AQ_F_0900009_20211007_ST_StkTstRpt

The Chemours Company
Chemours- Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville,NC 28306
Sent Via email and LISPS
Certified Mail 7017 1450 0002 3902 3686 and 7017 1450 0002 3902 3693
October 22,2021
Heather Carter
NCDEQ -Division of Air Quality
225 Green Street- Suite 714
Fayetteville,NC 28301
Re: Quarterly Carbon Bed Testing—VEN,VES and PPA
Chemours Company—Fayetteville Works
Bladen County
Facility ID 0900009, Title V Permit No. 03757T48
Dear Ms. Carter,
The enclosed carbon adsorber test reports are for Vinyl Ethers North(VEN), Vinyl Ethers South
(VES) and Polymer Processing Aid(PPA) operating areas conducted during the week of
September 13,2021. The test reports,prepared by Alliance Testing, are enclosed. The testing is
being conducted pursuant to Section 2.2 D. b and c.
Two copies of each report are enclosed.
If there are any questions regarding these reports,please contact Christel Compton at
Christel.e.comptonLi)chemours.com.
Kind Regards,
Christel Compton
CC via email,Evangelina Lowery Jacobs,NCDAQ

l�
t;
w{
At
_ f
77
f-
- i
Source Test Report
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC
22828 Highway 87W
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Sources Tested: VES Carbon Bed
Test Date: September 16, 2021
AST Project No. 2021-25370
Prepared By
Alliance Source Testing, LLC
214 Central Circle SW
Decatur, AL 35603
CORPORATE OFFICE SOURCE TESTING EMISSIONS MONITORING ANALYTICAL SERVICES
255 Grant St.SE,Suite 600 stacktest.com ftfl C9:MDSQm AWan+QeWWAi-mtervic�M
Decatur,AL 35601
[phone]
Nationwide air emissions testing,monitoring, .analytical

Afliarvcm
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Test Program Summary
Regulatory Information
Permit No. Title V Permit No. 03735T47
Source Information
Source Name Target Parameter
VES Carbon Bed(Inlet/Outlet) HFPO-DA
Contact Information
Test Location Test Company Analytical Laboratory
The Chemours Company,FC,LLC Alliance Source Testing,LLC Eurofins TestAmerica
22828 Highway 87W 7600 Morgan Road 5815 Middlebrook Pike
Fayetteville,NC 28306 Liverpool,NY 13090 Knoxville,TN 37921
Courtney Adkins
Facility Contact Project Manager/Field Team [e-mail]
Christel E.Compton Leader
[e-mail] Patrick Grady
[e-mail]
QA/QC Manager
Heather Morgan
[e-mail]
Report Coordinator
Jarrett Vickers
[e-mail]
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page i
2 of 1537

Alfiarx:e
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Certification Statement
Alliance Source Testing, LLC (AST) has completed the source testing as described in this report. Results apply
only to the source(s)tested and operating condition(s)for the specific test date(s) and time(s) identified within this
report. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety,and AST is not responsible for use of less than the
complete test report without written consent. This report shall not be reproduced in full or in part without written
approval from the customer.
To the best of my knowledge and abilities, all information, facts and test data are correct. Data presented in this
report has been checked for completeness and is accurate, error-free and legible. Onsite testing was conducted in
accordance with approved internal Standard Operating Procedures. Any deviations or problems are detailed in the
relevant sections on the test report.
This report is only considered valid once an authorized representative of AST has signed in the space provided
below; any other version is considered draft. This document was prepared in portable document format(.pdf) and
contains pages as identified in the bottom footer of this document.
10/21/2021
Patrick Grady,QSTI Date
Project Manager
Alliance Source Testing,LLC
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page ii
3 of 1537

Alfia�oe
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Source and Control System Descriptions................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Team............................................................................................................................................ 1-1
2.0 Summary of Results.....................................................................................................................................2-1
3.0 Testing Methodology....................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 U.S.EPA Reference Test Methods 1 and 2—Sampling/Traverse Points and Volumetric Flow Rate.....3-1
3.2 U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 4—Moisture Content.........................................................................3-1
3.3 Modified Method 0010—Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid......................................................3-1
3.4 HFPO-DA Sample Train and Equipment Preparation.............................................................................3-2
3.5 HFPO-DA Sample Train Recovery..........................................................................................................3-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table1-1 Project Team........................................................................................................................................ 1-1
Table2-1 Summary of Results—VES.................................................................................................................2-1
Table 3-1 Source Testing Methodology...............................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A Sample Calculations
Appendix B Field Data
Appendix C Laboratory Data
Appendix D Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data
Appendix E Process Operating/Control System Data
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page iii
4 of 1537

Introduction
5 of 1537

Alfia�e
SOURCE TESTING
Source Test Report
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
Alliance Source Testing,LLC (AST)was retained by The Chemours Company (Chemours)to conduct compliance
testing at the Fayetteville Works facility in Fayetteville,North Carolina. The facility operates under Title V Permit
No. 03735T47. Source emissions testing were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the Vinyl Ethers South (VES)
carbon bed. The testing was conducted to evaluate emissions of hexafluoro-propylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-
DA). HFPO-DA, hexafluoro-propylene oxide dimer acid fluoride (HFPO-DAF) and hexafluoro-propylene oxide
dimer acid ammonium salt are captured and reported together as HFPO-DA.
1.1 Source and Control System Descriptions
VES is part of the fluoromonomer area at the Fayetteville facility.This area produces fluorocarbon compounds used
to produce Chemours products, such as IXM, Krytox® and Viton®. Indoor air fugitive emissions from VES are
vented to a carbon bed which is then vented to atmosphere through a process stack(NEP-Hdr2).
1.2 Project Team
Personnel involved in this project are identified in the following table.
Table 1-1
Project Team
Chemours Personnel Christel Compton
Eddie Vega
NCDEQ Personnel Gary Saunders
Patrick Grady
AST Personnel Antonio Anderson
Brian Goodhile
Jeffrey Sheldon
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 1-1
6 of 1537

7 of 1537

ficbffo�
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Summary of Results
2.0 Summary of Results
AST conducted compliance testing at the Fayetteville Works facility in Fayetteville,North Carolina on September
16, 2021. Testing consisted of determining the emission rates of HFPO-DA at the inlets and outlet of the VES
carbon bed.
Table 2-1 provides a summary of the emission testing results. Any difference between the summary results listed in
the following tables and the detailed results contained in appendices is due to rounding for presentation.
Table 2-1
Summary of Results—VES
Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
Date 9/16/21 9/16/21 9/16/21 --
HFPO-DA Data
Outlet Emission Rate,lb/hr 7.7E-05 6.5E-05 5.9E-05 6.7E-05
Inlet Emission Rate,lb/hr 2.5E-04 2.4E-04 2.4E-04 2.4E-04
Reduction Efficiency,% 69.7 73.2 75.0 72.6
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 2-1
8 of 1537

Testing Methodology
9 of 1537

AI Ila
me
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Testing Methodology
3.0 Testing Methodology
The emission testing program was conducted in accordance with the test methods listed in Table 3-1. Method
descriptions are provided below while quality assurance/quality control data is provided in Appendix C.
Table 3-1
Source Testing Methodology
Parameter U.S.EPA Reference Notes/Remarks
Test Methods
Volumetric Flow Rate 1 &2 Full Velocity Traverses
Moisture Content 4 Gravimetric Analysis
Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid Modified Method 0010 Isokinetic Sampling
3.1 U.S.EPA Reference Test Methods 1 and 2—Sampling/Traverse Points and Volumetric Flow Rate
The sampling location and number of traverse (sampling) points were selected in accordance with U.S. EPA
Reference Test Method 1. To determine the minimum number of traverse points, the upstream and downstream
distances were equated into equivalent diameters and compared to Figure 1-1 in U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 1.
Full velocity traverses were conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 2 to determine the
average stack gas velocity pressure, static pressure and temperature. The velocity and static pressure measurement
system consisted of a pitot tube and inclined manometer. The stack gas temperature was measured with a K-type
thermocouple and pyrometer.
3.2 U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 4—Moisture Content
The stack gas moisture content was determined in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 4. The gas
conditioning train consisted of a series of chilled impingers. Prior to testing,each impinger was filled with a known
quantity of water or silica gel. Each impinger was analyzed gravimetrically before and after each test run on the
same balance to determine the amount of moisture condensed.
3.3 Modified Method 0010—Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid
HFPO-DA emissions were evaluated in accordance with Modified Method 0010.Testing followed the submitted
protocol in the execution of our onsite sampling and analysis activities.Modified Method 0010 procedure was
followed as outlined in the protocol submitted to NC Division of Air Quality.Modified Method 0010 sampling and
analysis procedures performed for this project are consistent with OTM-45,which was released by EPA in January
2021,subsequent to Chemours submittal of plans to DAQ.
The sample train consisted of a borosilicate glass nozzle attached directly to a heated borosilicate glass-lined probe.
The probe was connected directly to a heated borosilicate glass filter holder containing a solvent-extracted glass
fiber filter.In order to minimize possible thermal degradation of the HFPO-DA,the probe and particulate filter were
heated to just above stack temperature to minimize water vapor condensation before the filter. The filter holder exit
was connected to a water-cooled coil condenser followed by a water-cooled sorbent module containing
approximately 40 grams of XAD-2 resin.The XAD-2 inlet temperature was monitored to ensure that the module is
maintained at a temperature below 20°C.
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 3-1
10 of 1537

Ire
Alliarmuce
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Testing Methodology
-2 resin followed b a c impinger n r' f three impingerseach
The XAD es n trap was fo o y condensate knockoutand a series o
containing 100-ml of high purity deionized water. The water impingers were followed by another condensate
knockout impinger equipped with a second XAD-2 resin trap to account for any sample breakthrough. The final
impinger contained approximately 250 grams of dry pre-weighed silica gel. The water impingers and condensate
impingers were submerged in an ice bath through the duration of the testing.The water in the ice bath was also used
to circulate around the coil condenser and the XAD-2 resin traps.
Exhaust gases were extracted from the sample locations isokinetically using a metering console equipped with a
vacuum pump,a calibrated orifice,oil manometer and probe/filter heat controllers.
3.4 HFPO-DA Sample Train and Equipment Preparation
Prior to conducting the field work the following procedures were conducted to prepare the field sampling glassware
and sample recovery tools.
1. Wash all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools with low residue soap and hot water.
2. Rinse all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools three(3)times with D.I.H2O.
3. Bake glassware (with the exception of probe liners) at 450°C for approximately 2 hours, (XAD-2 resin tube
glassware is cleaned by Eurofins/TestAmerica by this same procedure).
4. Solvent rinse three(3)times all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools with the following sequence of solvents:
acetone,methylene chloride,hexane,and methanol.
5. Clean glassware and tools will be sealed in plastic bags or aluminum foil for transport to the sampling site.
6. Squirt bottles will be new dedicated bottles of known history and dedicated to the D.I. Water and
methanol/ammonium hydroxide(MeOH/5%NH40H)solvent contents. Squirt bottles will be labelled with the
solvent content it contains.
3.5 HFPO-DA Sample Train Recovery
Following completion of each test run,the sample probe,nozzle and front-half of the filter holder were brushed and
rinsed three times each with the McOH/ 5%NH40H solution (Container #1). The glass fiber filter was removed
from its housing and transferred to a polyethylene bottle (Container #2). Any particulate matter and filter fibers
which adhered to the filter holder and gasket were also placed in Container#2. The XAD-2 resin trap was sealed,
labelled and placed in an iced sample cooler. The back-half of the filter holder, coil condenser condensate trap and
connecting glassware were rinsed with the same McOH/5%NH40H solution and placed in Container#3.
The volume of water collected in all impingers was measured for moisture determinations and then placed in
Container#4. All impingers and connecting glassware were then rinsed with the McOH/5%NH40H solution and
placed in Container #5. The second (breakthrough) XAD-2 resin trap was sealed, labelled and placed in an iced
sample cooler. The contents of the fifth impinger were placed in its original container and weighed for moisture
determinations.
Containers were sealed and labeled with the appropriate sample information. Samples remained chilled until
analysis.HFPO-DA analysis was conducted using liquid chromatography/dual mass spectrometry(LC/MS/MS).
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 3-2
11 of 1537

Appendix A
12 of 1537

L
•
Appendix A
AM a1 Moe Example Calculations
SOURCE TESTING
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: VES Carbon Bed Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
Meter Pressure(Pm),in.Hg
A
Pm = Pb +
13.6
where,
Pb 30.20 =barometric pressure,in.Hg
OH 1.135 =pressure differential of orifice,in H2O
Pm 30.28 =in.Hg
Absolute Stack Gas Pressure(Ps),in.Hg
Ps = Pb + Pg13.6
where,
Pb 30.20 =barometric pressure,in.Hg
Pg 1.50 =static pressure,in.H2O
Ps 30.31 =in.Hg
Standard Meter Volume(Vmstd),dscf
17.636 x Y x Vm x Pm
Vwstd =
where, T m
Y 0.979 =meter correction factor
Vm 61.624 =meter volume,cf
Pm 30.28 =absolute meter pressure,in.Hg
Tin 543.1 =absolute meter temperature,°R
Vmstd 59.329 =dscf
Standard Wet Volume(Vwstd),scf
Vwstd = 0.04716 x Vlc
where,
Vlc 45.2 =volume of H2O collected,ml
Vwstd 2.132 =scf
Moisture Fraction(BWSsat),dimensionless(theoretical at saturated conditions)
6.37—( 2,827
10 \Ts+365�
BWSsat =
Ps
where,
Ts 79.5 =stack temperature,OF
Ps 30.31 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
BWSsat 0.033 =dimensionless
Moisture Fraction(BWS),dimensionless(measured)
Vwstd
BWS = (Vwstd + Vmstd)
where,
Vwstd 2.132 =standard wet volume,scf
Vmstd 59.329 =standard meter volume,dscf
BWS 0.035 =dimensionless
13 of 1537

Appendix A
AN Example Calculations
SOURCE TESTING
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: VES Carbon Bed Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
Moisture Fraction(BWS),dimensionless
BWS = BWSmsd unless BWSsat < BWSmsd
where,
BWSsat 0.033 =moisture fraction(theoretical at saturated conditions)
BWSmsd 0.035 =moisture fraction(measured)
BWS 0.033
Molecular Weight(DRY)(Md),lb/lb-mole
Md = (0.44 x %CO2) + (0.32 x % 02) + (0.28 (100 — % CO2 — % 02))
where,
CO2 0.1 =carbon dioxide concentration,%
02 20.9 =oxygen concentration,%
Md 28.85 =1b/lb mol
Molecular Weight(WET)(Ms),lb/lb-mole
Ms = Md (1 — BWS) + 18.015 (BWS)
where,
Md 28.85 =molecular weight(DRY),lb/lb mol
BWS 0.033 =moisture fraction,dimensionless
Ms 28.49 =lb/lb mol
Average Velocity(Vs),ft/sec
Ts
Vs = 85.49 x Cp x (0 P 1/2) avg x
Ps x Ms
where,
Cp 0.840 =pitot tube coefficient
0 P112 0.527 =velocity head of stack gas,(in.H20)1/2
Ts 539.1 =absolute stack temperature,°R
Ps 30.31 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
Ms 28.49 =molecular weight of stack gas,lb/lb mol
Vs 29.9 =ft/sec
Average Stack Gas Flow at Stack Conditions(Qa),acfm
Qa = 60 x Vs x As
where,
Vs 29.9 =stack gas velocity,ft/sec
As 7.07 =cross-sectional area of stack,ft2
Qa 12,678 =acfm
Average Stack Gas Flow at Standard Conditions(Qs),dscfm
Ps
Qs = 17.636 x Qa x (1 — BWS) x Ts
where,
Qa 12,678 =average stack gas flow at stack conditions,acfin
BWS 0.033 =moisture fraction,dimensionless
Ps 30.31 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
Ts 539.1 =absolute stack temperature,°R
Qs 12,154 =dscfm
14 of 1537

r
F
•
Appendix A
Example Calculations
SOURCE TESTING
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: VES Carbon Bed Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.:T
Parameter: HFPO-DA
Dry Gas Meter Calibration Check(Yqa),dimensionless
Y- 0FTAH@
0319xTmx29 pHavg.
Vm CPb + 13a6g') x Md
Yqa = Y x 100
where,
Y 0.979 =meter correction factor,dimensionless
O 96 =run time,min.
Vm 61.624 =total meter volume,dcf
Tin 543.1 =absolute meter temperature,°R
AH@ 1.66 =orifice meter calibration coefficient,in.H2O
Pb 30.20 =barometric pressure,in.Hg
AH avg 1.135 =average pressure differential of orifice,in H2O
Md 28.85 =molecular weight(DRY),lb/lb mol
(A H) 1.060 =average squareroot pressure differential of orifice,(in.H20)112
Yqa 0.8 =dimensionless
Volume of Nozzle(Vn),ft3
Vn = Ps ( 0.002669 x VIC +Vm TP2m x Y 1
where,
Ts 539.1 =absolute stack temperature,°R
Ps 30.31 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
Vlc 45.2 =volume of H2O collected,ml
Vm 61.624 =meter volume,cf
Pm 30.28 =absolute meter pressure,in.Hg
Y 0.979 =meter correction factor,unitless
Tin 543.1 =absolute meter temperature,°R
Vn 61.983 =volume of nozzle,ft3
Isokinetic Sampling Rate(I),%
I = .09450 x Ts x V'ristd
(P, X 0 X Ali X Vs X (1 — BWS)
where,
Vmstd 59.329 =standard meter volume,dscf
0 96.0 =run time,minutes
An 0.00035 =area of nozzle,ft2
Vs 29.9 =average velocity,ft/sec
BWS 0.033 =moisture fraction,dimensionless
Ts 539.1 =absolute stack temperature,°R
15 of 1537

1
Appendix A
Example Calculations
SQuRCE TEST114G
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: VES Carbon Bed Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
HFPO-DA Concentration(CHFPODA),ng/dscm
_ MHFPODA x 35.313
CHFPODA — Vmstd
where,
M(HFPODA) 2,826.8 =HFPO-DA mass,ng
Vmstd 59.329 =standard meter volume,dscf
CHFPODA 1.7E+03 =ng/dscm
HFPO-DA Emission Rate(ERHFPODA),1b/hr
CHFPODA X Qs X 6
ERHFPODA = Vmstd x 4.5E+ 11
where,
CHFPODA 1.7E+03 =HFPO-DA concentration,ng/dscm
Qs 12,154 =average stack gas flow at standard conditions,dscfm
ERHFPODA 7.7E-05 =lb/hr
16 of 1537

r
- LF
Source Test Report
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC
22828 Highway 87W
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Sources Tested: VEN Carbon Bed
Test Date: September 18, 2021
AST Project No. 2021-25370
Prepared By
Alliance Source Testing, LLC
214 Central Circle SW
Decatur, AL 35603
CORPORATE OFFICE SOURCE TESTING EMISSIONS MONITORING ANALYTICAL SERVICES
.fz 255 Grant St.SE,Suite 600kit,�om allrt �: m,com a111_ t1iti� Ltly2Lt �.[Y1�.1G4.[11
Decatur,AL 35601
[phone]
Notionwide oir emissions testing,monitoring, d onalyticol

Allia nnd�a
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Test Program Summary
Regulatory Information
Permit No. Title V Permit No.03 73 5T48
Source Information
Source Name Target Parameter
VEN Carbon Bed(Inlet/Outlet) HFPO-DA
Contact Information
Test Location Test Company Analytical Laboratory
The Chemours Company,FC,LLC Alliance Source Testing,LLC Eurofins TestAmerica
22828 Highway 87W 7600 Morgan Road 5815 Middlebrook Pike
Fayetteville,NC 28306 Liverpool,NY 13090 Knoxville,TN 37921
Courtney Adkins
Facility Contact Project Manager/Field Team [e-mail]
Christel E.Compton Leader
[e-mail] Patrick Grady
[e-mail]
A/ C Manager
er Q g
Heather Morgan
[e-mail]
Report Coordinator
Jarrett Vickers
[e-mail]
2021-25370 Chemours-Fayetteville,NC Page i
2 of 1461

i
Aflia EKANIL Admah.e
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Certification Statement
Alliance Source Testing, LLC (AST) has completed the source testing as described in this report. Results apply
only to the source(s)tested and operating condition(s) for the specific test date(s) and time(s) identified within this
report. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety,and AST is not responsible for use of less than the
complete test report without written consent. This report shall not be reproduced in full or in part without written
approval from the customer.
To the best of my knowledge and abilities, all information, facts and test data are correct. Data presented in this
report has been checked for completeness and is accurate, error-free and legible. Onsite testing was conducted in
accordance with approved internal Standard Operating Procedures. Any deviations or problems are detailed in the
relevant sections on the test report.
This report is only considered valid once an authorized representative of AST has signed in the space provided
below; any other version is considered draft. This document was prepared in portable document format(.pdf) and
contains pages as identified in the bottom footer of this document.
l 10/21/2021
Patrick Grady,QSTI Date
Project Manager
Alliance Source Testing,LLC
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page ii
3 of 1461

Aflia WEAd�e
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Source and Control System Descriptions................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Team............................................................................................................................................ 1-1
2.0 Summary of Results.....................................................................................................................................2-1
3.0 Testing Methodology....................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 U.S.EPA Reference Test Methods 1 and 2—Sampling/Traverse Points and Volumetric Flow Rate.....3-1
3.2 U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 4—Moisture Content.........................................................................3-1
3.3 Modified Method 0010—Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid......................................................3-1
3.4 HFPO-DA Sample Train and Equipment Preparation.............................................................................3-2
3.5 HFPO-DA Sample Train Recovery..........................................................................................................3-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table1-1 Project Team........................................................................................................................................ 1-1
Table2-1 Summary of Results—VEN.................................................................................................................2-1
Table 3-1 Source Testing Methodology...............................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A Sample Calculations
Appendix B Field Data
Appendix C Laboratory Data
Appendix D Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data
Appendix E Process Operating/Control System Data
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page iii
4 of 1461

5 of 1461

SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
Alliance Source Testing,LLC (AST)was retained by The Chemours Company (Chemours)to conduct compliance
testing at the Fayetteville Works facility in Fayetteville,North Carolina. The facility operates under Title V Permit
No. 03735T47. Source emissions testing were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the Vinyl Ethers North (VEN)
carbon bed. The testing was conducted to evaluate emissions of hexafluoro-propylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-
DA). HFPO-DA, hexafluoro-propylene oxide dimer acid fluoride (BFPO-DAF) and hexafluoro-propylene oxide
dimer acid ammonium salt are captured and reported together as BFPO-DA.
1.1 Source and Control System Descriptions
VEN is part of the fluoromonomer area at the Fayetteville facility.This area produces fluorocarbon compounds used
to produce Chemours products, such as Nafion®Krytox®and Viton®. Indoor air fugitive emissions from VEN are
vented to a carbon bed which is then vented to atmosphere through the Division Stack.Process emissions from VEN
are directed to a thermal oxidizer.
1.2 Project Team
Personnel involved in this project are identified in the following table.
Table 1-1
Project Team
Chemours Personnel Christel Compton
Eddie Vega
NCDEQ Personnel Gary Saunders
Patrick Grady
AST Personnel Antonio Anderson
Brian Goodhile
Jeffrey Sheldon
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 1-1
6 of 1461

7 of 1461

Allia MELMMLc�e
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Summary of Results
2.0 Summary of Results
AST conducted compliance testing at the Fayetteville Works facility in Fayetteville,North Carolina on September
18, 2021. Testing consisted of determining the emission rates of HFPO-DA at the inlets and outlet of the VEN
carbon bed.It should be noted that test Run No. 1 was stopped 12 minutes early as there was a leak within the tower
in VEN.
Table 2-1 provides a summary of the emission testing results. Any difference between the summary results listed in
the following tables and the detailed results contained in appendices is due to rounding for presentation.
Table 2-1
Summary of Results—VEN
Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
Date 9/18/21 9/18/21 9/18/21 --
H FPO-DA Data
Outlet Emission Rate,lb/hr 2.0E-04 3.0E-04 3.3E-04 2.8E-04
Inlet Emission Rate,lb/hr 1.6E-01 2.2E-01 1.3E-01 1.7E-01
Reduction Efficiency,% 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.8
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 2-1
8 of 1461

Testina Methodology
9 of 1461

Alliance
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Testing Methodology
3.0 Testing Methodology
The emission testing program was conducted in accordance with the test methods listed in Table 3-1. Method
descriptions are provided below while quality assurance/quality control data is provided in Appendix C.
Table 3-1
Source Testing Methodology
U.S.EPA Reference
Parameter Test Methods Notes/Remarks
Volumetric Flow Rate 1 &2 Full Velocity Traverses
Moisture Content 4 Gravimetric Analysis
Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid Modified Method 0010 Isokinetic Sampling
3.1 U.S.EPA Reference Test Methods 1 and 2—Sampling/Traverse Points and Volumetric Flow Rate
The sampling location and number of traverse (sampling) points were selected in accordance with U.S. EPA
Reference Test Method 1. To determine the minimum number of traverse points, the upstream and downstream
distances were equated into equivalent diameters and compared to Figure 1-1 in U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 1.
Full velocity traverses were conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 2 to determine the
average stack gas velocity pressure, static pressure and temperature. The velocity and static pressure measurement
system consisted of a pitot tube and inclined manometer. The stack gas temperature was measured with a K-type
thermocouple and pyrometer.
3.2 U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 4—Moisture Content
The stack gas moisture content was determined in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 4. The gas
conditioning train consisted of a series of chilled impingers. Prior to testing,each impinger was filled with a known
quantity of water or silica gel. Each impinger was analyzed gravimetrically before and after each test run on the
same balance to determine the amount of moisture condensed.
3.3 Modified Method 0010—Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid
HFPO-DA emissions were evaluated in accordance with Modified Method 0010.Testing followed the submitted
protocol in the execution of our onsite sampling and analysis activities.Modified Method 0010 procedure was
followed as outlined in the protocol submitted to NC Division of Air Quality.Modified Method 0010 sampling and
analysis procedures performed for this project are consistent with OTM-45,which was released by EPA in January
2021,subsequent to Chemours submittal of plans to DAQ.
The sample train consisted of a borosilicate glass nozzle attached directly to a heated borosilicate glass-lined probe.
The probe was connected directly to a heated borosilicate glass filter holder containing a solvent-extracted glass
fiber filter.In order to minimize possible thermal degradation of the HFPO-DA,the probe and particulate filter were
heated to just above stack temperature to minimize water vapor condensation before the filter. The filter holder exit
was connected to a water-cooled coil condenser followed by a water-cooled sorbent module containing
approximately 40 grams of XAD-2 resin. The XAD-2 inlet temperature was monitored to ensure that the module is
maintained at a temperature below 20°C.
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 3-1
10 of 1461

Alfiarv::IB
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Testing Methodology
The XAD-2 resin trap was followed by a condensate knockout impinger and a series of three impingers each
containing 100-ml of high purity deionized water. The water impingers were followed by another condensate
knockout impinger equipped with a second XAD-2 resin trap to account for any sample breakthrough. The final
impinger contained approximately 250 grams of dry pre-weighed silica gel. The water impingers and condensate
impingers were submerged in an ice bath through the duration of the testing.The water in the ice bath was also used
to circulate around the coil condenser and the XAD-2 resin traps.
Exhaust gases were extracted from the sample locations isokinetically using a metering console equipped with a
vacuum pump,a calibrated orifice,oil manometer and probe/filter heat controllers.
3.4 HFPO-DA Sample Train and Equipment Preparation
Prior to conducting the field work the following procedures were conducted to prepare the field sampling glassware
and sample recovery tools.
1. Wash all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools with low residue soap and hot water.
2. Rinse all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools three(3)times with D.I.H2O.
3. Bake glassware (with the exception of probe liners) at 450'C for approximately 2 hours, (XAD-2 resin tube
glassware is cleaned by Eurofins/TestAmerica by this same procedure).
4. Solvent rinse three(3)times all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools with the following sequence of solvents:
acetone,methylene chloride,hexane,and methanol.
5. Clean glassware and tools will be sealed in plastic bags or aluminum foil for transport to the sampling site.
6. Squirt bottles will be new dedicated bottles of known history and dedicated to the D.I. Water and
methanol/ammonium hydroxide (MeOH/5%N1140H) solvent contents. Squirt bottles will be labelled with the
solvent content it contains.
3.5 HFPO-DA Sample Train Recovery
Following completion of each test run,the sample probe,nozzle and front-half of the filter holder were brushed and
rinsed three times each with the McOH/ 5% NH40H solution (Container #1). The glass fiber filter was removed
from its housing and transferred to a polyethylene bottle (Container #2). Any particulate matter and filter fibers
which adhered to the filter holder and gasket were also placed in Container#2. The XAD-2 resin trap was sealed,
labelled and placed in an iced sample cooler. The back-half of the filter holder, coil condenser condensate trap and
connecting glassware were rinsed with the same McOH/5%NH40H solution and placed in Container#3.
The volume of water collected in all impingers was measured for moisture determinations and then placed in
Container#4. All impingers and connecting glassware were then rinsed with the McOH/ 5%NH40H solution and
placed in Container #5. The second (breakthrough) XAD-2 resin trap was sealed, labelled and placed in an iced
sample cooler. The contents of the fifth impinger were placed in its original container and weighed for moisture
determinations.
Containers were sealed and labeled with the appropriate sample information. Samples remained chilled until
analysis.HFPO-DA analysis was conducted using liquid chromatography/dual mass spectrometry(LC/MS/MS).
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 3-2
11 of 1461

Appendix •
12 of 1461

Appendix A
Example Calculations
SOURCE TESTING
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: VEN Carbon Bed Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
Meter Pressure(Pm),in.Hg
OH
Pm = Pb +
13.6
where,
Pb 30.10 =barometric pressure,in.Hg
AH 2.640 =pressure differential of orifice,in H2O
Pm 30.29 =in.Hg
Absolute Stack Gas Pressure(Ps),in.Hg
Pg
Ps = Pb +
where, 13.6
Pb 30.10 =barometric pressure,in.Hg
Pg 2.80 =static pressure,in.H2O
Ps 30.31 =in.Hg
Standard Meter Volume(Vmstd),dscf
17.636 x Y x Vm x Pm
Vwstd = Tm
where,
Y 0.979 =meter correction factor
Vm 78.811 =meter volume,cf
Pm 30.29 =absolute meter pressure,in.Hg
Tm 536.1 =absolute meter temperature,OR
Vmstd 76.886 =dscf
Standard Wet Volume(Vmstd),scf
Vwstd = 0.04716 x Vic
where,
Vlc 54.4 =volume of H2O collected,ml
Vwstd 2.566 =scf
Moisture Fraction(BWSsat),dimensionless(theoretical at saturated conditions)
2,827 l
106'37—CTs+365J
BWSsat =
Ps
where,
Ts 92.5 =stack temperature,T
Ps 30.31 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
BWSsat 0.050 =dimensionless
Moisture Fraction(BWS),dimensionless(measured)
Vwstd
BWS =
(Vwstd + Vmstd)
where,
Vwstd 2.566 =standard wet volume,scf
Vmstd 76.886 =standard meter volume,dscf
BWS 0.032 =dimensionless
13 of 1461

0 Appendix A
�I1 Example Calculations
SOURCE TESTING
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: VEN Carbon Bed Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
Moisture Fraction(BWS),dimensionless
BWS = BWSmsd unless BWSsat< BWSmsd
where,
BWSsat 0.050 =moisture fraction(theoretical at saturated conditions)
BWSmsd 0.032 =moisture fraction(measured)
BWS 0.032
Molecular Weight(DRY)(Md),lb/lb-mole
Md = (0.44 x % CO2) + (0.32 x % 02) + (0.28 (100 — % CO2 — % 02))
where,
CO2 0.1 =carbon dioxide concentration,%
02 20.9 =oxygen concentration,%
Md 28.85 =1b/lb mol
Molecular Weight(WET)(Ms),lb/lb-mole
Ms = Md (1 — BWS) + 18.015 (BWS)
where,
Md 28.85 =molecular weight(DRY),lb/lb mol
BWS 0.032 =moisture fraction,dimensionless
Ms 28.50 =1b/lb mol
Average Velocity(Vs),ft/sec
Vs = 85.49 x Cp x (A P 1/2) avg xF
Ts
xMs
where,
Cp 0.840 =pitot tube coefficient
A P1/2 0.815 =velocity head of stack gas,(in.H20)1/2
Ts 552.2 =absolute stack temperature,OR
Ps 30.31 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
Ms 28.50 =molecular weight of stack gas,lb/lb mol
Vs 46.8 =ft/sec
Average Stack Gas Flow at Stack Conditions(Qa),acfm
Qa = 60 x Vs x As
where,
Vs 46.8 =stack gas velocity,ft/sec
As 7.07 =cross-sectional area of stack,ft2
Qa 19,850 =acfm
Average Stack Gas Flow at Standard Conditions(Qs),dscfm
Ps
Qs = 17.636 x Qa x (1 — BWS) x —
Ts
where,
Qa 19,850 =average stack gas flow at stack conditions,acfm
BWS 0.032 =moisture fraction,dimensionless
PS 30.31 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
Ts 552.2 =absolute stack temperature,OR
Qs 18,592 =dscfin
14 of 1461

a 1
Appendix A
ally Example Calculations
SOURCE TESTING
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: VEN Carbon Bed Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
Dry Gas Meter Calibration Check(Yqa),dimensionless
Y_ 0TAH@
0319 x Tm x 29 AH av .
/ g
(VM Pb + A 13a6g. x Md
Yqa = \ Y x 100
where,
Y 0.979 =meter correction factor,dimensionless
O 84 =run time,min.
Vm 78.811 =total meter volume,dcf
Tm 536.1 =absolute meter temperature,OR
OH@ 1.66 =orifice meter calibration coefficient,in.H2O
Pb 30.10 =barometric pressure,in.Hg
AH avg 2.640 =average pressure differential of orifice,in H2O
Md 28.85 =molecular weight(DRY),lb/lb mol
(A H)'" 1.607 =average squareroot pressure differential of orifice,(in.H20)1/2
Yqa -2.3 =dimensionless
Volume of Nozzle(Vn),ft3
Vn = PS 10.002669 x Vlc + Vm Trn x Y l
\ 1
where,
Ts 552.2 =absolute stack temperature,OR
Ps 30.31 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
Vlc 54.4 =volume of H2O collected,ml
Vm 78.811 =meter volume,cf
Pm 30.29 =absolute meter pressure,in.Hg
Y 0.979 =meter correction factor,unitless
Tm 536.1 =absolute meter temperature,OR
Vn 82.080 =volume of nozzle,ft3
Isokinetic Sampling Rate(I),%
GVnx60xAnxVs x1Q0
where,
Vn 82.080 =nozzle volume,ft3
0 84.0 =run time,minutes
An 0.00035 =area of nozzle,ft2
Vs 46.8 =average velocity,ft/sec
I 98.1 =%
15 of 1461

4
Appendix A
Ai,iar=e Example Calculations
SUURQE 7t$1+Nv
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: VEN Carbon Bed Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
HFPO-DA Concentration(CHFPODA),ng/dscm
_ MHFPODA X 35.313
CHFPODA — VmStd
where,
M(HFPODA) 6,394.1 =HFPO-DA mass,ng
Vmstd 76.886 =standard meter volume,dscf
CHFPODA 2.9E+03 =ng/dscm
HFPO-DA Emission Rate(ERHFPODA),Ib/hr
CHFPODA X Qs X 60 ERHFPODA — VT std X 4.5E + 11
where,
CHFPODA 2.9E+03 =HFPO-DA concentration,ng/dscm
Qs 18,592 =average stack gas flow at standard conditions,dscfm
ERHFPODA 2.0E-04 =1b/hr
16 of 1461

W
�A
l _
� f t
i'
}
Source Test Report
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC
22828 Highway 87W
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Sources Tested: PPA Carbon Bed
Test Date: September 15, 2021
AST Project No. 2021-25370
Prepared By
Alliance Source Testing, LLC
214 Central Circle SW
Decatur, AL 35603
CORPORATE OFFICE SOURCE TESTING EMISSIONS MONITORING ANALYTICAL SERVICES
255 Grant St SE,Suite 600 ;itiktest.com Whatir.-C& &W vl1ianceana1y1 cWaeryJo-sx
Decatur,AL 35601 Qfn
[phone]
Nationwide air emissions testing,monitoring.and.

Ire
lanoe
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Test Program Summary
Regulatory Information
Permit No. Title V Permit No.03735T48
Source Information
Source Name Target Parameter
PPA Carbon Bed(Inlet/Outlet) HFPO-DA
Contact Information
Test Location Test Company Analytical Laboratory
The Chemours Company,FC,LLC Alliance Source Testing,LLC Eurofins TestAmerica
22828 Highway 87W 7600 Morgan Road 5815 Middlebrook Pike
Fayetteville,NC 28306 Liverpool,NY 13090 Knoxville,TN 37921
Courtney Adkins
Facility Contact Project Manager/Field Team [e-mail]
Christel E.Compton Leader
[e-mail] Patrick Grady
[e-mail]
QA/QC Manager
Heather Morgan
[e-mail]
Report Coordinator
Jarrett Vickers
[e-mail]
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page i
2 of 1322

Afli r NMI&k
a
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Certification Statement
Alliance Source Testing, LLC (AST) has completed the source testing as described in this report. Results apply
only to the source(s) tested and operating condition(s) for the specific test date(s) and time(s) identified within this
report. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety, and AST is not responsible for use of less than the
complete test report without written consent. This report shall not be reproduced in full or in part without written
approval from the customer.
To the best of my knowledge and abilities, all information, facts and test data are correct. Data presented in this
report has been checked for completeness and is accurate, error-free and legible. Onsite testing was conducted in
accordance with approved internal Standard Operating Procedures. Any deviations or problems are detailed in the
relevant sections on the test report.
This report is only considered valid once an authorized representative of AST has signed in the space provided
below; any other version is considered draft. This document was prepared in portable document format (.pdf) and
contains pages as identified in the bottom footer of this document.
10/21/2021
Patrick Grady,QSTI Date
Project Manager
Alliance Source Testing,LLC
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page ii
3 of 1322

a
Alfia E069�e
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Source and Control System Descriptions................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Team............................................................................................................................................1-1
2.0 Summary of Results.....................................................................................................................................2-1
3.0 Testing Methodology....................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 U.S.EPA Reference Test Methods 1 and 2—Sampling/Traverse Points and Volumetric Flow Rate.....3-1
3.2 U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 4—Moisture Content.........................................................................3-1
3.3 Modified Method 0010—Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid.......................................................3-1
3.4 HFPO-DA Sample Train and Equipment Preparation.............................................................................3-2
3.5 BFPO-DA Sample Train Recovery..........................................................................................................3-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table1-I Project Team........................................................................................................................................ 1-1
Table 2-1 Summary of Results—PPA.................................................................................................................2-1
Table 3-1 Source Testing Methodology...............................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A Sample Calculations
Appendix B Field Data
Appendix C Laboratory Data
Appendix D Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data
Appendix E Process Operating/Control System Data
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page iii
4 of 1322

I
Introduction
5 of 1322

a
Alliances
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
Alliance Source Testing,LLC (AST)was retained by The Chemours Company (Chemours)to conduct compliance
testing at the Fayetteville Works facility in Fayetteville,North Carolina. The facility operates under Title V Permit
No. 03735T47. Source emissions testing were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the Polymer Process Aid(PPA)
carbon bed. The testing was conducted to evaluate emissions of hexafluoro-propylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-
DA). HFPO-DA, hexafluoro-propylene oxide dimer acid fluoride (HFPO-DAF) and hexafluoro-propylene oxide
dimer acid ammonium salt are captured and reported together as HFPO-DA.
1.1 Source and Control System Descriptions
The PPA facility produces surfactants used to produce fluoropolymer products, such as Teflon®at other Chemours
facilities, as well as sales to outside producers of fluoropolymers. Process streams are vented to a caustic wet
scrubber(ACD-A 1),a carbon bed and exhausted through a process stack(AEP-A 1).The process inside the building
is under negative pressure and the building air is vented to the carbon bed and the process stack(AEP-A 1).
1.2 Project Team
Personnel involved in this project are identified in the following table.
Table 1-1
Project Team
Chemours Personnel Christel Compton
Eddie Vega
g
NCDEQ Personnel Brent Hall
Patrick Grady
AST Personnel
Antonio Anderson
Brian Goodhile
Jeffrey Sheldon
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 1-1
6 of 1322

Summary of fi
esults
7 of'1322

r>c=�
Alliance
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Summary of Results
2.0 Summary of Results
AST conducted compliance testing at the Fayetteville Works facility in Fayetteville,North Carolina on September
15,2021. Testing consisted of determining the emission rates of HFPO-DA at the inlet and outlet of the PPA carbon
bed.
Table 2-1 provides a summary of the emission testing results. Any difference between the summary results listed in
the following tables and the detailed results contained in appendices is due to rounding for presentation.
Table 2-1
Summary of Results—PPA
Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
Date 9/15/21 9/15/21 9/15/21 --
HFPO-DA Data
Outlet Emission Rate,lb/hr 1.5E-05 1.3E-05 1.6E-05 1.5E-05
Inlet Emission Rate,lb/hr 6.5E-03 8.0E-03 1.0E-02 8.2E-03
Reduction Efficiency,% 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 2-1
8 of 1322

Testing Methodology
9 of 1322

AI I�ar�e
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Testing Methodology
3.0 Testing Methodology
The emission testing program was conducted in accordance with the test methods listed in Table 3-1. Method
descriptions are provided below while quality assurance/quality control data is provided in Appendix C.
Table 3-1
Source Testing Methodology
Parameter U.S. EPA Reference Notes/Remarks
Test Methods
Volumetric Flow Rate 1 &2 Full Velocity Traverses
Moisture Content 4 Gravimetric Analysis
Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid Modified Method 0010 Isokinetic Sampling
3.1 U.S.EPA Reference Test Methods 1 and 2—Sampling/Traverse Points and Volumetric Flow Rate
The sampling location and number of traverse (sampling) points were selected in accordance with U.S. EPA
Reference Test Method 1. To determine the minimum number of traverse points, the upstream and downstream
distances were equated into equivalent diameters and compared to Figure 1-1 in U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 1.
Full velocity traverses were conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 2 to determine the
average stack gas velocity pressure, static pressure and temperature. The velocity and static pressure measurement
system consisted of a pitot tube and inclined manometer. The stack gas temperature was measured with a K-type
thermocouple and pyrometer.
3.2 U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 4—Moisture Content
The stack gas moisture content was determined in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 4. The gas
conditioning train consisted of a series of chilled impingers. Prior to testing,each impinger was filled with a known
quantity of water or silica gel. Each impinger was analyzed gravimetrically before and after each test run on the
same balance to determine the amount of moisture condensed.
3.3 Modified Method 0010—Hexafluoro-Propylene Oxide-Dimer Acid
HFPO-DA emissions were evaluated in accordance with Modified Method 0010.Testing followed the submitted
protocol in the execution of our onsite sampling and analysis activities.Modified Method 0010 procedure was
followed as outlined in the protocol submitted to NC Division of Air Quality.Modified Method 0010 sampling and
analysis procedures performed for this project are consistent with OTM-45,which was released by EPA in January
2021,subsequent to Chemours submittal of plans to DAQ.
The sample train consisted of a borosilicate lass nozzle attached directly to a heated borosilicate lass-lined robe.
P g Y g p
The probe was connected directly to a heated borosilicate glass filter holder containing a solvent-extracted glass
fiber filter.In order to minimize possible thermal degradation of the HFPO-DA,the probe and particulate filter were
heated to just above stack temperature to minimize water vapor condensation before the filter. The filter holder exit
was connected to a water-cooled coil condenser followed by a water-cooled sorbent module containing
approximately 40 grams of XAD-2 resin. The XAD-2 inlet temperature was monitored to ensure that the module is
maintained at a temperature below 20°C.
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 3-1
10 of 1322

Afliamn-ce
SOURCE TESTING Source Test Report
Testing Methodology
The XAD-2 resin trap was followed by a condensate knockout impinger and a series of three impingers each
containing 100-ml of high purity deionized water. The water impingers were followed by another condensate
knockout impinger equipped with a second XAD-2 resin trap to account for any sample breakthrough. The final
impinger contained approximately 250 grams of dry pre-weighed silica gel. The water impingers and condensate
impingers were submerged in an ice bath through the duration of the testing.The water in the ice bath was also used
to circulate around the coil condenser and the XAD-2 resin traps.
Exhaust gases were extracted from the sample locations isokinetically using a metering console equipped with a
vacuum pump,a calibrated orifice,oil manometer and probe/filter heat controllers.
3.4 HFPO-DA Sample Train and Equipment Preparation
Prior to conducting the field work the following procedures were conducted to prepare the field sampling glassware
and sample recovery tools.
l. Wash all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools with low residue soap and hot water.
2. Rinse all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools three(3)times with D.I.H2O.
3. Bake glassware (with the exception of probe liners) at 450°C for approximately 2 hours, (XAD-2 resin tube
glassware is cleaned by Eurofins/TestAmerica by this same procedure).
4. Solvent rinse three(3)times all glassware,brushes,and ancillary tools with the following sequence of solvents:
acetone,methylene chloride,hexane,and methanol.
5. Clean glassware and tools will be sealed in plastic bags or aluminum foil for transport to the sampling site.
6. Squirt bottles will be new dedicated bottles of known history and dedicated to the D.I. Water and
methanol/ammonium hydroxide(MeOH/5%NH40H)solvent contents. Squirt bottles will be labelled with the
solvent content it contains.
3.5 HFPO-DA Sample Train Recovery
Following completion of each test run,the sample probe,nozzle and front-half of the filter holder were brushed and
rinsed three times each with the McOH/ 5% NH40H solution (Container #1). The glass fiber filter was removed
from its housing and transferred to a polyethylene bottle (Container #2). Any particulate matter and filter fibers
which adhered to the filter holder and gasket were also placed in Container#2. The XAD-2 resin trap was sealed,
labelled and placed in an iced sample cooler. The back-half of the filter holder, coil condenser condensate trap and
connecting glassware were rinsed with the same McOH/5%NH40H solution and placed in Container#3.
The volume of water collected in all impingers was measured for moisture determinations and then placed in
Container#4. All impingers and connecting glassware were then rinsed with the McOH/5%NH40H solution and
placed in Container #5. The second (breakthrough) XAD-2 resin trap was sealed, labelled and placed in an iced
sample cooler. The contents of the fifth impinger were placed in its original container and weighed for moisture
determinations.
Containers were sealed and labeled with the appropriate sample information. Samples remained chilled until
analysis.HFPO-DA analysis was conducted using liquid chromatography/dual mass spectrometry(LC/MS/MS).
2021-25370 Chemours—Fayetteville,NC Page 3-2
11 of 1322

12 of 1322

Appendix A
JUMOMM Example Calculations
SOURCE TESTING
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: Polymer Process Aid Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
Meter Pressure(Pm),in.Hg
OH
Pm = Pb +
13.6
where,
Pb 30.03 =barometric pressure,in.Hg
AH 1.438 =pressure differential of orifice,in H2O
Pm 30.14 =in.Hg
Absolute Stack Gas Pressure(Ps),in.Hg
P
Ps = Pb + g
where, 13.6
Pb 30.03 =barometric pressure,in.Hg
Pg 1.80 =static pressure,in.HZO
Ps 30.16 =in.Hg
Standard Meter Volume(Vmstd),dscf
17.636 x Y x Vm x Pm
Vmstd =
where, Tm
Y 0.992 =meter correction factor
Vm 67.791 =meter volume,cf
Pm 30.14 =absolute meter pressure,in.Hg
Tm 547.1 =absolute meter temperature,°R
Vmstd 65.329 =dscf
Standard Wet Volume(Vwstd),scf
Vwstd = 0.04716 x Vlc
where,
Vlc 53.6 =volume of HZO collected,ml
Vwstd 2.528 =scf
Moisture Fraction(BWSsat),dimensionless(theoretical at saturated conditions)
6.37— 2,827
10 CTs+365�
BWSsat =
PS
where,
Ts 85.3 =stack temperature,°F
Ps 30.16 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
BWSsat 0.040 =dimensionless
Moisture Fraction(BWS),dimensionless(measured)
Vwstd
BWS = (Vwstd + Vmstd)
where,
Vwstd 2.528 =standard wet volume,scf
Vmstd 65.329 =standard meter volume,dscf
BWS 0.037 =dimensionless
13 of 1322

Appendix A
a� Example Calculations
SOURCE TESTING
Location: Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works Facility,NC
Source: Polymer Process Aid Outlet
Project No.: 2021-25370
Run No.: 1
Parameter: HFPO-DA
Moisture Fraction(BWS),dimensionless
BWS = BWSmsd unless BWSsat< BWSmsd
where,
BWSsat 0.040 =moisture fraction(theoretical at saturated conditions)
BWSmsd 0.037 =moisture fraction(measured)
BWS 0.037
Molecular Weight(DRY)(Md),lb/lb-mole
Md = (0.44 x % CO2) + (0.32 x % 02) + (0.28 (100 — % CO2 — % 02))
where,
CO2 0.1 =carbon dioxide concentration,%
02 20.9 =oxygen concentration,%
Md 28.85 =lb/lb mol
Molecular Weight(WET)(Ms),lb/lb-mole
Ms = Md (1 — BWS) + 18.015 (BWS)
where,
Md 28.85 =molecular weight(DRY),lb/lb mol
BWS 0.037 =moisture fraction,dimensionless
Ms 28.45 =lb/lb mol
Average Velocity(Vs),ft/sec
Ts
Vs = 85.49 x Cp x (A P 112) avg x
Ps x Ms
where,
Cp 0.840 =pitot tube coefficient
A P"2 0.601 =velocity head of stack gas,(in.H20)1/2
Ts 545.0 =absolute stack temperature,°R
Ps 30.16 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
Ms 28.45 =molecular weight of stack gas,lbAb mol
Vs 34.4 =ft/sec
Average Stack Gas Flow at Stack Conditions(Qa),acfm
Qa = 60 x Vs x As
where,
Vs 34.4 =stack gas velocity,ft/sec
As 4.91 =cross-sectional area of stack,ft2
Qa 10,126 =acfin
Average Stack Gas Flow at Standard Conditions(Qs),dscfm
PS
Qs = 17.636 x Qa x (1 — BWS) x —
Ts
where,
Qa 10,126 =average stack gas flow at stack conditions,acfm
BWS 0.037 =moisture fraction,dimensionless
Ps 30.16 =absolute stack gas pressure,in.Hg
Ts 545.0 =absolute stack temperature,°R
Qs 9,516 =dscfin
14 of 1322