). This report is preparedpursuant to Paragraph 11(c) in the executed Consent Order entered February 25, 2019
between Chemours and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)with the Cape Fear River Watch as intervenor.
The objective of this report and subsequent quarterly reports, as stated in the PFAS
Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019), is to characterize the concentrationsof PFAS in the raw water intake, process wastewater, non-process wastewater, andstormwater, including water that is discharged through Outfall 002.
1.1

Background

Chemours submitted an Updated PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan (the Plan) to
DEQ on May 6, 2019 (Geosyntec, 2019) based on comments received on the draft plansubmitted on December 30, 2018. On June 19, 2019, DEQ provided written approval of
the Plan to Chemours.
1.2

Activities Completed in Quarter 2 2019

This is the first quarterly report for this program. The activity period for this quarterly
report includes April, May and June 2019. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed
sample locations for wastewater samples to be collected at the Facility. In this reporting
period, process wastewater and non-process wastewater samples were collected for the
first bimonthly PFAS characterization sampling event on April 24, 2019 (the April 2019
event). These samples were collected as outlined in the PFAS Characterization Sampling
Plan (Geosyntec, 2019) and to address requirements specified in Paragraph 11(b) in theexecuted Consent Order.
In this reporting period, process wastewater and non-process wastewater samples werealso collected for the second bimonthly PFAS characterization sampling event on June27, 2019 (the June 2019 event). While there was a suitable storm event on June 5, 2019,
the project team elected to collect a set of 24 stormwater grab samples for total anddissolved PFAS concentrations to support a Consent Order Paragraph 12 deliverable
TR0795

1

31-July-19

assessing stormwater contributions to PFAS concentrations at Outfall 002. After the June
5, 2019 rainfall event, there were no suitable subsequent storm events in June to meet thestormwater sampling criteria, so stormwater locations with no water were not sampled.
Data for both the June 5, 2019 grab sampling event and the June 27, 2019 bimonthly
sampling event are both pending. The June 5, 2019 data will be reported in the Paragraph
12 submission and the June 27, 2019 bimonthly sampling data will be reported in the next
quarterly report.
Four supplementary sampling activities, based on initial observations from the April
sampling event, were also conducted in 2019 Quarter 2. Data from these activities are
pending and will be reported in the next quarterly report. These activities are describedin Section 4.2
1.3

Report Organization

The remainder of this document is organized as follows:·

Section 2 – Methods: this section describes the methods employed for sample
collection and analysis;·

Section 3 – Results and Observations: this section describes the PFAS
concentrations in investigative samples and quality control samples;·

Section 4 – Sampling Program Status: this section describes planned sampling
activities and supplemental sampling activities that support PFAS
characterization at the facility;·

Section 5 – Summary and Recommendations: this section summarizes
activities conducted, observations of results, recommended supplemental
sampling activities, and any recommended changes to the sampling plan.

·

Section 6 – References: this section lists the documents referenced in the report.

TR0795

2

31-July-19

2.

METHODSThis section describes the methods implemented for data reporting in this 2019 Quarter2 report. Activities conducted in Quarter 2, where data is not yet available for reporting,will be described in future reports alongside data for these activities.
2.1

Sample Locations

Proposed sample locations outlined in the PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan
(Geosyntec, 2019) to meet the requirements of Paragraph 11(b) of the executed Consent
Order are described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2. Twenty-three (23) investigative
samples were collected in the April 2019 event, and are described in Table 2. Somelocations identified in the PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan (Locations 2, 3, 4, 5, 11,
12 and 13; Geosyntec, 2019) were not sampled this quarter. These locations were dry
during the sampling event; there was no precipitation in the 72 hours leading up to sample
collection. As specified in the PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019),
sample collection will be conducted bimonthly, and if there are no suitable storm events,
locations with water will still be sampled.
2.2

Field Methods

2.2.1

General Field Methods

All equipment was inspected by the field program supervisor and calibrated daily prior
to use in the field according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Field parameters
were measured with a water quality meter prior to sample collection and then recorded.
Field parameters include the following:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

pH;
Temperature (degrees Celsius; °C);
Specific conductance [SC] (micromhos, μmho);
Dissolved oxygen [DO] (milligrams per liter; mg/L);
Oxidation/Reduction Potential [ORP] (millivolts; mV);
Turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units, NTU);
Color; andOdor.

Samples were collected in 250 milliliter (mL) high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles
with a wide-mouth screw-cap. Sample bottles were filled and caps were securely fastened
TR0795

3

31-July-19

after sample collection. Each sample was labelled with a unique sample identification
number, date, time and location of sampling, and the initials of the individual collecting
the sample. A field notebook was used to record information regarding additional items
such as quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC), sample identifications, color, odor,
turbidity, and other field parameters.
2.2.2

Decontamination Methods

Sample containers were new and used only once for each sample. Disposable equipment(e.g., gloves, tubing, etc.) was not reused, therefore; these items did not requiredecontamination.
All non-dedicated or non-disposable sampling equipment (i.e., the autosampler reservoir
and dip rod) was decontaminated immediately before sample collection in the following
manner:···De-ionized water rinse;
Scrub with de-ionized water containing non-phosphate detergent (i.e.,
Alconox®); andDe-ionized water rinse.

If there was a delay between decontamination and sample collection, decontaminatedsampling equipment was covered with PFAS-free plastic until it was ready for use.
2.2.3

Grab Sampling Methods

Grab samples were collected during the April 2019 event from locations where temporalvariability over the course of one day was not expected. These locations include nonprocess wastewater and process wastewater samples and are identified in Table 2 andshown on Figure 2. Location 7B was also collected as a grab sample during the April
2019 event due to limited autosampler availability. All grab samples were collected bydirectly filling the HDPE bottle with sample. Prior to grab sample collection, fieldparameters were measured using a flow through cell for all grab sample locations except
Chemours Process Water samples at Locations 16, 17A, and 17B. These locations were
not accessible by the sampling team and samples were collected by facility staff who were
not equipped with field instruments.

TR0795

431-July-19

2.2.4

Temporal Composite Sampling Methods

Temporal composite samples were collected during the April 2019 event from locations
where variability was expected to potentially be significant within a short time frame(e.g., one day). These locations, identified in Table 2 and shown on Figure 2, include
those within the Facility drainage ditches and the intake and outfall locations, since theselocations can have highly variable dissolved and suspended constituent loads over shorttime periods. Temporal composite samples were collected using a dedicated Teledyne
6712C autosampler equipped with a rain gauge, HDPE tubing, silicon tubing, and an
HDPE sample reservoir. Field parameters were measured twice for temporal composite
samples: once during composite sampling (collected directly from the water stream), andonce after composite sampling (collected from the autosampler reservoir). At eachlocation, autosamplers integrated water over a four-hour sample collection period.
2.2.5

Sample Shipping, Chain of Custody, and Holding Times

Upon sample collection, each labelled, containerized sample was placed into a heavy
plastic bag inside an insulated sample cooler with ice. Prior to shipment of the samples
to the laboratory, a chain of custody (COC) form was completed by the field sample
custodian. Sample locations, sample identification numbers, description of samples,
number of samples collected, and specific laboratory analyses to be performed on thesamples were recorded on the COC form. The COC was signed by the field personnel
relinquishing the samples to the courier and was signed by the laboratory upon receipt of
the cooler.
2.2.6

Field QA/QC Samples

The following field QA/QC samples were collected and analyzed along with the April
2019 investigative samples:····

TR0795

Two blind field duplicates;
Three equipment blanks for the dip rod, peristaltic pump, and autosampler;
One field blank; andOne trip blank.

531-July-19

2.2.7

Documentation

The project field team kept a daily record of field activities during the execution of fieldwork including sampling notes and observations, instrument calibration records,
measured field parameters, sample COC, and shipping records.
2.3

Laboratory Methods

2.3.1

Analytical Methods

Samples were analyzed for PFAS by the following methods:··

Table 3+ Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure (SOP); andEPA Method 537 Mod (Laboratory SOP).

PFAS reported under each of these methods are listed in Table 3.
2.3.2

Laboratory and Field QA/QC

Field sampling and laboratory analyses were performed in accordance with the PFAS
Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019). Samples were collected by the fieldteam and shipped to TestAmerica Sacramento (TestAmerica) under COC. Laboratory
analyses were performed within the guidelines specified by the laboratory SOPs. The
collection frequency of field duplicates, matrix spike / matrix spike duplicates(MS/MSD), trip blanks, and equipment blanks was in accordance with the PFAS
Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019).

TR0795

631-July-19

3.

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

3.1

Data Quality

All data were reviewed using the Data Verification Module (DVM) within the LocusTM
Environmental Information Management (EIM) system, which is a commercial software
program used to manage data. Following the DVM process, a manual review of the data
was conducted. The DVM and the manual review results were combined in a data review
narrative report for each set of sample results which were consistent with Stage 2b of the
EPA Guidance for Labelling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for
Superfund Use (EPA-540-R-08-005 2009). The narrative report summarizes whichsamples were qualified (if any), the specific reasons for the qualification, and any
potential bias in reported results. The data usability, in view of the project’s data quality
objectives (DQOs), was assessed and the data were entered into the EIM system.
The data were evaluated by the DVM against the following data usability checks:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Hold time criteria;
Field and laboratory blank contamination;
Completeness of QA/QC samples;
MS/MSD recoveries and the relative percent differences (RPDs) between these
spikes;Laboratory control sample/control sample duplicate recoveries and the RPD
between these spikes;
Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses; andRPD between field duplicate sample pairs.

The manual review includes instrument-related QC results for calibration standards,
blanks, and recoveries. The data review process (DVM plus manual review) applied thefollowing data evaluation qualifiers to analysis results, as warranted:···

J – Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise;
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise; andB – Analyte detected in a blank sample. Reported value may have high bias.

The data review process described above was performed for all laboratory chemical
analysis data generated for the sampling events. The DQOs were met for the analytical

TR0795

7

31-July-19

results for accuracy and precision. The data collected are believed to be complete,
representative, and comparable.
3.1.1

Data Management and Reporting

Chemours’s Analytical Data Quality Management team currently uses the EIM system
for management of analytical data, xyz Site coordinate data, and field parameter data.
Validation and qualification of data are performed by AECOM who maintains the EIM
system for the Chemours Fayetteville Site. A whitebook consisting of the data review
narrative and the laboratory analytical report produced by AECOM summarizes thefindings of the DVM and manual review process.
3.1.2

QA/QC Samples

PFAS concentrations for all field QA/QC samples in the April 2019 event are reported inTable 4. The following observations were noted for the QA/QC samples:·

The RPD for all field duplicate pairs was less than 30% for all PFAS, or less than
50% for PFAS detected within a factor of five of the associated reporting limits.
No qualification was required.

·

No PFAS were detected above the associated reporting limits in the equipment
blanks with the exception of 2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
in each of the equipment blanks collected in the April 2019 event (780 to 850
nanograms per liter [ng/L], J qualified). This compound was detected in one
associated sample collected at Location 7B (900 ng/L J). This result was Jqualified instead of being B-qualified due to low bias in the associated MS. Allother associated investigative samples were non-detected at the associatedreporting limits for this compound, so no further qualification was required.

·

No PFAS were detected above the associated reporting limits in the April 2019
Trip Blank.

3.2

Results – April 2019 EventPFAS concentrations for all sample locations in the April 2019 event are reported in Table
4. Figure 3A presents Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) and 2,2difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acid (PFMOAA) concentrations for locations in the
April 2019 event that reach Outfall 002. Figure 3B presents HFPO-DA and PFMOAA
TR0795

831-July-19

concentrations for locations in the April 2019 event where all water is shipped offsite for
disposal. Table 5 provides the total daily precipitation, for Quarter 2, in the area of the
Facility. Reporting limits listed in Table 4, Figure 3A, and Figure 3B are analyticalreporting limits set by the laboratories.
Field parameter data are provided in Appendix A. Appendix B includes a letter from
Chemours to DEQ dated June 18, 2019 along with supporting technical summaries from
TestAmerica and Lancaster. The letter describes why Difluoro-sulfo-acetic acid [DFSA],
Difluoromalonic acid [MMF], Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid [MTP], andPentafluoropentionic acid [PPF Acid] were removed from the Table 3+ list of analytes.
While these four compounds are included in the TestAmerica analytical reports, they are
not included in the evaluation for this Quarterly Report since their data are not considered
accurate or reliable using the currently available analytical methods. The TestAmerica
analytical reports and the data review narrative whitebook are provided in Appendix C.
3.3

Reporting Limits

Several PFAS shown in Table 4 were not detected but with elevated reporting limits. The
laboratories are going to re-run these samples for reanalysis of Table 3+ compounds at
low-level analysis to achieve lower reporting limits. All re-issued results will be provided
in subsequent quarterly reports.
3.4

Observations – April 2019 Event

The following observations were made for PFAS concentrations in the April 2019 event:·Nine PFAS were detected in the sample collected at Location 1, the intake waterfrom the Cape Fear River, including HFPO-DA at 14 ng/L. These minimum
concentrations are observed in all other locations that derive water from the intake
water.

·The highest PFAS concentrations at the Facility were reported in samples
collected at Locations 16, 17A, and 17B (Figure 3B). These locations are processwastewater that is taken offsite for disposal. Process wastewater at these sample
locations does not reach Outfall 002.

·

Samples from non-process wastewater locations (6A, 6B, 24A, 24B, and 24C)
contained low levels of HFPO-DA (ranging from 13 to 41 ng/L) and non-detectvalues below the 210 ng/L reporting limit for PFMOAA. As noted above, theseTR0795

931-July-19

will be re-analyzed at lower detection limits. All HFPO-DA concentrations for
Chemours non-process wastewater samples were within 5 ng/L of the intake waterat Location 1 (Figure 3A).
·

The sample collected from Location 23A, the manhole on the Terra Cotta pipe
(Figure 3A), was reported to have concentrations of HFPO-DA at 270 ng/L and
PFMOAA at 1,300 ng/L. Supplemental sampling activity A listed in Section 4.2
was conducted to assess this observation in more detail.

·PFMOAA was not detected in the sample collected at Location 22, the influent to
the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), above the reporting limit of 210 ng/L,
while at Location 8, the effluent to the WWTP, PFMOAA was detected at 1,200
ng/L (J) (Figure 3A). Supplemental sampling activity A in Section 4.2 wasconducted to assess this observation in more detail.

·The highest non-process wastewater-related HFPO-DA concentration during theApril 2019 event was in the sample collected at Location 10 (320 ng/L), a
Chemours Monomers IXM Stormwater Discharge area. This section of thechannel receives stormwater from roof drainage and has sediment present in thedrainage ditch (Figure 3A). Supplemental sampling activities B and C listed in
Section 4.2 were conducted to assess this observation in more detail.

·The sample collected at Location 20 (Outfall 002) had detectable concentrationof HFPO-DA (61 ng/L) and was not detected above the reporting limit (210 ng/L)
for PFMOAA (Figure 3A). The Location 20 HFPO-DA concentration (61 ng/L)
was higher than the samples collected at the two streams of water that combined
to form the total flow at Location 20: Location 7B, Open Channel after the WWTP
(21 ng/L), and Location 15, Cooling Water Channel water before it joins the open
channel to Outfall 002 (34 ng/L). The drainage pathways from the DuPont areas
had no observed flow during this dry event. Supplemental sampling activity D in
Section 4.2 was conducted to assess this observation in more detail.

·

Other PFAS concentrations were typically non-detect or detected at similar values
to the intake water at Location 1 in samples collected at all locations in the April
2019 event, with the following general exceptions (Table 4):

TR0795

1031-July-19

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

TR0795

11

31-July-19

4.

SAMPLING PROGRAM STATUS

A description of ongoing supplemental sampling activities and recommendations for
updates to the sampling plan are provided below.
4.1

Activities Planned for Next Quarter

As described in the PFAS Characterization Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2019), PFAS
characterization samples will be collected from the Facility on a bimonthly basis. The
June 27, 2019 sampling event data are pending and will be reported in the next quarterly
report. The next sampling event will occur during the first suitable storm event in August
2019. If there are no suitable storm events in the month of August, sampling will proceedand samples will be collected from locations that contain water reaching Outfall 002. The
next quarterly report will be submitted in October 2019 and will provide results for any
Paragraph 11(b) samples described in Table 1 available at the time of reporting.
4.2

Supplemental Sampling Activities in Progress

Chemours has embarked on several sampling activities that will help support PFAS
characterization at the Facility. The activities were conducted based on a review of theApril 2019 event data. The purpose, scope, and data for these sampling activities will be
included as supplementary sampling summaries attached to future quarterly reports. The
supplemental sampling events conducted in 2019 Quarter 2 are described below:
A. WWTP sample event: 24-hour composite samples were collected at Locations
1, 8, 22, and 23A, as well as two locations upstream of 23A, one containing waterfrom Kuraray SentryGlas® to the north, and one containing water from theKuraray laboratory to the west. These samples will help inform PFAS detections
upstream and downstream of the WWTP.
B. Soil grain size sample event: Exposed soils throughout the Facility werecollected and analyzed for PFAS and grainsize analysis to evaluate the potential
contribution of soil erosion and transport to PFAS detections at Outfall 002.
C. Cooling water channel and open channel sediment sampling: Samples ofsediment from the cooling water channel and the open channel to the outfall were
sampled to evaluate the potential for desorption from these sediments tocontribute to observed PFAS concentrations.

TR0795

1231-July-19

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

TR0795

13

31-July-19

5.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Pursuant to Consent Order Paragraph 11(c), Chemours conducted bimonthly
characterization sampling activities in 2019 Quarter 2 and these results are presented inthis report.
Below is a list of planned and supplemental activities conducted that will be reported
pending receipt of data:·

June 2019, Paragraph 11(c) bimonthly sampling conducted in June 2019 – to bereported in 2019 Quarter 3 report;·

Supplemental WWTP connected locations sample event conducted in July 2019;·

Supplemental soil and soil grainsize sample event conducted in July 2019;·

Supplemental cooling water channel and open channel to Outfall 002 sediment
sample event conducted in July 2019; and·Supplemental Open Channel to Outfall 002 sample event conducted in May 2019.

The results presented from the April 2019 event indicate that the intake water has PFAS
and as this water is distributed widely throughout the facility, all water samples analyzed
at the Facility contained PFAS. The highest concentration of PFAS were in Chemours
process water samples which are containerized and disposed of offsite. Sample locations
with water potentially contributing to PFAS observed at Outfall 002 were identified andsupplemental sampling activities were recommended to further assess the relative
contributions of these sample locations to the mass of PFAS in Outfall 002.
5.1

Recommendations

Based on the observations from the April 2019 event, four supplemental sampling
activities were recommended to Chemours and conducted in 2019 Quarter 2. The resultsof these supplemental sampling activities will be reported upon receipt of the data.
Additionally, samples collected and analyzed from Locations 16, 17A, and 17B exhibited
elevated PFAS concentrations, as expected for Chemours process wastewaters that are
taken offsite for disposal. The process wastewater at these locations does not enter thesite drainage system, nor does it reach Outfall 002. Based on the present characterization

TR0795

14

31-July-19

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

TR0795

15

31-July-19

6.

REFERENCES

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

TR0795

16

31-July-19

TablesTABLE 3
PFAS AND ASSOCIATED ANALYTICAL METHODS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Analytical Method

Table 3+ Lab SOP

EPA Method 537
Mod

Common Name
HFPO-DA*PEPAPFECA-GPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DA
PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid
EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE
PFO5DA
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6
NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
PFBA
PFDA
PFDoA
PFHpA
PFNA
PFOA
PFHxA
PFPeA
PFTeA
PFTriA
PFUnA
PFBS
PFDS
PFHpS
PFHxS
PFNS
PFOS
PFPeS
10:2 FTS
4:2 FTS
6:2 FTS
8:2 FTS
NEtFOSAA
NEtPFOSANEtPFOSAE
NMeFOSAA
NMePFOSA
NMePFOSAE
PFDOS
PFHxDAPFODA
PFOSA

Chemical Name
Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
Perfluoroethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
Perfluoro-4-isopropoxybutanoic acid
Perfluoro-2-methoxyaceticacid
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid
Perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
Perfluoroethoxsypropanoic acid
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid
R-EVE
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6
Perfluoroethoxysulfonic acid
Perfluoroethoxyethanesulfonic acid
Byproduct 1
Byproduct 2
Perfluorobutanoic acid
Perfluorodecanoic acid
Perfluorododecanoic acid
Perfluoroheptanoic acid
Perfluorononanoic acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic acid
Perfluoropentanoic acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
Perfluoroundecanoic acid
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
10:2-fluorotelomersulfonic acid
4:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
8:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
NEtFOSAA
NEtPFOSANEtPFOSAE
NMeFOSAA
NMePFOSA
NMePFOSAE
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

CASN

Chemical Formula

13252-13-6
267239-61-2
801212-59-9
674-13-539492-88-1
39492-89-2
39492-90-5
13140-29-9773804-62-9
69087-46-3
151772-58-6
N/A
39492-91-6
N/A
N/A
N/A
1132933-86-8
113507-82-7
29311-67-9749836-20-2
375-22-4
335-76-2
307-55-1
375-85-9
375-95-1
335-67-1
307-24-4
2706-90-3
376-06-7
72629-94-8
2058-94-8
375-73-5
335-77-3
375-92-8
355-46-4
68259-12-1
1763-23-1
2706-91-4
120226-60-0
757124-72-4
27619-97-2
39108-34-4
2991-50-6
4151-50-2
1691-99-2
2355-31-931506-32-8
24448-09-7
79780-39-5
67905-19-5
16517-11-6
754-91-6

C6HF11O3
C5HF9O3
C12H9F9O3S
C3HF5O3C4HF7O4C5HF9O5C6HF11O6
C4HF7O3
C8H2F14O4
C8HF13O4
C5HF9O4
C8H2F12O5
C7HF13O7
C7H2F12O6S
C7H3F11O7S
C6H2F12O4S
C4H2F8O4S
C4HF9O4SC7HF13O5S
C7H2F14O5S
C4HF7O2C10HF19O2
C12HF23O2
C7HF13O2
C9HF17O2
C8HF15OC6HF11O2
C5HF9O2C14HF27O2
C13HF25O2
C11HF21O2
C4HF9SO
C10HF21O3SC7HF15O3SC6HF13SO3
C9HF19O3S
C8HF17SO3
C5HF11O3S
C12H5F21O3
C6H5F9O3S
C8H5F13SO3
C10H5F17O3S
C12H8F17NO4S
C10H6F17NO2S
C12H10F17NO3S
C11H6F17NO4S
C9H4F17NO2S
C11H8F17NO3SC12HF25O3S
C16HF31O2
C18HF35O2
C8H2F17NO2S

Notes:*Depending on the laboratory, HFPO-DA may also appear on the EPA Method 537 Mod analyte list
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
PFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure

July 2019

TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Location ID

1

6A

6B

7A

7B

DSTW-LOC6A-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC6B-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC7A-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC7B-042419
04/24/2019

--

--

--

--

--

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<210 UJ

<210

<210

<210 UJ

<210

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

Field Sample ID DSTW-LOC1-042419
Date Sampled
04/24/2019
QA/QC

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)PEPA
PFECA-GPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DA

<79

<79

<79

<79

<79

PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid

<570

<570

<570

<570

<570

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<60

<60

<60

<60

<60

PFO5DA

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

Byproduct 4

<160

<160

<160

<160

<160

Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6

<58

<58

<58

<58

<58

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<46

<46

<46

<46

<46

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE

NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid

14

13

41

14

21

Perfluorodecanoic Acid

7.1
<2.0

7.6
<2.0

7.1
<2.0

7
<2.0

5.2
<2.0

Perfluorododecanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid

7

7.4

7.4

7.4

7

<2.0
8.1

<2.0
8.6

<2.0
9.3

<2.0
8.8

<2.0
7.9

9.2

9.2

9.3

8.3

8.2

Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid

7
<2.0

7.4
<2.0

7.2
<2.0

6.5
<2.0

7.2
<2.0

Perfluorotridecanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

2.3
<2.0

2.4
<2.0

2.3
<2.0

2.3
<2.0

2.3
<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

3.3
<2.0

3.7
<2.0

3.6
<2.0

3.4
<2.0

3.5
<2.0

Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid

Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

12

14

14

14

14

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide<37<37 UJ<37 UJ<37<37 UJ

2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

<60

<60

<60

<60

900 J

<20
<35

<20
<35 UJ<20<35 UJ

<20
<35

<20
<35

<110

<110

<110

<110

<110

Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

Perfluorooctadecanoic acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

2

<2.0

Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acidN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor

Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.

Page 1 of 6

July 2019

TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Location ID

8

9

10

14

15

DSTW-LOC9-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC10-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC14-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC15-042419
04/24/2019

--

--

--

--

--

<47
<41

<47
<41

47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

1,200 J

<210 UJ<210 UJ<210 UJ<210 UJ

480
150

<81
<58

94
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

Field Sample ID DSTW-LOC8-042419
Date Sampled
04/24/2019
QA/QC

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)PEPA
PFECA-GPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DA

<79

<79

<79

<79

<79

PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid

<570

<570

570

<570

<570

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<60

<60

<60

<60

<60

PFO5DA

<70
51

<70
<34

70
<34

<70 UJ<34<70
34

Byproduct 4

<160

<160

<160

<160 UJ<160

Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6

690

<58

92

<58 UJ

<58

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<46

<46

<46

<46

<46

<27
240

<27
<30

84
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

120

29

320

12

34

Perfluorodecanoic Acid

5.7
<2.0

6.9
<2.0

10
<2.0

4.7
<2.0

6.5
<2.0

Perfluorododecanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid

3.7

7.5

8.4

3.1

7.5

<2.0
8.2

<2.0
8.9

<2.0
10

<2.0
5.8

<2.0
8.5

4.9

9

9.3

4.4

7.9

Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid

4.2
<2.0

8.6
<2.0

17
<2.0

3.8
<2.0

8.2
<2.0

Perfluorotridecanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

2.4
<2.0

2.2
<2.0

2.1
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

2.3
<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluorononanesulfonic acid

3.1
<2.0

3.3
<2.0

3.5
<2.0

3
<2.0

3.5
<2.0

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

<2.0

14

12

11

14

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide

<37

<37

<37

<37

<37

2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

<60

<60

<60

<60

<60

<20
<35

<20
<35

<20
<35

<20
<35

<20
<35

<110

<110

<110

<110

<110

Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

Perfluorooctadecanoic acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE

NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid

Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid

Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid

8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acidN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor

Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.

Page 2 of 6

July 2019

TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Location ID

16

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

17A

17B

18

19A

DSTW-LOC17A-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC17B-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC18-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC19A-042419
04/24/2019

--

--

--

--

--

<35,000<31,000

110,000<41,000

47,000<41,000

<47
<41

<47
<41

160,000<210,000

1,770,000

<210

<210

PFO3OA

133,000
44,000<81,000<58,000<81,000<58,000

<81
<58

<81
<58

PFO4DA<59,000<79,000<79,000

<79

<79

PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid

539,000<570,000<570,000

<570

<570

95,000787,000<28,000<24,000<28,000<24,000

<28
<24

<28
<24

Field Sample ID DSTW-LOC16-042419
Date Sampled
04/24/2019
QA/QC
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)PEPA
PFECA-GPFMOAAPFO2HxA

EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE

<45,000<60,000<60,000<60<60

PFO5DA

1,590,000<25,000<70,000<34,000<70,000<34,000

<70
<34

<70
<34

Byproduct 42,410,000<160,000<160,000

<160

<160

Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6

330,000<58,000<58,000<58<58

54,000259,000<15,000<54,000<15,000<54,000

<15
<54

<15
<54

NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1<34,000<46,000<46,000<46<46

1,445,000
248,000<27,000<30,000<27,000<30,000

<27
<30

<27
<30

2,100,000

860,000,000

550,000,000

59

30 J

30,000240<4,400,000<3,900,000<8,80028,000

5.3
<2.0

4.3 J
<2.0 UJ

Perfluorododecanoic Acid

<51

<6,900,000<14,000<2.0<2.0 UJ

Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid

13,000<3,100,000<6,3003<2.0 UJ

7,500
440<3,400,000<11,000,000<6,8001,800,000

<2.0
6.7

<2.0 UJ
2.6 J

PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid

Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid

1,700

<7,300,000<15,000

4.3<2.0 UJ

53,000<27<6,100,000<3,600,000<12,000<7,300

3.7
<2.0

2.6 J
<2.0 UJ

Perfluorotridecanoic Acid300

<16,000,000<33,000<2.0<2.0 UJ

Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid

1,900

<14,000,000<28,000<2.0<2.0 UJ<18<29<2,500,000<4,000,000<5,000<8,000<2.0<2.0<2.0 UJ<2.0 UJ<18<2,400,000<4,800<2.0<2.0 UJ

Perfluorononanesulfonic acid

<16
<15

4,100,000<2,000,000<4,300<4,0002.1<2.0<2.0 UJ<2.0 UJ

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid<50

<6,800,000<14,000

7.3<2.0 UJ

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate<28<3,800,000<7,500<2.0<2.0 UJ

170<480<2,400,000<65,000,000<4,800<130,000

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<370

<25,000,000<50,000<20<20 UJ

N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

<370
<180

<25,000,000<24,000,000<50,000<48,000

<20
<20

<20
<20

N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide<28,000<37,000<37,000<37 UJ<37 UJ

2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

<45,000<60,000<60,000

<60

<60

<290
<26,000<39,000,000<35,000<78,000<35,000<20<35 UJ<20<35 UJ<82,000<110,000<110,000

<110

<110

Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)

<41
<82

<5,600,000<11,000,000<11,000<22,000<2.0<2.0<2.0 UJ<2.0 UJ

Perfluorooctadecanoic acid<42

<5,800,000<12,000<2.0<2.0 UJ

Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA

<32

<4,400,000<8,800<2.0<2.0 UJNaDONA<18<18<2,400,000<2,400,000<4,800<4,800<2.1<2.1<2.1 UJ<2.1 UJ

F-53B Major
F-53B Minor

900<3,000,000<6,000<2.0<2.0 UJ<29<4,000,000<8,000<2.0<2.0 UJ

Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid

Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid

8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acidN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)

Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.

Page 3 of 6

July 2019

TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Location ID

19B

20

20

21A

22

DSTW-LOC20-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC20-042419-D
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC21A-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-LOC22-042419
04/24/2019----

Blind Field Duplicate

--

--

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<210

<210 UJ<210 UJ

<210

<210

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

Field Sample ID DSTW-LOC19B-042419
Date Sampled
04/24/2019
QA/QC

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)PEPA
PFECA-GPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DA

<79

<79

<79

<79

<79

PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid

<570

<570

<570

<570

<570

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<60

<60

<60

<60

<60

PFO5DA

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70 UJ<34<70 UJ<34

Byproduct 4

<160

<160

<160

<160

<160

Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6

<58

<58

<58

<58 UJ<58 UJ

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<46

<46

<46

<46

<46

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE

NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid

22

61

63

33

170

Perfluorodecanoic Acid

4.4
<2.0

6.5
<2.0

5.9
<2.0

5
<2.0

<3.5 UJ<3.1

Perfluorododecanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<5.5

Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid

2.2

7.1

7

3

7.1

<2.0
4.9

<2.0
8.7

<2.0
8.5

<2.0
5.6

<2.7
<8.5

3.4

7.8

7.7

4.4

<5.8

Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid

3.6
<2.0

6.7
<2.0

7.6
<2.0

4.8
<2.0

20
2.9

Perfluorotridecanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<13

Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<11

<2.0
<2.0

2.2
<2.0

2.2
<2.0

2
<2.0

<2.0
<3.2

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

3.5
<2.0

3.5
<2.0

3
<2.0

4.5
<2.0

Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid

Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

3.2

13

13

9.1

<5.4

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<3.0

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<52

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<37 UJ<37<37<37 UJ<37 UJ

<60

<60

<60

<60

<60

<20
<35 UJ

<20
<35

<20
<35

<20
<35 UJ<31<35 UJ

<110

<110

<110

<110

<110

Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<4.5
<8.9

Perfluorooctadecanoic acid

<2.0

<2.0 UJ

<2.0

<2.0

<4.6

Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<3.5

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.4

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<3.2

8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acidN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidN-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor

Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.

Page 4 of 6

July 2019

TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Location ID

23A

24A

Field Sample ID DSTW-LOC23A-042419 DSTW-LOC24A-042419
Date Sampled
04/24/2019
04/24/2019
QA/QC

24A
D
04/24/2019

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

24B

24C

DSTW-LOC24B-042419 DSTW-LOC24C-042419
04/24/2019
04/24/2019----

Blind Field Duplicate

--

--

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

1,300

<210

<210

<210 UJ<210 UJPFO3OA

480
140

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

PFO4DA

<79

<79

<79

<79

<79

PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid

700

<570

<570

<570

<570

32
65

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<60

<60

<60

<60

<60

<70
<34

<70 UJ
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)PEPA
PFECA-GPFMOAAPFO2HxA

EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE
PFO5DA
Byproduct 4

180

<160

<160

<160

<160

Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6

2,200<58 UJ<58 UJ

<58

<58

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1

<46

<46

<46

<46

<46

2,700
140

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

35
<30

270

16 J

14

14

19

Perfluorodecanoic Acid

160
<2.0

6.3
<2.0

5.8
<2.0

5.5
<2.0

4.7
<2.0

Perfluorododecanoic Acid

<2.0

<16

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid

3.6

7

7.3

6

5.9

<2.0
20

2
9.5

<2.0
9.7

<2.0
7.7

<2.0
7.3

6.6

8.5

8.8

8

7

Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid

13
<2.0

7
<5.9

6.7
<2.0

6.2
<2.0

6.4
<2.0

Perfluorotridecanoic Acid

<2.0

<14

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid

<2.0

<2

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

2.3
<2.0

2.3
<2.0

2.2
<2.0

2
<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

2
<2.0

3.9
<2.0

3.8
<2.0

3.3
<2.0

3.4
<2.0

PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid

Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid

Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

2.9

25

21

12

15

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide<37<37 UJ<37 UJ<37<37

2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

<60

<60

<60

<60

<60

<20
<35

<20
<35 UJ<20<35 UJ

<20
<35

<20
<35

<110

<110

<110

<110

<110

Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

Perfluorooctadecanoic acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acidN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor

Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.

Page 5 of 6

July 2019

TABLE 4
ANALTYCIAL RESULTS - APRIL 2019 EVENT
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Location ID

EQBLK

EQBLK

Field Sample ID DSTW-EB-01-042419 DSTW-EB-02-042419
Date Sampled
04/24/2019
04/24/2019
Equipment Blank - Dip
Equipment Blank QA/QC
RodPeristaltic Pump

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

EQBLK

FBLK

TBLK

DSTW-EB-03-042419
04/24/2019
Equipment Blank Autosampler

DSTW-FB-042419
04/24/2019

DSTW-TB-042519
04/25/2019

Field Blank

Trip Blank

Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)PEPA
PFECA-GPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OA

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<47
<41

<210

<210

<210

<210 UJ

<210

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

<81
<58

PFO4DA

<79

<79

<79

<79

<79

PMPA
Hydro-EVE Acid

<570

<570

<570

<570

<570

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<28
<24

<60

<60

<60

<60

<60

PFO5DA

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

<70
<34

Byproduct 4

<160

<160

<160

<160

<160

Byproduct 5
Byproduct 6

<58

<58

<58

<58

<58

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<15
<54

<46

<46

<46

<46

<46

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

<27
<30

<4.0

<4.0

<4.0

<4.0

<4.0

Perfluorodecanoic Acid

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

Perfluorododecanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

Perfluorotridecanoic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluorononanesulfonic acid

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<2.0
<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

<20
<20

N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide<37 UJ<37 UJ

<37

<37

<37

2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

820 J

850 J

780 J

<60

<60

<20
<35

<20
<35

<20
<35

<20
<35

<20
<35

<110

<110

<110

<110

<110

Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

<2.0
<2.0

Perfluorooctadecanoic acid

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ADONA

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.1
<2.1

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

EVE Acid
PFECA B
R-EVE

NVHOS
PES
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
EPA Method 537 Mod (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
Perfluorobutanoic Acid

Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid

Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid

8:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acid
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
4:2 Fluorotelomersulfonic acidN-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acidN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)NaDONA
F-53B Major
F-53B Minor

Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
-- - No data reported< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.

Page 6 of 6

July 2019

TABLE 5
TOTAL DAILY PRECIPITATION 2019 QUARTER 2
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Date
4/1/2019
4/2/2019
4/3/2019
4/4/2019
4/5/2019
4/6/2019
4/7/2019
4/8/2019
4/9/2019
4/10/2019
4/11/2019
4/12/2019
4/13/2019
4/14/2019
4/15/2019
4/16/20194/17/2019
4/18/20194/19/2019
4/20/2019
4/21/2019
4/22/2019
4/23/20194/24/20194/25/2019
4/26/2019
4/27/2019
4/28/2019
4/29/2019
4/30/2019
5/1/2019
5/2/2019
5/3/2019
5/4/2019
5/5/2019
5/6/2019
5/7/2019
5/8/2019
5/9/2019
5/10/20195/11/20195/12/20195/13/20195/14/20195/15/2019
5/16/20195/17/2019

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

Total Precipitation(inches)-1.0--1.0---0.03
--1.1
1.2
0.23
----0.48------0.05-------0.16
0.39------0.13------

July 2019

TABLE 5
TOTAL DAILY PRECIPITATION 2019 QUARTER 2
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Date
5/18/20195/19/20195/20/20195/21/20195/22/20195/23/20195/24/20195/25/20195/26/20195/27/20195/28/20195/29/20195/30/2019
5/31/2019
6/1/2019
6/2/2019
6/3/2019
6/4/2019
6/5/2019
6/6/2019
6/7/2019
6/8/2019
6/9/2019
6/10/2019
6/11/20196/12/2019
6/13/2019
6/14/2019
6/15/2019
6/16/20196/17/20196/18/20196/19/2019
6/20/2019
6/21/2019
6/22/2019
6/23/20196/24/20196/25/2019
6/26/20196/27/2019
6/28/2019
6/29/2019
6/30/2019

Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.

Total Precipitation(inches)--0.24----------0.1----0.8---2.20.8
0.1
0.4-------0.1-0.2---------

Notes:
Precipitation data obtained from USGS rain gauge at
W.O. Huske Dam.
USGS - United States Geological Survey-- - below USGS measurement threshold
72 hour period prior to sample collection date
Sample collection dateJuly 2019

Figures³
Chemours
PPA Area

Chemours Monomers IXM Area

Kuraray America
Leased Areas

Former DuPont
PMDF Production
Area

Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Dupont / Dow
Leased Area

LegendDrainage Network
Site Boundary
Areas at Site
Chemours Monomers Ion Exchange Membrance (IXM) Area
Chemours Polymer Processing Aid (PPA) Area
Dupont / Dow Leased Area
Former DuPont PMDF Production Area
Kuraray America Leased Areas
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Notes:
BasemapSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Appendix A: Field Parameters

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607

31 July 2019

APPENDIX A: FIELD PARAMETERS
Field parameters recorded during the April 2019 event are provided in Table A1 and Table A2 forgrab samples and temporal composite samples, respectively. Field parameters were measured
using a Horiba U-52 model. The water quality meter was calibrated at the start of every samplingday.
For grab samples, field parameters were measured once prior to sampling using a flow throughcell. For temporal composite samples, field parameters were measured twice using a flow throughcell: once during composite sampling (collected directly from the water stream), and once after
composite sampling (collected from the autosampler reservoir).
Recorded field parameter data are generally in line with expectations for the sample locations, withthe following exceptions:·

pH at Location 23A, Kuraray SentryGlas® process water and non-contact cooling waterflowing to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), had the lowest measured pH at 3.51.
The treated effluent pH from the WWTP at location 8 was between 8 and 8.5.

·

pH at Location 22, the combined influent to the WWTP, had the highest measured pH at
11.1. The treated effluent pH from the WWTP at location 8 was between 8 and 8.5.

·

Initial dissolved oxygen (DO) collected from the water streams at Locations 10 (Cooling
Water Channel stormwater ditch) and 15 (combined Cooling Water Channel flow to OpenChannel to Outfall 002) were elevated at 25.7 milligrams per liter [mg/l] and 29.0 mg/L,
respectively. These values are above 100% saturation and potentially represent
instrumental error. In each case, the DO reading collected from the autosampler reservoir
after sample collection was less than 10 mg/L. The DO readings of water taken directlyfrom Location 20, the Outfall 002, was 12.1 mg/L.

Appendix B: June 18, 2019 Letter re.
Laboratory Analyses for MTP, MMF, DFSA,
and PPF Acid, and Supporting Technical
Summaries from TestAmerica and Lancaster

The Chemours Company
Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306

June 18, 2019

Linda Culpepper
Interim Director, Division of Water Resources1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
linda.culpepper@ncdenr.gov
Re: Laboratory Analyses for MTP, MMF, DFSA, and PPF Acid
Dear Ms. Culpepper,
I am writing to follow up on our June 10 letter and June 12 conference call with DEQ inregard to the four PFAS compounds shown below:
Acronym

Name

Molecular CASN
Formula
CH3-O93449CF2-CF2- 21-9
COOH

MTP

Perfluoro-2methoxypropanoic
acid

MMF

Difluoromalonicacid

HOOCCF2COOH

151485-8

DFSA

Difluoro-sulfoacetic acid

HOOCCF2SO3H

422-673

PPF Acid

Perfluoropropionic CF3-CF2- 422-64acid
COOH
0Chemical StructureAs we noted in our letter and discussed on our conference call, the laboratory analyticalmethods for these four compounds are new and not refined (and previously did not exist), andthe resulting data quantifications are not accurate. Our external testing laboratories, Eurofins
Lancaster Laboratories (“Lancaster”) and TestAmerica, have prepared summaries of thetechnical issues they have encountered, and these summaries are enclosed.
Accordingly, to prevent the collection and dissemination of inaccurate and misleading
data, we have instructed Lancaster and TestAmerica to stop analyzing and reporting for thesefour compounds under their current laboratory analytical methods (referred to as “Table 3+”).
We will continue to work with these labs on analytical method development and finding anappropriate testing methodology for these four compounds, and we will keep you apprised of ourprogress.
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian D. Long
Plant Manager
Chemours – Fayetteville Works
Enclosures
Lancaster Technical Summary
TestAmerica Technical Summary2

Cc:
Sheila Holman, DEQ
William F. Lane, DEQ
Francisco Benzoni, NC DOJ
Michael Abraczinskas, DAQ
Michael Scott, DWM
David C. Shelton, Chemours
John F. Savarese, WLRK
Kemp Burdette, CFRW
Geoff Gisler, SELC

3

MEMORANDUM
Date: 6/14/2019
To:

Dr. Lam Leung, Chemours

CC:

Mike Aucoin, AECOM

From: Eric Redman, Director of Technical Services
Subject: LC/MS/MS Method Performance for DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid
This technical memorandum addresses questions regarding observed variability in thedetermination of 4 analytes (DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid) by Eurofins TestAmerica’s current
LC/MS/MS methodology known as the ‘Table 3+’ analytical method.
DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid are very small molecules by LC/MS/MS standards,
consisting of just one or two fully fluorinated carbons with one or two terminal acidic
moieties (carboxylic and/or sulfonic).
The size, structure, and highly polar nature of these molecules create a variety of technicalchallenges for LC/MS analysis. Due to the size and structure of DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid
there are relatively few characteristic mass fragments or mass transitions that can be used to
identify them in the LC/MS/MS methodology, and the identification elements that exist are notunique to DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid. These analytes are therefore prone to a large range ofchemical interferences that can adversely impact the performance of the analytical method.
The small and highly polar nature of DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid also means that theseanalytes are not easily retained under the usual LC/MS/MS chromatographic conditions. Poor
retention in turn means that these analytes cannot be chromatographically separated or resolved
from physical or chemical interferences, and are therefore more susceptible to adverse impacts
from these co-eluting interferences. These can be manifest as discreet interferences that mimic the
MS/MS response of DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid and either obscure their presence (false
negatives) or impart a positive bias (false positives). Additionally, non-discreet or bulk interferencessuch as dissolved solids, high ionic content, and naturally occurring organic and ionic compounds(humic acid or NOM) can create severe ion suppression and enhancement effects in the LC/MS/MS
analysis. DFSA and MMF are further prone to variable impacts from ionic substances (including pH
differences) due to their unusual di-acidic character.
The combination of multiple properties that can adversely impact analytical performance means thatcurrent ‘Table 3+’ analytical procedures will generate variable and potentially unreliable results for
DFSA, MMF, MTP, and PPF Acid in samples. Analytical performance for DFSA, MMF, MTP, andPPF Acid has been demonstrated to be reliable in the absence of matrix interferences, but agrowing body of empirical evidence including sample duplicate and matrix spike results indicatesthat matrix effects have a significant adverse impact in field samples.

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Charles Neslund <CharlesNeslund@eurofinsUS.com>
Monday, June 10, 2019 2:49 PM
Leung, Lam-Wing H⚠ Performance of Selected Table 3+ Analytes
ATT00001.txt

External email. Confirm links and attachments before opening.

Lam,
As we have discussed several times over the last several weeks, there are 4 compounds within the list of Table 3+analytes that have proven to be very problematic for analysis under the conditions of the Table 3+ method. Those 4compounds are;a. DFSA - CAS #422-67-3
b. MMF – CAS #1514-85-8
c. MTP – CAS #93449-21-9
d. PPF Acid – CAS #422-64-0
The challenges that are presented by these 4 compounds under the analysis conditions of the Table 3+ are several.
a. Chromatographically, DFSA and MMF are not retained well and in fact elute essentially in the void volume of thecolumn and column introduction system. MTP and PPF acid elute a little past the void volume but not by verymuch. The reason this is important is that due to the short carbon chain length of the compounds, the range ofoptions for product ion masses and transition ion masses to monitor for detection is limited. Therefore, without
good chromatographic separation, the mass spectrometer struggles to differentiate these compounds frombackground. This then has a direct impact on the sensitivity that one is able to achieve and has as a direct impact
on the ruggedness of the analysis.
b. In attempts to improve the chromatography to improve detection of these compounds, we have adjusted themobile phase composition so that upon injection of sample, the mobile phase is essentially 100% water. This has
the effect of causing chromatography columns with a C18 functionality to collapse which negatively impacts thechromatography of all of the other Table 3+ compounds, while only marginally improving the performance of these
4 compounds. If and when we have tried to change to a column chemistry that might be more accommodating ofhigh aqueous content, then the performance of the other Table 3+ compounds is significantly impacted.
In summary, it would be our suggestion to develop a technique that uses a completely separate separation and analysis
for these 4 compounds so that more reliable detection and analysis con be performed.
Regards,
Chuck
Charles Neslund
Scientific Officer
Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC
2425 New Holland Pike
Lancaster, PA 17601
USA
Phone: +1 717-556-7231
Mobile: +1 717-799-0439
E-mail: CharlesNeslund@EurofinsUS.com
www.EurofinsUS.com/LancLabsEnv

1