NC0024571_Fact Sheet_20231204

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO024571
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Nick Coco, [e-mail]
Date: November 9, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Lumberton/Lumberton Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
PO Box 1388, Lumberton, NC 28359
Facility Address:
700 Lafayette Street, Lumberton, NC 28358
Permitted Flow:
20.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 89.8% domestic, 10.2% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Influent pumps, Grit removal, Mechanical bar screen, Parshall flume
and influent flow measurement, Extended aeration basins, Secondary
clarification, Chlorine contact chamber, Aerobic digesters, Sludge
holding tanks, Chlorine contact chamber and dechlorination (sulfur
dioxide), Effluent flow meter
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; LTMP
County:
Robeson
Region
Fayetteville
*Based on permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Lumberton has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 20.0 MGD for the Lumberton WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 21,000 residents, as well as 10 significant industrial users (SIUs), including
1 categorical industrial user (CIU). Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged via Outfall
001 into the Lumber River, a class C;Sw waterbody in the Lumber River Basin. Outfall 001 is located
approximately 30 miles upstream of the NC/SC state border line.
Sludge disposal: Sludge is land applied under permit WQ0000672 (Sludge Class B).
Page 1 of 12

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Lumber River
Stream Segment:
14-(13)
Stream Classification:
C;Sw
Drainage Area (mi2):
713
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
120
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
191
30Q2 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
853
IWC (% effluent):
21
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- Statewide Mercury TMDL implementation
Basin/HUC:
Lumber River/03040203
USGS Topo Quad:
I23SW
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of November 2018 through April 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
6.7
16.3
2.97
MA 20.0
WA 16.5
BOD (summer)
mg/l
6.4
36.7
< 2
MA 11.0
BOD (winter)
mg/l
8.6
83
< 2
WA 27.0
MA 18.0
NH3-N (summer)
mg/1
1.6
14.7
< 0.1
WA 12.0
MA 4.0
WA 24.0
NH3-N (winter)
mg/1
2.0
31
< 0.1
MA 8.0
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/1
13.3
252
2.5
MA 30.0
pH
SU
6.9
7.8
3.8
6.0>pH<9.0
(geometric)
(geomean)
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
5840
< 1
WA 400
11.6
MA 200
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/1
8.4
15.3
5.6
DA > 5.0
DM 28.0
TRC
µg/l
11.4
133
< 2
(< 50
compliance)
Monitor &
Temperature
° C
20.0
28
9
Report
Monitor &
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
2643
7120
318
Report
Monitor &
TN
mg/l
24
76.8
4.2
Report
Page 2 of 12

TP
mg/1
1.0
2.45
0.18
Monitor &
Report
Total Copper
µg/L
18
52
6
Monitor &
Report
Total Silver
µg/L
< 1
< 1
< I
Monitor &
Report
Total Hardness
mg/1
55.1
72
40
Monitor &
Report
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream sampling for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and
temperature 3/week during the months of June, July, August and September andl/week during the
remainder of the year. Upstream sampling is conducted at Chippewa Street Bridge and downstream
sampling is conducted at Highway 72. Additionally, the Permittee samples for total hardness upstream
quarterly. Data from November 2018 through April 2023 has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
20.1
29
3
20.5
30
4
DO
mg/1
7.8
13.8
3.7
7.6
15.3
4.1
Conductivity
umhos/cm
1 54
1 99.2
1 9.3
119
1008.2
1 38.2
Total
Hardness
mg/1
18.9
40
12
-
-
-
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05.
Downstream temperature was not greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius on 37 occasions during the period reviewed. However, it was concluded that no
statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature. No change is
proposed to instream temperature requirements at this time.
Average downstream DO was greater than 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period
reviewed. Downstream DO was not observed at levels lower than 4 mg/L during the period reviewed. It
was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
Note: Downstream DO was reported at levels less than 5 mg/L on 45 occasions while upstream DO was
only observed at levels less than 5 mg/L on 11 occasions during the period reviewed. This means that
many of the occasions where downstream DO was less than 5 mg/L, upstream DO met the standard.
While no statistically significant difference was observed, it appears that the effluent may impact
Page 3 of 12

downstream DO on occasion. The facility generally meets its permit limits for oxygen -consuming waste.
However, the facility also reported COD levels in their eDMRs ranging from 45 mg/L to 340 mg/L, with
an average of 135 mg/L. No additional permit requirements are added at this time, but it is recommended
this continue to be tracked. The receiving stream is classified as Swamp waters, which may contribute to
some of these discrepancies. No change is proposed to instream DO requirements at this time.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity. No change is proposed to instream conductivity requirements at this time.
As the receiving stream is neither a class B water nor impaired for fecal coliform, instream monitoring
fecal coliform is not required. No change is proposed to instream fecal coliform requirements at this time.
To track effluent influence of ambient total nitrogen levels, instream monitoring for TKN and NO2+NO3
has been added to the permit at a monthly frequency.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported two
ammonia limit violations and one TSS limit violation resulting in enforcement in 2018. In 2019, the
facility reported one pH limit violation resulting in enforcement. The facility reported five pH limit
violations and one TRC limit violation resulting in enforcement in 2020. In 2021, the facility reported two
BOD limit violations and two ammonia limit violations resulting in enforcement. The facility reported
four TSS limit violations resulting in enforcement in 2022.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from February 2019 to
February 2023. The facility passed all 4 second species chronic toxicity tests conducted in May 2018,
August 2019, November 2020, and August 2021.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in May 2022 reported that the facility was compliant with NPDES permit NC0024571. The last
pretreatment inspection conducted in August 2022 reported compliance with the facility's pretreatment
program.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixin Zones
ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Page 4 of 12

If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The current permit
limitations for BOD and ammonia are based on a 1987 Streeter Phelps model (Level B) for instream DO
protection. At the time, the facility was only rated for 10.0 MGD. When the City sought expansion in
1993, the limits were revised based on the Lumber River Basin Management Plan, which allowed for
facility expansions as long as loadings were not increased. As such, the limits were revised to reflect what
is in the current permit for the 20.0 MGD flow tier. No changes are proposed for BOD.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective. No changes are proposed.
Please see Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations above for background on the current ammonia
limitations. Ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be
protective. No changes are proposed.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of %2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between November
2018 and February 2023. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated
water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for
this permit:
Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: Chromium VI (MA 53.6,ug/L, DM 66.5 µg/L along with
monitoring for Total Chromium), Total Copper (MA 46.3 ,ug/L, DM 55.2 ,ug/L)
Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: None
No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Copper, Total Lead, Total Zinc, Total
Cyanide, Total Lead, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver
Page 5 of 12

POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans (2018, 2019, 2020) data
were evaluated for additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: Chlorides
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Chlorodibromomethane, Dichlorobromomethane,
Chloroform, Bromoform
The City reported Total Cadmium at less than detection, with detection levels < 10.0 µg/L, < 5.0 µg/L
and < 1.0 µg/L in the Effluent Pollutant Scans and eDMR results. The City's allowable discharge
concentration is 3.3 µg/L for Total Cadmium. DWR's laboratory identifies the target Practical
Quantification Limits (PQLs) for Total Cadmium as 0.5 µg/L. 15A NCAC 2B .0505 (e) (4) requires that
all test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge
requirements and all data generated must be reported to the approved detection level or lower reporting
level of the procedure. If no approved methods are capable of achieving a detection level below the
permit discharge requirement (or allowable discharge concentration) the method with the lowest detection
level must be used. The City should use sufficiently sensitive test methods for all pollutants, including
when performing Effluent Pollutant Scans.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 2 1 %
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (^ 2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation:
Page 6 of 12

Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
# of Samples
3
2
1
2
1
Annual Average Conc. n /L
0.5
0.9
0.5
1.8
11.8
Maximum Conc., n /L
0.5
1.3
0.5
2.5
11.8
TBEL, n /L
47
WQBEL, n /L
58.5
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. However, since the facility is >2 MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1
ng/1), a mercury minimization plan (MMP) is necessary. The current permit has an MMP requirement,
which has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated. The list of pollutants may be found in 40 CFR Part 136, which is incorporated by reference.
Additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported are submitted with the NPDES permit
application via the Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table This requirement applies to all
NPDES facilities. The City of Lumberton informed the Division that no monitoring for additional
pollutants has been conducted (see attached chemical addendum) and therefore no additional pollutants of
concern have been identified.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: After discussion with the City
regarding the Total Copper and Chromium VI limitations, the City informed the Division that they do not
believe a schedule of compliance is needed (see attached correspondence).
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals(if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES; Overall BOD and TSS
removal were > 85%. 85% TSS removal was not met in December 2018, March and December 2020,
February 2021 and March and April 2022. This suggests the facility experiences some difficulties
meeting 85% TSS removal in the winter months.
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Page 7 of 12

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YESINO): NO; However, as all values
were reported as non -detect < 1 ug/L, the monitoring requirement and reopener condition for total silver
have been removed from the permit.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
As:
• the Lumberton WWTP accepts influent wastewater from several industrial facilities that are
potential sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane via the approved pretreatment program (e.g. landfills
and textiles),
• no additional sampling has been conducted for PFAS or 1,4-dioxane at this facility as identified
in the chemical addendum submitted by the City
• the facility discharges roughly 30 miles above the NC/SC state border line,
• all waters in South Carolina are deemed suitable for drinking water uses with appropriate
treatment,
monitoring requirements for PFAS have been added to the permit. Currently, EPA Method 1633 is in its
4tn draft form and not yet published in the Federal Register as a final methodology. As the Lumberton
WWTP accepts influent wastewater from several industrial facilities that are potential sources of PFAS
via the approved pretreatment program, and since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in
wastewater is not currently available, effluent PFAS monitoring has been added to the permit at a
quarterly frequency using the Draft Method 1633. Upon evaluation of laboratory availability and
capability to perform the draft analytical method, it was determined that the sampling may be conducted
using the 3rd draft method 1633 or more recent. Sampling using the draft method shall take effect the first
full calendar quarter following 6 months after the effective date of the permit to provide the City time to
Page 8 of 12

select a laboratory, develop a contract, and begin collecting samples. Effective 6 months after EPA has a
final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register, the City shall conduct effluent
monitoring using the Final Method 1633 and is no longer required to conduct influent and post -filtration
monitoring.
In addition to monitoring at the wastewater management facility, the City shall identify and monitor SIUs
suspected of discharging PFAS compounds within 6 months of the permit effective date. The City shall
update their Industrial Waste Survey- (IWS) to identify indirect dischargers of PFAS contributing to
concentrations experienced at the Lumberton WWTP. A summary of information learned during this
process will be provided as part of the 2024 Pretreatment Annual Report (PAR). Within 6 months of
completion of the IWS, the City shall begin sampling of indirect dischargers identified as potential PFAS
sources. Sampling conducted at SIUs and indirect dischargers shall also be conducted at a quarterly
frequency. This is a summary of the PFAS requirements. For a detailed outline of the specific PFAS
requirements, see Special Condition A.(6.) PFAS Monitoring Requirements.
As the Lumberton WWTP accepts influent wastewater from several industrial facilities that are potential
sources of 1,4-dioxane via the approved pretreatment program, as no additional sampling has been
conducted for 1,4-dioxane at this facility as identified in the chemical addendum submitted by the City,
and as the facility discharges above the NC/SC state border line, monthly effluent monitoring for 1,4-
dioxane as well as a 1,4-dioxane reopener condition have been added to the permit. After a 24-month
sampling period, the Permittee may request the Division conduct a review of submitted data for
assessment and approval of a 1,4-dioxane monitoring frequency reduction from monthly to quarterly.
Based on discussion with the DWR Basin Planning Branch, to support planning efforts, and as the two
parameters are used in calculating TN, monthly monitoring and reporting for TKN and NO2+NO3 has
been added to the permit.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 20.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 213.0505
BOD5
MA 11.0 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. 1987 Level B model; 1993
summer
WA 16.5 mg/1
Lumber River Basin Management Plan —
Monitor and report Daily
facility expansion load freeze; Surface
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
BOD5 winter
MA 18.0 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. 1987 Level B model; 1993
WA 27.0 mg/l
Lumber River Basin Management Plan —
Monitor and report Daily
facility expansion load freeze; Surface
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Page 9 of 12

NH3-N
MA 4.0 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. 1987 Level B model; 1993
summer
WA 12.0 mg/1
Lumber River Basin Management Plan —
Monitor and report Daily
facility expansion load freeze; 2023
WLA; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
NH3-N winter
MA 8.0 mg/l
No change
WQBEL. 1987 Level B model; 1993
WA 24.0 mg/1
Lumber River Basin Management Plan —
Monitor and report Daily
facility expansion load freeze; 2023
WLA; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
TSS
MA 30.0 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40
WA 45.0 mg/1
CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406; 1992
Monitor and report Daily
Level B Model; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
DO
DA > 5.0 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
Monitor and report Daily
2B .0200
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
WA 400 /100ml
2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monitor and report Daily
NCAC 2B. 0500
pH
6-9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
Monitor and report Daily
2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Temperature
Monitor and report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500
Total Residual
DM 28 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. 2023 WLA review. Surface
Chlorine
Monitor and report Daily
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Conductivity
Monitor and report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500; Pretreatment facility
Total
Monitor and report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Nitrogen
Monthly
2B. 0500
TKN
No requirement
Monitor effluent and
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
report Monthly
NO2+NO3
No requirement
Monitor effluent and
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
report Monthly
Total
Monitor and report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Phosphorus
Monthly
2B. 0500
Total Silver
Monitor and Report
Remove monitoring
Based on results of RPA; All values non -
Quarterly and Monitoring
requirement and
detect < 1 ug/L - no monitoring required;
Reopener Condition
reopener condition
Reopener no longer applicable
Total Copper
Monitor and Report
MA 46.3 µg/L
Based on results of RPA; RP shown -
Quarterly
DM 55.2 µg/L
apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Monitor and Report
Monthly
Chromium VI
No requirement
MA 53.6 µg/L
Based on results of RPA; Monitor Total
DM 66.5 µg/L
Chromium and Chromium VI, along with
Monitor and Report
a limit for Chromium VI if any Total
Monthly
Chromium sample is > the Chromium VI
Page 10 of 12

Allowable Cw but < the Chromium III
Allowable Cw.
Total
No requirement
Monitor and Report
Based on results of RPA; Monitor Total
Chromium
Monthly
Chromium and Chromium VI, along with
a limit for Chromium VI if any Total
Chromium sample is > the Chromium VI
Allowable Cw but < the Chromium III
Allowable Cw.
Total
Quarterly upstream and
No change
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals
Hardness
effluent monitoring
water quality standards approved in 2016
1,4-Dioxane
No requirement
Monitor and report
Based on PT Program —industrial
Monthly and
facilities linked to 1,4-dioxane;
reopener condition;
Discharges above NC/SC border
24-month sampling
reassessment
See Special
Condition A.(6.)
Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
PFAS
No requirement
PFAS Monitoring
pretreatment facility; Discharges above
Requirements and
NC/SC border
Pretreatment
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 2 1 %
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A
effluent
NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC 213.0500
Instream
Monitor and report DO,
No change to
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Monitoring
conductivity and
frequency; Add
2B. 0500; Tracking effluent TN influence
temperature 3/week in
monthly TKN and
on stream
June, July, August and
NO2+NO3
September and 1/week
the remainder of the year
Effluent
Three times per permit
No change;
40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan
cycle
conducted in 2025,
2026, 2027
Mercury
MMP Special Condition
No change; revise
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Minimization
wording towards its
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
Plan (MMP)
maintenance
Electronic
Electronic Reporting
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Special Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 6/17/2023
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
Page 11 of 12

15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the City of Lumberton, EPA Region IV, South Carolina DHEC, and the
Division's Fayetteville Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Operator Certification Program and
Pretreatment Unit for review.
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) provided comment to the Division on July 17, 2023
requesting implementation of more restrictive requirements regarding 1,4-dioxane and PFAS, including
increased monitoring and permit limitations for both as well as require pretreatment actions. In their
comments, SELC provided data from the receiving stream from an investigation of PFAS in the Lumber
River conducted by the Department of Environmental Quality in 2022 demonstrating elevated levels of
PFAS in the facility effluent as well as in the landfill sludge from multiple landfills which discharge to
the Lumberton WWTP. Sampling has been required at a monthly frequency for 1,4-Dioxane and quarterly
frequency for PFAS. Additionally, a reopener condition has been incorporated into the permit for 1,4-
dioxane and the Division may reopen the permit upon receipt of sufficient data to demonstrate cause for
concern.
However, out of the concerns raised and the multiple potential sources of PFAS to the Lumberton
WWTP, the PFAS monitoring requirement has been revised. Please reference Monitoring Requirements
above and Special Condition A.(6.) of the permit for additional information regarding the revisions.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• To assess the industrial contribution of PFAS to the Lumberton WWTP and assess levels of
PFAS compounds in the facility effluent, Special Condition A.(6.) has been revised.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Evaluation
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
• POC Review
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• Chemical Addendum
• Correspondence
• SELC Comments
Page 12 of 12

AFFP
Public Notice North Carolina
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF NORTH SS
CAROLINA )
COUNTY OF ROBESON )
Linda Currie, being duly sworn, says:
That she is Customer Service Clerk of the Robesonian, a
daily newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published in Lumberton, Robeson County, North Carolina;
that the publication, a copy of which is attached hereto,
was published in the said newspaper on the following
June 17, 2023
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated
on those dates.
T'j,
ED:
L'
Customer Service Clerk
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 10th day of July
2023.
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit NCO024571 Lumberton
WWTP. The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes to
issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit to the person(s) listed below. Written
comments regarding the proposed permit will be accepted until 30 days after the
publish date of this notice. The Director of the NC Division of Water Resources
(DWR) may hold a public hearing should there be a significant degree of public
interest. Please mail comments and/or information requests to DWR at the above
address. Interested persons may visit the DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
NC 27604 to review the information on file. Additional information on NPDES permits
and this notice may be found on our website: https:Hdeq.nc.gov/public-notices-
hearings,or by calling [phone]. The City of Lumberton [PO Box 1388,
Lumberton, NC 28359] has requested renewal of NPDES permit NCO024571 for its
Lumberton Wastewater Treatment Plant, located in Robeson County. This permitted
facility discharges treated municipal and industrial wastewater to the Lumber River,
a class C;Sw water in the Lumber River Basin. Currently BOD, ammonia, fecal
coliform, DO, pH, total residual chlorine, total copper and chromium VI are water
quality limited. This discharge may affect future allocations in this segment of the
Lumber River.
6/17/2023
Clarissa Jackson, Notary Public, Robe on County, North
Carolina
JAC-0
My commission expires: July 23, 2026
<v`�QN
v Notary Public 2
V Robeson
County
1 MY comm. Exp-
20152554 011234264
,L 07 23-2026
o
Attn: Wren Thedford
IT IIAR�����`
C
190-NCDENR-Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, NC 27699

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Number
facility Name Outfall Number
- City of Lumberton
wx t "2 211tr3A � s ,rz � � "Estimated Coricentra�tl6 (lv
,� ��' +�R'''�*,� �.
Reason,Rb�ly R @ lreved Prese i611,Dis' a e ICrrow) ,{
NC01043
sqt
P-.ollgtant (RequiredX
NC0024571
�,� ° ,...:, umethod Ni�mbe
trumber; {if.Applica6te)t,
No additional sampling was conducted and therefore no additional
parameters were identified.
e
�%---, cc/31/a3

City of Lumberton Wastewater Treatment Plant
Activated Sludge /Extended Aeration
Plant Capacity 20 mgd
Flow is brought into the plant by 1 of 2-14mgd submersible
pumps or a 54" screw pump. Also in the event of an emergency
a 68hp 5-7mgd bypass pump is in place. Flow then passes
through 2 Infilco Degremont barscreens. From there it passes
through 2 partial flumes for flow measurement. From there
into the grit chamber for grit removal. From there into 1 of 4-
3.5mg aeration basins. Which consist of 6-75hp aerators and 2-
40hp mixers each. From there into 1 of 5 clarifiers that consist
of 3-1mg 120ft. diameter clarifiers or 2-425,OOOgal. 85ft.
diameter clarifiers. From there into the chlorine contact tank
for disinfection. Then onto the sulfur dioxide chamber for
chlorine removal. Then discharged into our receiving stream
the Lumber River. During wasting sludge is sent to 1 of 3-
850,000 gal. digesters for thickening. Once sludge reaches 3%
solids it is transferred into 1 of 2 200,000 gal. holding tanks.
From this point it is transported by tanker to be applied to a
field in our Land Application Program. During the event of
power loss we do have generator power available.

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Lumberton WWTP
IV
NCO024571
001
20.000
Lumber River
03040203
C;SW
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10S (cfs)
120.000
191.00
120.00
853.00
97.83
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
55.06 mg/L (Avg)
25 mg/L (Avg)
31.17 mg/L
32.23 mg/L r
Data Source(s)
Note: 7510s used as conservative estimate Tor
30Q2; ISTV used for dichlorobromomethane;
EPANRWQC used for dibromochloromethane,
bromoform and chloroform
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.6970
FW
4.0443
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
141.0451
FW
1114.4594
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
9.5153
FW
13.3046
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
3.7692
FW
100.4259
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
44.8701
FW
415.5958
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.4589
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
152.7791
FW
155.9023
ug/L
Dibromochloromethane
Human Health
C
21
HH
pg/L
Bromoform
Human Health
C
120
HH
pg/L
Dichlorobromomethane
Human Health
C
17
HH
pg/L
24571 RPA, input
5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
I Effluent Hardness I
Date Data
1 11/12/2018
2 2/11 /2019
3 5/13/2019
4 8/12/2019
5 11/11/2019
6 2/10/2020
7 5/11/2020
8 8/10/2020
9 11 /16/2020
10 2/8/2021
11 5/10/2021
12 8/9/2021
13 11 /1 /2021
14 2/7/2022
15 5/2/2022
16 8/8/2022
17 11 /7/2022
18 2/6/2023
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
60
60
Std Dev.
47
47
Mean
55
55
C.V.
44
44
n
51
51
10th Per value
47
47
Average Value
48
48
Max. Value
54
54
51
51
63
63
63
63
56
56
64
64
58
58
72
72
40
40
70
70
48
48
Use "PASTE SPECIAL 1-12
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
8.9539 1
55.0556 2
0.1626 3
18 4
46.10 mg/L 5
55.06 mg/L 6
72.00 mg/L 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Default 25 25 Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
N/A
25.0000
0.0000
1
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
24571 RPA, data
- 1 - 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Arsenic
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
11/12/2018
<
5
2.5
2/11 /2019
<
5
2.5
5/13/2019
<
5
2.5
8/12/2019
<
5
2.5
11/11/2019
<
5
2.5
2/10/2020
<
5
2.5
5/11/2020
<
5
2.5
8/10/2020
<
5
2.5
11/16/2020
<
4
2
2/8/2021
<
5
2.5
5/10/2021
<
5
2.5
8/9/2021
<
2
1
11/1/2021
<
10
5
2/7/2022
<
10
5
5/2/2022
<
10
5
8/8/2022
<
10
5
11 /7/2022
24
24
2/6/2023
<
10
5
Results
Std Dev
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
5.0823
4.2778
1.1881
18
1.79
24.0 ug/L
43.0 ug/L
-2-
24571 RPA, data
5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Par04
Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
1
6/18/2018 <
1 0.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
11/12/2018
<
2
9/12/2019 <
1 0.5
Mean
0.5000
2
2/11/2019
<
3
12/16/2020 <
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
5/13/2019
<
4
n
3
4
8/12/2019
<
5
5
11/11/2019
<
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
2/10/2020
<
7
Max. Value
0.50 ug/L
7
5/11/2020
<
8
Max. Pred Cw
1.50 ug/L
8
8/10/2020
<
9
9
11/16/2020
<
10
10
2/8/2021
<
11
11
5/10/2021
<
12
12
8/9/2021
<
13
13
11/1/2021
<
14
14
2/7/2022
<
15
15
5/2/2022
<
16
16
8/8/2022
<
17
17
11 /7/2022
<
18
18
2/6/2023
<
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Cadmium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
0.5
Std Dev.
1
0.5
Mean
1
0.5
C.V.
1
0.5
n
1
0.5
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1
0.5
Max. Value
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
5
2.5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
2.1527
2.1111
1.0197
18
1.69
5.000 ug/L
8.450 ug/L
-3-
24571 RPA, data
5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par05
Date Data
1 6/18/2018
2 9/12/2019
3 12/16/2020
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par07
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Chlorides Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points =
58
Total Phenolic Compounds
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
210 210
Std Dev.
364.8703
1
6/18/2018 <
419 419
Mean
516.3
2
9/12/2019 <
920 920
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
12/16/2020 <
n
3
4
5
Mult Factor =
3.0
6
Max. Value
920.0 mg/L
7
Max. Pred Cw
2,760.0 mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
5 2.5
Mean
10 5
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then "1
Maximum <
points = 5
1.4434
3.3333
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0
15.0
-4-
24571 RPA, data
5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
IECIAL
COPY"
tata
;8
1
Date
11 /12/2018
Data
<
2
2/11/2019
<
3
5/13/2019
<
4
8/12/2019
<
5
11/11/2019
6
2/10/2020
<
ug/L
7
5/11/2020
<
ug/L
8
8/10/2020
9
11 /16/2020
<
10
2/8/2021
<
11
5/10/2021
12
8/9/2021
13
11/1/2021
<
14
2/7/2022
<
15
5/2/2022
<
16
8/8/2022
17
11 /7/2022
18
2/6/2023
<
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Chromium, Total
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5
2.5
Std Dev.
5
2.5
Mean
5
2.5
C.V.
5
2.5
n
9
9
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
5
2.5
Max. Value
7
7
Max. Pred Cw
5
2.5
5
2.5
6
6
13
13
10
5
10
5
10
5
12
12
55
55
10
5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
12.2084
7.8889
1.5475
18
1.99
55.0 pg/L
109.5 pg/L
Pal
Date Data
1 11/12/2018
2 2/11 /2019
3 5/13/2019
4 8/12/2019
5 11/11/2019
6 2/10/2020
7 5/11 /2020
8 8/10/2020
9 11 /16/2020
10 2/8/2021
11 5/10/2021
12 8/9/2021
13 11 /1 /2021
14 2/7/2022
15 5/2/2022
16 8/8/2022
17 11 /7/2022
18 2/6/2023
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Copper
BDL=1/2DL
Results
7
7
Std Dev.
8
8
Mean
7
7
C.V.
15
15
n
12
12
6
6
Mult Factor =
6
6
Max. Value
14
14
Max. Pred Cw
8.5
8.5
13
13
28
28
9
9
16
16
30
30
38
38
22
22
52
52
25
25
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then
Maximum <
points = 5
12.7259
17.5833
0.7237
18
1.50
52.00
78.00
-5-
24571 RPA, data
5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Par14
�ECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
COPY"
Cyanide Values" then "COPY"
tata
. Maximum data
;8
points = 58
1
Date
11 /13/2018
Data
<
5
BDL=1/2DL
5
Results
Std Dev.
3.5737
1
Date
11 /12/2018 <
2
2/12/2019
<
5
5
Mean
6.22
2
2/11/2019 <
3
5/14/2019
<
5
5
C.V.
0.5743
3
5/13/2019 <
4
8/13/2019
<
5
5
n
18
4
8/12/2019 <
5
11/12/2019
<
5
5
5
11/11/2019 <
6
2/11/2020
<
5
5
Mult Factor =
1.39
6
2/10/2020 <
ug/L
7
5/11/2020
<
5
5
Max. Value
17.0 ug/L
7
5/11/2020 <
ug/L
8
8/11/2020
<
5
5
Max. Pred Cw
23.6 ug/L
8
8/10/2020 <
9
11 /17/2020
<
5
5
9
11 /16/2020 <
10
2/8/2021
<
5
5
10
2/8/2021 <
11
5/11/2021
<
5
5
11
5/10/2021 <
12
8/10/2021
<
5
5
12
8/9/2021 <
13
11 /2/2021
<
5
5
13
11 /1 /2021 <
14
2/8/2022
<
5
5
14
2/7/2022 <
15
5/3/2022
<
10
5
15
5/2/2022 <
16
8/9/2022
17
17
16
8/8/2022 <
17
11 /8/2022
15
15
17
11 /7/2022 <
18
2/7/2023
<
5
5
18
2/6/2023 <
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Lead
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5
2.5
Std Dev.
5
2.5
Mean
5
2.5
C.V.
5
2.5
n
5
2.5
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
5
2.5
Max. Value
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
3.5
1.75
5
2.5
5
2.5
2
1
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then
Maximum <
points = 5
1.3565
3.2083
0.4228
18
1.29
5.000
6.450
24571 RPA, data
-6- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16
IECIAL
COPY"
tata
;8
1
Date
11 /12/2018
Data
<
2
2/11/2019
<
3
5/13/2019
<
4
8/12/2019
<
5
11/11/2019
<
6
2/10/2020
<
ug/L
7
5/11/2020
<
ug/L
8
8/10/2020
<
9
11 /16/2020
<
10
2/8/2021
<
11
5/10/2021
<
12
8/9/2021
<
13
11/1/2021
<
14
2/7/2022
<
15
5/2/2022
<
16
8/8/2022
<
17
11 /7/2022
<
18
2/6/2023
<
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Molybdenum
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
10
5
Mean
10
5
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
10
5
Max. Value
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
5
2.5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.5893
4.8611
0.1212
18
1.08
5.0 ug/L
5.4 ug/L
Par17 & Par18
Date Data
1 11/12/2018 <
2 2/11 /2019 <
3 5/13/2019 <
4 8/12/2019 <
5 11/11/2019 <
6 2/10/2020 <
7 5/11 /2020 <
8 8/10/2020 <
9 2/8/2021 <
10 5/10/2021 <
11 8/9/2021
12 11/1/2021 <
13 2/7/2022 <
14 5/2/2022 <
15 8/8/2022 <
16 11 /7/2022
17 2/6/2023 <
18 11/16/2020 <
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Nickel
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
10
5
Mean
10
5
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
10
5
Max. Value
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
10
5
10
5
3
3
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
13
13
10
5
5
2.5
Use "PAS
SPECIAL-Va
then "COP
Maximum
points =
2.0803
5.1944
0.4005
18
1.27
13.0
16.5
-7-
24571 RPA, data
5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
;TE
clues"
'Y" .
Par19
Selenium
use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY".
Par20
Use "PASTE
Silver
Values" then
data
Maximum data
Maximum date
58
points = 58
58
1
Date
11/12/2018
Data
<
10
BDL=1/2DL
5
Results
Std Dev.
1.1827
1
Date
11/12/2018
Data
<
1
BDL=1/2DL
0.5
Results
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
2/11/2019
<
10
5
Mean
4.6111
2
2/11/2019
<
1
0.5
Mean
0.5000
3
5/13/2019
<
10
5
C.V.
0.2565
3
5/13/2019
<
1
0.5
C.V.
0.0000
4
8/12/2019
<
10
5
n
18
4
8/12/2019
<
1
0.5
n
18
5
11/11/2019
<
10
5
5
11/11/2019
<
1
0.5
6
2/10/2020
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.17
6
2/10/2020
<
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1.00
fag/L
7
5/11/2020
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
5/11/2020
<
1
0.5
Max. Value
0.500
fag/L
8
8/10/2020
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.9 ug/L
8
8/10/2020
<
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
0.500
9
11/16/2020
<
5
2.5
9
11/16/2020
<
1
0.5
10
2/8/2021
<
10
5
10
2/8/2021
<
1
0.5
11
5/10/2021
<
10
5
11
5/10/2021
<
1
0.5
12
8/9/2021
<
1
0.5
12
8/9/2021
<
1
0.5
13
11/1/2021
<
10
5
13
11/1/2021
<
1
0.5
14
2/7/2022
<
10
5
14
2/7/2022
<
1
0.5
15
5/2/2022
<
10
5
15
5/2/2022
<
1
0.5
16
8/8/2022
<
10
5
16
8/8/2022
<
1
0.5
17
11 /7/2022
<
10
5
17
11 /7/2022
<
1
0.5
18
2/6/2023
<
10
5
18
2/6/2023
<
1
0.5
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
24571 RPA, data
-8- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Par22
SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Dibromochloromethane
"Copy.,.
i points =
Zinc
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
1
Date
11/12/2018
Data
61
BDL=1/2DL
61
Results
Std Dev.
33.0906
1
Date
6/18/2018
Data BDL=1/2DL
26 26
Results
Std Dev.
2
2/11/2019
40
40
Mean
72.8824
2
9/12/2019
17.2 17.2
Mean
3
5/13/2019
50
50
C.V.
0.4540
3
12/16/2020
< 5 2.5
C.V. (default)
4
8/12/2019
50
50
n
17
4
n
5
11/11/2019
64
64
5
6
2/10/2020
44
44
Mult Factor =
1.33
6
Mult Factor =
ug/L
7
5/11/2020
42
42
Max. Value
149.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
ug/L
8
8/10/2020
64
64
Max. Pred Cw
198.2 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
2/8/2021
87
87
9
10
5/10/2021
80
80
10
11
8/9/2021
134
134
11
12
11 /1 /2021
62
62
12
13
2/7/2022
149
149
13
14
5/2/2022
67
67
14
15
8/8/2022
44
44
15
16
11 /7/2022
123
123
16
17
2/6/2023
78
78
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
24571 RPA, data
-9- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Use "PASTE
Par23
Use "PASTE
Par24
SPECIAL -Values"
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY".
Bromoform
then "COPY".
Dichlorobromomethane
Maximum data points
Maximum data
58
1
Date Data
6/18/2018
BDL=1/2DL
13.6 13.6
Results
Std Dev.
points = 58
5.5812
1
Date
6/18/2018
Data BDL=1/2DL
16.6 16.6
Results
Std Dev.
11.8728
15.2333
2
9/12/2019
7.03 7.03
Mean
7.7100
2
9/12/2019
14.6 14.6
Mean
0.6000
3
12/16/2020 <
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
12/16/2020
< 5 2.5
C.V. (default)
3
4
n
3
4
n
5
5
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
26.000000 pg/L
7
Max. Value
13.600000 pg/L
7
Max. Value
78.000000 pg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
40.80000 pg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
24571 RPA, data
- 10 - 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par25
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
7.6291
11.2333
0.6000
3
3.00
16.600000 pg/L
49.800000 pg/L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Chloroform Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
6/18/2018
7.4 7.4
Std Dev.
3.0790
9/12/2019
8.18 8.18
Mean
6.0267
12/16/2020 <
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor = 3.00
Max. Value 8.180000 pg/L
Max. Pred Cw 24.540000 pg/L
-11-
24571 RPA, data
5/17/2023

Lumberton WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO024571 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
20.0000
1Ql0S (cfs) =
97.83
7Q10S (cfs) =
120.00
7QIOW (cfs) =
191.00
30Q2 (cfs) =
120.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
853.00
Receiving Stream: Lumber River HUC 03040203
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC% @ 1Ql0S = 24.06271831
IWC% @ 7Q 1 OS = 20.52980132
IWC% @ 7Q10W = 13.96396396
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 20.52980132
IW%C @ QA = 3.50678733
Stream Class: C;Sw
Qw = 20 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 32.23 mg/L
Chronic = 31.17 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
co
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
CY
�
Aplied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standa d
Acute (FW): 1.413.0
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
ug/L
18 1
43.0
_
Chronic (FW) 730.6
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
--------------------------------
Chronic (HH) 285.2
No value> Allowable w
Acute: 270.13
Bervllium
NC
6.5 FW(7010s) 65
uLY/L
3 0
1.50
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 31.66
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Monitoring required
Acute: 16.807
Cadmium
NC
0.6970 FW(7Q10s) 4.0443
uiz/L
18 0
8.450
Chronic: 3.395
All values non -detect < 10 ug/L, < 5 ug/L and < 1 ug/L
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
- No monitoring required; Permittee shall used PQL <
0.5 ug/L
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
230 FW(7Ql Os)
mg/L
3 3
2,760.0
Note: n <_ 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 1,120.3
RP for Limited Dataset (n<8 samples) - apply
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(3002)
u4/L
3 0
15.0
Note: n <_ 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 1,461.3
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 4,631.5
Chromium III
NC
141.0451 FW(7010s) 1114.4594
ua/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic: 687.0
Acute: 66.5
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7010s) 16
ua/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic: ----- ---
---------------------------
53.6
> Cr VI Allowable
Tot Cr value(s) > 5 with 1 Tot Cr value(s)
c: Monitor Total Chromium and Chromium VI, along
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L 18 6 109.5
Max reported value = 55
with a limit for Chromium VI if any Total Chromium
sample is > the Chromium VI Allowable Cw but < the
Chromium III Allowable Cw.
Acute: 55.29
Copper
NC
9.5153 FW(7Q10s) 13.3046
ug/L
18 18
78.00
--Chronic:-----46.35---
---------------------------
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
1 values > Allowable Cw
Acute: 91.4
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
18 2
23.6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 24.4
_
No RP, Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
No value > Allowable Cw
apply Quarterly Monitoring
24571 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 5/18/2023

Lumberton WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO024571
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Qw=20 MGD
Acute: 417.351
Lead
NC
3.7692 FW(7Q10s) 100.4259
ug/L
18 0
6.450
Chronic: 18.360
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7Q10s)
I
ug/L
18 0
5.4
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 9,741.9
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 1,727.1
Nickel
NC
44.8701 FW(7Q10s) 415.5958
µg/L
[Monitoring
18 2
16.5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic (FW) 218.6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
N_o v_alue > Allowable Cw
required
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Chronic (WS) 121.8
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 232.7
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
I
18 0
5.9
Chronic: 24.4
------------------------------------------------
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 1.907
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q1Os) 0.4589
ug/L
I
18 0
0.500
Chronic: 0.292
------------------------------------------------
All values non -detect < 1 ug/L - No Monitoring
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
required
Acute: 647.9
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
152.7791 FW(7Q1Os) 155.9023
ug/L
17 17
198.2
Monitoring required
-- -----------
Chronic: 744.2
---------------------------
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Dibromochloromethane
C
21 HH(Qavg)
µg/L
3 2
78.00000
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 598.839
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Bromoform
C
120 HH(Qavg)
µg/L
3 2
40.80000
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 3421.93548
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Dichlorobromomethane
C
17 HH(Qavg)
µg/L
3 2
49.80000
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 484.77
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Chloroform
C
2000 HH(Qavg)
µg/L
3 2
24.54000
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 57032.25806
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
24571 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 5/18/2023

Permit No. NCO024571
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER* {1. 136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^10.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1. 136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.62361
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[ln hardness] -4.445 11
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705)
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO024571
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO024571
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal I + { [Kpo] [ss('+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q 10 + Qw) (Cwgs) — (s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0024571
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
55.06
Average from 1112018 — 212023
DMR data
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
Average from 1112018 — 212023
DMR data < 25 mg/L; Default
value used
7Q10 summer (cfs)
120
NPDES Files
1Q10 (cfs)
97.83
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
20.0
NPDES Files
Date: 5/17/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO024571 Lumberton WWTP
BOD monthly removal rate
Month
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
RR (%)
96.92
89.72
97.14
98.11
96.59
98.10
98.93
98.77
99.01
98.88
98.69
98.49
97.57
95.69
94.54
92.85
92.64
94.94
96.99
96.55
97.92
96.39
98.02
97.07
96.31
94.33
95.22
92.91
91.86
95.85
Month
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
June-22
July-22
August-22
September-22
October-22
November-22
December-22
January-23
February-23
March-23
April-23
May-23
June-23
July-23
August-23
September-23
October-23
Overall BOD removal rate
RR (%)
97.61
98.01
97.52
97.66
97.71
97.37
95.35
94.46
96.66
94.74
95.54
95.80
98.13
97.99
98.02
98.33
97.62
97.92
97.63
96.92
96.31
95.38
95.53
95.40
96.49
5/17/2023
TSS monthly removal rate
Month
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
Apri I-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
RR (%)
89.89
65.16
94.98
96.69
92.38
95.41
98.06
97.76
98.76
98.02
97.33
96.12
90.91
85.59
86.28
87.33
84.91
88.57
95.00
94.69
97.25
95.74
96.50
94.10
86.87
83.85
94.68
84.09
86.91
95.67
Month
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
June-22
July-22
August-22
September-22
October-22
November-22
December-22
January-23
February-23
March-23
April-23
May-23
June-23
July-23
August-23
September-23
October-23
Overall TSSD removal rate
RR (%)
95.82
95.48
95.57
96.38
95.77
93.84
90.32
89.73
92.78
87.34
82.87
83.94
95.58
95.29
96.13
95.85
95.96
95.78
94.77
94.25
91.49
91.96
88.60
92.57
92.09

5/17/23
WQS =
12
ng/L
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name
Lumberton
WWTP/NC0024571
No Limit Required
/Permit No.
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5
ng/L
7Q10s = 120.000 cfs WQBEL = 58.45 ng/L
Date
Modifier
Data Entry
Value
Permitted Flow = 20.000 47 ng/L
2/12/19
<
1
0.5
8/12/19
<
1
0.5
9/3/19
<
1
0.5
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
2/10/20
<
1
0.5
11/16/20
1.3
1.3
0.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
2/8/21
<
1
0.5
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021
2/8/22
<
5
2.5
8/8/22
1.18
1.18
1.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2022
2/6/23
11.8
11.8
11.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2023

Lumberton WWTP/NC0024571
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
# of Samples
3
2
1
2
1
Annual Average, ng/L
0.5
0.9
0.5
1.8
11.8
Maximum Value, ng/L
0.50
1.30
0.50
2.50
11.80
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
58.5

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Lumberton WWTP
PermitNo. NC0024571
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 20
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 120
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 191
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 120
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 20
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 31
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0
IWC (%) 20.53
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 83
Cap at 28 ug/L. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
120
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
20
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
31
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
20.53
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
4.0
Same as current limit. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
191
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
20
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
31
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
4.87 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
13.96
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
11.5
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO024571 MRS Betweei 5 - 2018 and 5 - 2023 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 05/16/22 Page 1 of 2
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO024571
FACILITY: City of Lumberton - Lumberton WWTP
COUNTY: Robeson
REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
04 - 2021
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
04/30/21
5 X week
mg/I
11
12.45
13.2
Monthly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
05 - 2021
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
05/01 /21
5 X week
mg/I
16.5
18.68
13.2
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
04 - 2023
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
04/30/23
5 X week
mg/I
11
11.61
5.5
Monthly Average
None
Concentration
Exceeded
02-2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/07/20
5 X week
ug/I
28
133
375
Daily Maximum
Proceed to NOV
Exceeded
04 - 2023
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
04/10/23
5 X week
ug/I
28
39
39.3
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018
001
Effluent
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
09/29/18
5 X week
#/100ml
400
878.65
119.7
Weekly Geometric Mean
No Action, BPJ
Broth, 44.5 C
Exceeded
10 - 2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
10/13/18
5 X week
mg/I
12
12.14
1.2
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOD
N) - Concentration
Exceeded
10 -2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
10/31/18
5 X week
mg/I
4
4.15
3.6
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOD
N) - Concentration
Exceeded
04 - 2021
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
04/30/21
5 X week
mg/I
4
5
25.0
Monthly Average
Proceed to
N) - Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
09 - 2021
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
09/30/21
5 X week
mg/I
4
4.33
8.2
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOD
N) - Concentration
Exceeded
04 - 2023
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
04/30/23
5 X week
mg/I
4
4.9
22.6
Monthly Average
None
N) - Concentration
Exceeded
09 -2018
001
Effluent
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
09/19/18
5 X week
mg/I
5
4.5
10
Daily Minimum Not
No Action, BPJ
Reached
09 -2018
001
Effluent
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
09/20/18
5 X week
mg/I
5
3.2
36
Daily Minimum Not
No Action, BPJ
Reached
09 -2018
001
Effluent
pH
09/19/18
5 X week
su
6
5.2
13.3
Daily Minimum Not
No Action, BPJ
Reached
09-2018
001
Effluent
pH
09/20/18
5 X week
su
6
5.6
6.7
Daily Minimum Not
No Action, BPJ
Reached

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO024571 MRS Betweel 5 - 2018 and 5 - 2023 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 05/16/22 Page 2 of 2
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO024571
FACILITY: City of Lumberton - Lumberton WWTP
COUNTY: Robeson
REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
09-2018
001
Effluent
pH
09/21/18
5 X week
su
6
5.8
3.3
Daily Minimum Not
No Action, BPJ
Reached
12-2019
001
Effluent
pH
12/05/19
5 X week
su
6
5.9
1.7
Daily Minimum Not
Proceed to NOD
Reached
11 -2020
001
Effluent
pH
11/23/20
5 X week
su
6
3.8
36.7
Daily Minimum Not
Proceed to NOV
Reached
11 -2020
001
Effluent
pH
11/24/20
5 X week
su
6
4.6
23.3
Daily Minimum Not
Proceed to NOV
Reached
11 -2020
001
Effluent
pH
11/25/20
5 X week
su
6
4.6
23.3
Daily Minimum Not
Proceed to NOV
Reached
11 -2020
001
Effluent
pH
11/30/20
5 X week
su
6
4.5
25
Daily Minimum Not
Proceed to NOV
Reached
12-2020
001
Effluent
pH
12/01/20
5 X week
su
6
5.1
15
Daily Minimum Not
Proceed to NOV
Reached
12 - 2018
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
12/15/18
5 X week
mg/I
45
66.22
47.2
Weekly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
03 - 2022
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
03/31 /22
5 X week
mg/I
30
38.2
27.3
Monthly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
04 - 2022
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
04/09/22
5 X week
mg/I
45
57.22
27.2
Weekly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
04 - 2022
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
04/16/22
5 X week
mg/I
45
50.38
11.9
Weekly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
04 - 2022
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
04/30/22
5 X week
mg/I
30
34.74
15.8
Monthly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NCO024571 I11 121 22/05/16 I17 18I � I 19 I G I 201 I
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
72 L-J 73174 79 I I I I
70J 71 Ity
80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09:OOAM 22/05/16
17/08/01
Lumberton WWTP
700 Lafayette St Extension
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Lumberton NC 28359
12:45PM 22/05/16
22/07/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Henry Byron Harper/ORC/910-671-3859/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Harold Walton,PO Drawer 1388 Lumberton NC 283591388/ORC/910-671-3859/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Hughie White DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.708/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mark Brantley DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.727/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO024571 I11 12I 22/05/16 117 18 i s i
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
A copy of the current NPDES permit and a copy of the most recent annual report were available for
review. All records and logbooks were very well organized and maintained. The ORC visitation log
appeared to be complete and current. Calibration records for equipment appeared to be properly
documented. Laboratory data was reviewed during this inspetion and all data that was reviewed
appeared to be correct, as reported on the DMR's. All treatment units appeared to be properly
operated and maintained. At the time of this inspection, the effluent appeared to be clear with no
visible solids present.
Also, as part of this inspection, effluent samples were collected and sent to the NC Division of Water
Resources laboratory for analysis. The results of the analysis are listed below:
Fecal Coliform: 1200 CFU/100ml
BOD: 19 mg/L
Suspended Residue: 6.25 mg/L
NH3: 0.11 mg/L
NO2+NO3: 40 mg/L
Total Phosphorus: 1.6 mg/L
TKN: 3.0 mg/L
Page#

Permit: NCO024571
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022
Owner -Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
0
❑
❑
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
❑
❑
❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
❑
❑
❑
classification?
Page# 3

Permit: NC0024571 Owner -Facility:
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type:
Lumberton WWTP
Compliance Sampling
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Page# 4

Permit: NCO024571 Owner -Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Disinfection -Gas
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO024571 Owner -Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Disinfection -Gas Yes No NA NE
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site? E ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated? 08/06/2020
Comment:
De -chlorination
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of system ?
Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
0
❑
❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
0
❑
❑ ❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
❑ ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Standby Power
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
0
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
0
❑
❑
❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Aerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
■
❑
❑
❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO024571
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022
Owner -Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Aerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is the odor acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: This flow meter was calibrated on 5/11/22
Effluent Pipe
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Page# 7

Permit: NC0024571
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022
Effluent Sampling
Owner -Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Comment:
Upstream / Downstream Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type,
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: The effluent flow meter is used for reporting. The meter was last calibrated on 5/11/22.
Page# 8

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 2 u 3 I NC0024571 111 121 22/08/31 117 18 L D] 19 I G I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
72 L-J 73174 79 I I I I
70LJ 71Ity
80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09:OOAM 22/08/31
17/08/01
Lumberton WWTP
700 Lafayette St Extension
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Lumberton NC 28359
01:30PM 22/08/31
22/07/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Harold Walton,PO Drawer 1388 Lumberton NC 283591388/ORC/910-671-3859/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Other
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO024571 I11 12I 22/08/31 117 18 m
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NCO024571
Inspection Date: 08/31/2022
Other
Comment:
Owner -Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Yes No NA NE
Page#

A
B C D E F G H I J K L M
N O P
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form
Version:2022.09.28
1
2
1. Facility's General Information
Date of (draft) Review
5/17/2023
c. POC review due to:
e. Contact Information
3
Date of (final) Review
11/9/2023
Municipal NPDES renewal
❑J
Regional Office (RO)
Fayetteville
4
NPDES Permit Writer (pw)
Nick Coco
HWA-AT/LTMP Review
❑
RO PT Staff
Stephanie Zorio
RO NPDES Staff
Hughie White
5
6
Perm ittee- Facility Name
Lumberton WWTP
New Industries
❑
Facility PT Staff, email
Beverly Allen, ballen(aDci.lumberton.nc.us
7
NPDES Permit Number
NCO024571
WWTP expansion
❑
f. Receiving Stream
8
NPDES Permit Effective Date
1/1/2024
Stream reclass./adjustment
❑
Outfall 1
9
Chemical Addendum Submittal Date
5/31/2023
Outfall relocation/adjustment
❑
Receiving Stream:
Lumber River
QA, cfs:
10
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date
6/17/2023
7Q10 update
❑
Stream Class
C;Sw
7Q10 (S), cfs:
20
I
11
eDMR data evaluated from:
11/1/2018
to
4/30/2023
Other POC review trigger, explain:
Oufall Lat.
34.36.10
Outfall Long.
78.59.37
12
a. WWTP Capacity Summary
Outfall II
13
Current Permitted Flow, mgd
20.0
Deggned Flow,
20.0
Receiving Stream:
QA, cfs:
14
Permitted SIU Flow, mgd
2.040
d. IU Summary
Stream Class
7Q10, cfs:
15
b. PT Docs. Summary
# IUs
10
Oufall Lat.
Outfall Long.
16
IWS approval date
1/21/2021
# SIUs
10
Is there a PWS intake downstream of the Facility's Outfall(s)?
YES ❑ NO
17
L/STMP approval date:
5/4/2017
# CIUs
1
Comments:
18
HWA-AT approval date
12/31/2019
# NSCIUs
The facility discharges approximately 30 miles upstream of the NC/SC border
# IUs w/Local
Permits or Other
19
-Types
20
2. Industrial Users' Information.
21
L
#
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU Non Conventional Pollutans & Toxic Pollutant
IUP Effective Date
22
1
Elkay Southern Corp.
Metal -Sinks
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, zinc
4/1/2023
2
International Paper Company
430-Paper
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, copper, zinc
4/1/2023
23
24
E
3
Kansas City Sausage Company
Food
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, phosphorous, TKN
4/1/2023
25
a
4
Kayser Roth Corporation, Inc.
Textile
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, chromium, copper, zinc
4/1/2023
5
BFT Lumberton Ops Corp.
Textile
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS
4/1/2023
26
Lu
d
6
Robeson County Landfill
Landfill
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, arsenic, TKN, zinc
4/1/2023
27
Z
7
Trinity Manufacturing, Inc.
455-Chlorpicrin
flow, pH, temperature, cyanide, lead, 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
4/1/2023
dichloropropane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,3-dichloropropene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromomethane,
chlorobenzene, chloromethane, dibromochloromethane, dichloromethane, ethylbenzene, napthalene, tetrachloroethylene, tetrachloromethane,
toluene, tribromomethane, trichloromethane
28
8
Sampson County Landfill
Landfill
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, arsenic, TKN, zinc, cyanide, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel
4/3/2023
29
9
Red Rock Disposal
Landfill
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, arsenic, TKN, zinc, cyanide, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel
4/1/2023
30
10
GFL Environmental Inc. (Wake County Landfill)
Landfill
flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, arsenic, TKN, zinc, cyanide, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel
4/1/2023
31
11
32
12
33
13
34
14
35
Comment:
recommend investigating landfills for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, textiles for PFAS
40
41
3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
42
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
43
❑
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
44
❑
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
45
❑
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
46
p
I 3a) Full Program with LTMP
47
❑
I 3b) Modified Program with STMP
48
❑
----- -----
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
49
p
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
50
❑
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to § 503.43)
51
❑
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill, if yes which landfill:
52
❑
8) other
53
Sludge Disposal Plan:
Land application
54
55
Sludge Permit No:
WQ0000672
56
Page 1 POC Review Form

A
B C D E F G H I I J I K I L M N O P
57
4. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
58
PW: Find USTMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
59
a
U)
c
U
a
Parameter of Concern
(POC) Check List
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES
POC
Required by
EPA PT(1)
POC due to
Sludge (2)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC (4)
%
Removal
Rate
USTMP
Effluent Freq.
NPDES
Effluent Freq.
PQLs review
Comment
60
PQL from
USTMP, ug/1
Required PQL
per NPDES
permit
Recomm.
PQL, ug/1
p
Flow
❑
0
❑
El61
62
F,�
BOD
0
0
❑
2000.0
63
P1
TSS
❑
0
El
❑
2500.0
64
0
JNH3
❑
p
❑
❑
100.0
65
0
jArsenic
❑
❑
121
❑
❑
5.0
2.0
66
❑
Barium
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
67
❑
Beryllium(5)
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
68
p
Cadmium(1)
❑
❑
p
0
❑
❑
1.0
0.5
69
r:�j
Chromium(1)
❑
❑
0
❑
El
❑
5.0
5.0
70
0
Copper(l)
❑
❑
J
❑
❑
121
1-12.0
2.0
71
p
Cyanide
❑
❑
❑
p
❑
5.0
72
p
Lead(1)
❑
❑
p
p
0
❑
5.0
2.0
73
p
Mercury(5)
❑
p
p
❑
❑
1 ng/L
0.001
74
0
Molybdenum
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
10.0
10.0
75
0
Nickel(1)
❑
❑
p
0
❑
❑
10.0
76
0
Selenium
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
10.0
1.0
77
❑
Silver
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
1
1.0
78
[2]
Zinc(1)
1 ❑
❑
0
0
0
❑
10.0
10.0
79
0
Sludge Flow to Disposal
p
❑
❑
80
p
% Solids to Disposal
p
❑
❑
81
❑
Oil & Grease
❑
❑
82
❑
TN
❑
❑
❑
❑
83
❑
TP
❑
❑
❑
❑
84
❑
Chloride
❑
❑
❑
❑
85
❑
Cobalt
❑
❑
❑
❑
86
❑
Sodium
❑
❑
❑
❑
87
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
88
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
89
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
90
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
91
Footnotes:
92
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA -PT requirement
93
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
94
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
95
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is of concern to POTW
96
(5) In LTMP/STMP, if sewage sludge is incinerated
97
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
98
Please use red font for POC that need to be added/modified in USTMP sampling plan
99
Please font for POC that be from LISTIMIP POC listis
use orange and strikethrough may removed
100
-- --- --- --
Blue shaded cell (D60:1-181): Parameters usually included under that POC list
qp
5. Comments
---------------------------------------------------------
101
102
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in USTMP:
103
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
104
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
Datasheet:
105
Additional pollutants added to USTMP due
to POTW s concerns:
106
NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
107
6. Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal
108
NPDES Permit Effective Date
180 days after effective (date):
Permit writer, please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
Page 2 POC Review Form

SOUTHERN 601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
LAW
CENTER
July 17, 2023
Nick Coco
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Re: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on NPDES Wastewater
Draft Permit NC0024571, Lumberton Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Coco:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments, on behalf of
Winyah Rivers Alliance, regarding the draft renewal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ("NPDES") Permit NC0024571, issued by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality ("the Department") to the city of Lumberton for the operation of its
wastewater treatment plant.' The city of Lumberton discharges wastewater into the Lumber
River, a class C water, approximately 30 miles upstream of the North Carolina and South
Carolina border. Z
The Lumberton wastewater treatment plant discharges toxic per- or polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS") at extraordinarily high levels, documented as high as 11,300 parts per
trillion ("ppt").3 The city also likely discharges 1,4-dioxane. Despite the Department's
acknowledgment of such,° it did not impose limits or conditions to control the town's toxic
pollution.5 As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") made clear in guidance issued
last December, state permitting agencies should use their "existing authorit[y]" to control toxic
chemical pollution, including PFAS, "to the fullest extent available under state and local law."6
EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance highlights central tenets of the NPDES permitting program-
1 N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Draft NPDES Permit NCO024571 (June 13, 2023) [hereinafter "Lumberton Draft
Permit"]. We note that while the draft permit is dated June 13, 2023, the public was not notified about the draft until
June 17, 2023. We submit these comments within 30 days of the public notice. 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2H. 0 109(a)(2); see also N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Public Notices: Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater
Permit NCO024571 Lumberton WWTP (Jun. 17, 2023), https://www.deq nc.gov/news/events/notice-intent-issue-
n�des-wastewater-permit-nc0024571-lumberton-wwlg (explaining comments will be accepted until July 17, 2023).
2 N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Draft Fact Sheet NPDES Permit No. NCO024571 (May 16, 2023), at 1 [hereinafter
"Lumberton Draft Fact Sheet"].
3 GEL Laboratories LLC, NCDQ001, GEL Work Order: 572111 (Mar. 11, 2022), at PDF pg. 15-18, Attachment 1
[hereinafter "DEQ, Lumberton PFAS Sampling Results".
4 Lumberton Draft Fact Sheet, supra note 2, at 8.
5 See Lumberton Draft Permit, supra note 1 at 3, 8.
'Memorandum from Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Addressing PFAS Discharges
in NPDES Permits and Through the Pretreatment Program and Monitoring Programs (December 5, 2022)
(emphasis added) [hereinafter "EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance"], Attachment 2.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

including effluent limitations and the pretreatment program —that are effective at controlling
PFAS pollution.7 Those same tools can and should be used to control 1,4-dioxane. Because this
draft permit does not impose effluent limits for these chemicals or require Lumberton to utilize
its pretreatment program to control pollution flowing from its significant industrial users, it is
unlawful, and it must be withdrawn and revised, as discussed below.
I. Lumberton discharges PFAS, a class of chemicals known to be harmful to
human health and the environment.
Lumberton did not disclose that it discharges PFAS in its permit application materials,$
but prior sampling collected by the Department confirms the facility discharges the chemicals at
concentrations exceeding 11,300 ppt.9
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals manufactured and used broadly by industry
since the 1940s.10 PFAS pose a significant threat to human health at extremely low
concentrations. Two of the most studied PFASperfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS")—are bioaccumulative and highly persistent in humans,"
PFOA and PFOS have been shown to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney
and testicular cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis,
obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels, delayed puberty,
decreased fertility, and lower birth weight and size. 12 Because of its impacts on the immune
system, PFAS can also exacerbate the effects of Covid-19.13 Studies show that exposure to
mixtures of different PFAS can worsen these health effects.14 Given these harms, EPA in June
7 Id. at 3-4.
8 See generally City of Lumberton, NPDES Permit Renewal Application Permit # NCO024571 (Nov. 2, 2021)
[hereinafter "Lumberton Permit Application"]; see also Lumberton Draft Fact Sheet, supra note 2, at 8, PDF pg. 12.
9 DEQ, Lumberton PFAS Sampling Results, supra note 3, at PDF pg. 15-18.
to Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories for Four Perfluoroalkyl Substances, 87 Fed. Reg. 36,848, 36,849
(June 21, 2022); Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS, U.S. ENV'T
PROT. AGENCY, https://www.epa.goy/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas
(last visited July 13, 2023).
11 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,849; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctanoic
Acid (PFOA) CASRN 335-67-1 (June 2022), at 3-4, available at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfoa-2022.pdf; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Interim
Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) CASRN 1763-23-1 (June 2022), at 3-4,
available at hlWs://www.epa.goy/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfos-2022.pdf.
12 Arlene Blum et al., The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 ENV'T. HEALTH
PERsP. 5, A 107 (May 2015); U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS: Fact Sheet for
Communities, at 1-2 (June 2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/drinking_
water-ha-pfas-factsheet-communities.pdf, Nathan J. Cohen, et al., Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and
Women's Fertility Outcomes in a Singaporean Population —Based Preconception Cohort, 873 Sci of The Total
Env't 162267 (May 2023).
" See Lauren Brown, Insight: PFAS, Covid-19, and Immune Response —Connecting the Dots, BLOOMBERG LAW
(July 13, 2020, 4:00 AM), https://news.bloomberalaw.com/environment-and-energy/insight-pfas-covid-l9-and-
immune-response-connecting-the-dots?context=article-related.
" Emma V. Preston et al., Prenatal Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Maternal and Neonatal
Thyroid Function in the Project Viva Cohort: A Mixtures Approach, 139 ENV'T INT'L 1 (2020),
https://perma.cc/DJK3-87SN.
N

2022 established interim updated lifetime health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in drinking
water of 0.004 ppt and 0.02 ppt, respectively. 15
Epidemiological studies show that many of the negative health outcomes associated with
PFOA and PFOS can result from exposure to other PFAS, including, but not limited to,
perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), 16 perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"),17
perfluorobutanoic acid ("MA")," perfluorohexanoic acid ("PFHxA"),19 perfluorononanoic
acid ("PFNA"),20 perfluorodecanoic acid ("PFDA"),21 and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
("GenX Chemicals").22
While the harms to human health are extreme, PFAS are also detrimental to wildlife and
the environment. The chemicals have been shown to cause damaging effects in fish,23
15 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,848-49.
16 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, DRAFT Systematic Review Protocol for the PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA
(anionic and acid forms) IRIS Assessments (updated Jan. 2021), at 2-22, https://perma.cc/32DL-AAQK [hereinafter
"DRAFT Toxicological Data PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA"] (explaining that studies indicate that
PFHxS is associated with developmental, endocrine, hepatic, immune, reproductive, and urinary effects); Minn.
Dep't of Health, Toxicological Summary for: Perfluorohexane sulfonate (Aug. 2020), at 7 https://perma.cc/4CWG-
9VQB (stating that exposure to PFHxS has been associated with detrimental endocrine and reproductive impacts).
"U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid (CASRN 375-73-5)
and Related Compound Potassium Perfluorobutane Solfonate (CASRN 29420-49-3) (June 2022),
htt2s://perma.cc/X74T-E083 (explaining that literature confirms exposure to PFBS impacts to thyroid, reproductive
systems, development, kidneys, liver, and lipid and lipoprotein homeostasis).
18 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, IRIS Toxicological Review of Perfluorobutanoic Acid (PFBA, CASRN 375-22-4) and
Related Salts (Dec. 2022), at xii, https://perma.cc/HD3F-78VJ (explaining "available evidence indicates that
developmental, thyroid, and liver effects in humans are likely caused by PFBA exposure in utero or during
adulthood").
19 DRAFT Toxicological Data PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA, supra note 16 at 2-22.
20 Id.; N.J. Drinking Water Quality Inst., Health -Based Maximum Contaminant Level Support Document:
Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), at 35 (June 22, 2015), htt2s://perma.cc/JU9Z-AG9T (explaining exposure to
PFNA has been associated with developmental issues, including neonatal mortality, and liver functions).
21 DRAFT Toxicological Data PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA, supra note 16 at 2-22.
22 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisory: Hexafluoropropylene Oxide (HFPO) Dimer Acid
(CASRN 13252-13-6) and HFPO Dimer Acid Ammonium Salt (CASRN 62037-80-3), Also Known as "GenX
Chemicals" (June 2022), at vii, https://perma.cc/9F6H-5BBY (explaining that exposure to GenX increases harms to
liver, reproductive, and developmental functions).
23 Chen et al., Perfluorobutanesulfonate Exposure Causes Durable and Transgenerational Dysbiosis of Gut
Microbiota in Marine Medaka, 5 ENv'T SCI. & TECH LETTERS 731-38 (2018); Chen et al., Accumulation
of Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) and Impairment of Visual Function in the Eyes of Marine Medaka After
a LifeCycle Exposure, 201 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1-10 (2018); Du et al., Chronic Effects of Water -Borne PFOS
Exposure on Growth, Survival and Hepatotoxicity in Zebrafish: A Partial Life -Cycle Test, 74 CHEMOSPHERE 723-29
(2009); Hagenaars et al., Structure Activity Relationship Assessment of Four Perfluorinated Chemicals Using a
Prolonged Zebrafish Early Life Stage Test, 82 CHEMOSPHERE 764-72 (2011); Huang et al., Toxicity, Uptake
Kinetics and Behavior Assessment in Zebrafish Embryos Following Exposure
to Perfluorooctanesulphonicacid (PFOS), 98 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 139-47 (2010); Jantzen et al., PFOS, PFNA,
and PFOA Sub -Lethal Exposure to Embryonic Zebrafish Have Different Toxicity Profiles in terms of
Morphometrics, Behavior and Gene Expression, 175 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 160-70 (2016); Liu et al., The Thyroid -
Disrupting Effects of Long -Term Perfluorononanoate Exposure on Zebrafish (Danio rerio),
20 ECOTOxICOLOGY 47-55 (2011); Chen et al., Multigenerational Disruption of the Thyroid Endocrine System in
Marine Medaka after a Life -Cycle Exposure to Perfluorobutanesulfonate, 52 ENv'T SCI. & TECH. 4432-39
(2018); Rotondo et al., Environmental Doses of Perfluorooctanoic Acid Change the Expression of Genes in Target
Tissues of Common Carp, 37 ENV'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 942-48 (2018).

amphibians'24 reptiles,25 mollusks,26 and other aquatic invertebrates 27 resulting in
developmental and reproductive impacts, behavioral changes, adverse effects to livers, disruption
to endocrine systems, and weakened immune systems.28
PFAS are extremely resistant to breaking down in the environment.29 Once released, the
chemicals can travel long distances and bioaccumulate in organisms.30 PFAS have been found in
fish tissue across all 48 continental states ,31 and PFOS—a particularly harmful PFAS
compound —is one of the most prominent PFAS found in freshwater fish.32 As a result, the
primarily low-income and minority communities that rely heavily on subsistence fishing have
been found to have elevated PFAS levels in their blood.33 In fact, researchers conclude that
"[w]idespread PFAS contamination of freshwater fish in surface waters in the U.S. is likely a
significant source of exposure to PFOS and potentially other perfluorinated compounds for all
persons who consume freshwater fish, but especially for high frequency freshwater fish
consumers."34 On July 13, 2023, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
24 Ankley et al., Partial Life -Cycle Toxicity and Bioconcentration Modeling of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in the
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens), 23 ENVT TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2745 (2004); Cheng et al., Thyroid
Disruption Effects of Environmental Level Perfluorooctane Sulfonates (PFOS) in Xenopus Laevis,
20 ECOTOxICOLOGY 2069-78 (2011); Lou et al., Effects of Perfluorooctanesulfonate and Perfluorobutanesulfonate
on the Growth and Sexual Development ofXenopus Laevis, 22 ECOTOxICOLOGY 1133-44 (2013).
25 Guillette et al., Blood Concentrations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Are Associated with Autoimmune-
like Effects in American Alligators From Wilmington, North Carolina, FRONTIER TOXICOLOGY 4:1010185 (Oct. 20,
2022).
26 Liu et al., Oxidative Toxicity of Perfluorinated Chemicals in Green Mussel and Bioaccumulation Factor
Dependent Quantitative Structure -Activity Relationship, 33 ENVT TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2323-32 (2014); Liu et
al., Immunotoxicity in Green Mussels under Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Exposure: Reversible Response and
Response Model Development, 37 ENVT TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 1138-45 (2018).
21 Houde et al., Endocrine -Disruption Potential of Perfluoroethylcyclohexane Sulfonate (PFECHS) in Chronically
Exposed Daphnia Magna, 218 ENVT POLLUTION 950-56 (2016); Liang et al., Effects of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
on Immobilization, Heartbeat, Reproductive and Biochemical Performance of Daphnia Magna,
168 CHEMOSPHERE 1613-18 (2017); Ji et al., Oxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and Perfluorooctanoic Acid
on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates (Daphnia Magna and Moina Macrocopa) and Fish (Oryzias Latipes), 27 ENv'T
TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2159 (2008); MacDonald et al., Toxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and
Perfluorooctanoic Acid to Chironomus Tentans, 23 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2116 (2004).
26 See supra notes 23-27.
29 Carol F. Kwiatkowski, et al., Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class, ENVT SCL & TECH.
LETTERS 8-9 (2020).
31 See What are PFAS?, AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY,
hLtps://www.atsdr.cdc.goy/pfas/health-effects/overview.html (last visited Feb. 27, 2023); see also Our Current
Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS, supra note 10.
" Nadia Barbo, et al., Locally Caught Freshwater Fish Across the United States Are Likely A Significant Source of
Exposure to PFOS and Other Perfluorinated Compounds, 220 ENVT RES. 115165 3 (2023), available at
hj�2s://penna.cc/SB8F-C3Y6.
32 Id. at 4.
33 Patricia A. Fair et al., Perfluoralkyl Substances (PFASs) in Edible Fish Species from Charleston Harbor and
Tributaries, South Carolina, United States: Exposure and Risk Assessment, 171 ENv'T. RES. 266, 273-75 (April
2019), hops://perma.cc/7976-XAVU; Chloe Johnson, Industrial chemicals in Charleston Harbor taint fish — and
those who eat them, POST & COURIER (June 4, 2022), https://penna.cc/Z5TM-MB83.
34 Barbo, supra note 31 at 9.
4

adopted fish consumption advisories in the Cape Fear River due to high levels of PFOS detected
in many of the fish sampled.35
In 2022, the Department investigated sources of PFAS in the Lumber River and collected
an effluent sample from the Lumberton wastewater treatment plant. That sampling confirmed
that Lumberton discharges PFAS in total concentrations of 11,379.5 ppt.36 Lumberton's
discharge contains PFOA and PFOS at 77.7 ppt and 14.1 ppt, respectively.37 The city's discharge
also contains staggering levels of other PFAS including:
• 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy) ethane sulfonic acid: 2,850 ppt,
• Nafion Byproduct 4 ("PFESA BP4"): 3,420 ppt,
• Nafion Byproduct 5 ("PFESA BP5"): 1,250 ppt,
• Perfluoropentanoic acid ("PFPeA"): 1,240 ppt,
• Perfluoropropanoic acid ("PPF Acid"): 829 ppt,
• R-EVE: 390 ppt,
• PFBA: 354 ppt,
• PFBS: 352 ppt,
• PFHxA: 203 ppt,
• Nafion Byproduct 2 ("PFESA BP2"): 91.1 ppt,
• Perfluoroheptanoic acid ("PFHpA"): 78.4 ppt,
• GenX: 48.4 ppt,
• Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid ("PFMOAA"): 41.5 ppt,
• Nafion Byproduct 6 ("PFESA BP6"): 21.4 ppt.38
While Lumberton did not disclose the presence of these chemicals in its discharge, it's likely (if
not certain) that the discharges have continued. Lumberton receives wastewater from ten
industrial users, many of which are known or suspected sources of PFAS pollution.
For example, Lumberton accepts landfill leachate from the Sampson County landfill at a
rate of 58,179 gallons per day ("GPD").39 The Department has already confirmed that the
leachate from the Sampson County landfill contains high concentrations of many PFAS.40 In
sampling conducted in 2019, the Department recorded that the Sampson County landfill's
leachate contains the following PFAS at their respective concentrations: PFOA (1,790 ppt),
PFOS (222 ppt), GenX (10,800 ppt),41 PFPeA (86,400 ppt), PFBA (4,770 ppt), PFBS (7,530
35 N.C. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., NCDHHS Recommends Limiting Fish Consumption from the Middle and
Lower Cape Fear River Due to Contamination With "Forever Chemicals " (July 13, 2023),
hLtps://www.ncdhhs.gov/news/press-releases/2023/07/ 13/ncdhhs-recommends-limiting-fish-consumption-middle-
and-lower-cape-fear-river-due-contamination [hereinafter "DHHS, PFAS Fish Consumption Advisories"].
36 DEQ, Lumberton PFAS Sampling Results, supra note 3, at PDF pg. 15-18.
37 Id.
3s Id.
39 Lumberton Permit Application, supra note 8, at PDF pg. 43.
4' Hart & Hickman, Collective Study of PFAS and 1,4-Diosane in Landfill Leachate and Estimated Influence on
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Influent (Mar. 10, 2020), at Table 3, Attachment 3 [hereinafter "DEQ,
Leachate PFAS Study"].
41 In the report, GenX is listed as "2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic acid
(PFPrOPrA)." DEQ, Leachate PFAS Study, supra note 40, at Table 3. GenX is the trade name for this chemical.

ppt), PFHpA (5,520 ppt), and PFHxA (6,730 ppt), among others.42 Notably, many of these PFAS
are the same reflected in Lumberton's wastewater. While the Department's landfill sampling was
conducted in 2019, it is likely that the leachate flowing from the Sampson County landfill
continues to contain the toxic chemicals. The landfill receives sludge from known and suspected
sources of PFAS, including The Chemours Fayetteville Works FC43 and DAK Americas'44 two
manufacturing facilities in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The sludge from these facilities settles
into the landfill and contaminates the leachate that is collected and sent to municipal wastewater
plants like Lumberton.
Lumberton also receives approximately 21,000 GPD of leachate from the Wake County
South Wake Landfill.45 Like the Sampson County landfill, the Department has already
determined that leachate from the Wake County landfill contains high concentrations of PFAS,
including PFOA (803 ppt), PFOS (82.3 ppt), PFBA (600 ppt), PFBS (1,420 ppt), PFHpA (241
ppt), PFHxS (237 ppt), PFHxA (2,940 ppt), and PFPeA (577 ppt). Many of these are also present
in Lumberton's wastewater.
Lumberton also receives leachate from suspected sources of PFAS. The Robeson County
Solid Waste Management facility and Red Rock Disposal LLC, for instance, are two other
landfills that could be sending PFAS to the Lumberton wastewater treatment plant. In a recent
analysis, EPA determined that over 95 percent of the landfills studied have HAS in their
leachate,46 suggesting that the same could be happening here. Additionally, textile manufacturers
like Lumberton's Kayser Roth have been found to use HAS to enhance products' resistance to
water, oil, and heat.47 Depending on the type of fabric production, PFAS can be added to the
fibers themselves or sprayed onto the finished fabric to enhance performance and durability.48 A,
a result, EPA has determined that PFAS "are present in wastewater discharges" from textile
companies.49
Similarly, pulp and paper companies, like Lumberton's International Paper, are a known
consumer of PFAS, which the industry uses to improve the water-resistant properties in paper
products.50 PFAS can be added to the pulp to improve the internal water-resistant properties of
4' DEQ, Leachate PFAS Study, supra note 40, at Table 3.
43 Steve DeVane, Sludge From Chemours Plant Dumped in Sampson County Landfill, The Fayetteville Observer
(Oct. 20, 2018), https://www fUobserver.com/story/news/2018/10/20/slud,ge-from-chemours-plant-dumped-in-
sampson-county-landfill/9501213007/.
44 DAK Americas, Permit Renewal and Modification NPDES Permit No.: NC0003719 (May 3, 2022), at PDF pg.
14.
45 Lumberton Permit Application, supra note 8, at PDF pg. 45.
46 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Jan. 2023), at 6-13,
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/11143 ELG%20Plan%2015 508.pdf.
47 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Multi -Industry Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Study — 2021 Preliminary
Report (Sept. 2021), at 8-3 to 8-4, hlWs://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/multi-industry_pfas-
study preliminary-2021-report 508 2021.09.08.pdf [hereinafter "EPA, Preliminary Industry Report"].
41Id. at 8-1 to 8-2.
49 Id. at 8-4.
50 Id. at 7-1.
M

paper products,51 or added externally as a surface coating for packaging products.52 In addition
to incorporation into manufactured products, fluoropolymers are used on equipment and
production processes for their non -corrosive properties, from pulp mills and recovery operations
to the paper machines themselves.53 It is likely, therefore, that the wastewater being discharged
by pulp and paper companies contains PFAS. Finally, chemical manufacturers, like Lumberton's
Trinity Manufacturing, are suspected PFAS sources. EPA notes that this category:
includes a broad range of sectors, raw materials, and unit operations that may
manufacture or use PFAS ... some [organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fiber]
facilities use PFAS feedstocks as polymerization or processing aids or in the
production of...products.54
Given these characteristics, EPA has found that this industry category is likely to generate
wastewater containing long -chain and short -chain PFAS, including those that are well -studied
and known to be harmful to humans.55
Because Lumberton's industrial users fall into categories that are known or suspected
sources of PFAS, it is nearly certain that the wastewater plant continues to discharge
exceptionally high levels of PFAS into the Lumber River.
II. Lumberton likely discharges 1,4-dixoane, a cancer causing chemical.
In addition to PFAS, it is likely that Lumberton is discharging 1,4-dioxane, a probable
human carcinogen. 1,4-dioxane is a clear, man-made chemical that is used in or created as a
byproduct of many industrial processes.56 The chemical is toxic to humans,57 causing liver and
kidney damage at incredibly low levels.58 As a result of the harms caused by 1,4-dioxane, EPA
established a drinking water health advisory with an associated lifetime cancer risk of one-in-
51 See Xenia Trier et al., PFAS in Paper and Board for Food Contact: Options for Risk Management of Poly -and
Perfluorinated Substances, (Nordic Council of Ministers 2018); Gregory Glenn et al., Per -and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances and their Alternatives in Paper Food Packaging, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Sci. and Food Safety
(2021) ("PFAS chemicals tend to coat the surfaces of fibers, including fibers located internally when internal sizing
containing PFAS is used such as with molded pulp paper packaging.").
52 Andrew B. Lindstrom, Mark J. Strynar, and E. Laurence Libelo, Polyfluorinated Compounds: Past, Present, and
Future, 45 Env't. Sci. & Tech. 7954 (2011).
51 See Leon Magdzinski, Fluoropolymer Use in the Pulp and Paper Industry, CORROSION 99 (1999) (noting
"fluoropolymer have become ubiquitous in the pulp and paper industry"); Rainer Lohmann et al., Are
Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS?, 54
Env't. Sci. & Tech. 12,820 (2020).
54 EPA, Preliminary Industry Report, supra note 47, at 5-2.
55 Id. at 5-8 to 5-9.
"U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Technical Fact Sheet— 1,4-Dioxane 1-2 (2017), Attachment 4 [hereinafter "EPA,
Technical Fact Sheet — 1, 4-Dioxane"].
57Id. at 1.
56 Id.; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Chemical Assessment Summary: 1,4,-dioxane 2
https:Hiris.epa.,gov/static/pdfs/0326 summW.pdf (Aug. 11, 2010).
7

one -million at a concentration of 0.35 parts per billion ("ppb").59 The Department has similarly
determined that 1,4-dioxane is toxic and poses a cancer risk at levels higher than 0.35 ppb."
At least two of Lumberton's industrial users are known sources of 1,4-dioxane. Both the
Sampson County and Wake County landfills send leachate laden with the harmful chemical to
Lumberton's wastewater treatment plant.61 Sampson County's leachate contains 1,4-dioxane at
concentrations exceeding 180 ppb, and Wake County's leachate contains the chemical at
concentrations reaching 30 ppb.62 Because 1,4-dioxane is used in a variety of manufacturing
processes, it is possible that Lumberton's other industrial users could be sending wastewater
laden with the chemical to the treatment plant.
III. Lumberton's pollution threatens the Lumber River and those who use it.
PFAS and 1,4-dioxane do not break down in the environment and are not removed by
conventional treatment technology.63 That means that if released upstream, these chemicals can,
and will, pollute downstream waters and the communities that rely upon them. This has been
confirmed before by various health crises in North Carolina. PFAS from the Chemours
Fayetteville Works Facility has contaminated drinking water intakes nearly 80 miles
downstream'64 and 1,4-dioxane pollution from the city of Greensboro's wastewater plant has
reached the intake for Pittsboro approximately 50 miles downstream.65 In addition to drinking
water contamination, HAS (specifically PFOS) discharged by a variety of sources has
contaminated fish in the lower portions of the Cape Fear River so much that the state no longer
considers them safe to consume.66
Robeson County, where Lumberton discharges, suffers from some of the most extreme
environmental injustice in North Carolina. The population in Robeson County is 42 percent
59 2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, EPA OFFICE OF WATER 4 (2018),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-01/dwtable2Ol8.pdf; EPA, Technical Fact Sheet —1,4-Dioxane,
supra note 56 at 3.
60 N.C. Div. of Water Res., 1, 4-dioxane Monitoring in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Ongoing
Screening, Source Identification, and Abatement Verification Study (2017), at 2, [hereinafter "NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane
2017 Report"], available at
https://files nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%200ualiiy Environmental%2OSciences/Dioxane/DioxaneYear2ReportWithMemo
20170222.pdf (affirming EPA's conclusions); see also N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Div. Water Res., Surface
Water Quality Standards, Criteria & In -Stream Target Values (2019) (stating that the one -in -one million cancer risk
for 1,4-dioxane is 0.35 ppb), Attachment 5.
61 DEQ, Leachate PFAS Study, supra note 40, at Table 8.
62 Id.
63 See What are PFAS?, supra note 30; see also Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and
Environmental Risks of PFAS, supra note 10; EPA, Technical Fact Sheet —1,4-Dioxane, supra note 56, at 1-2; see
also Yuyin Tang and Xinwei Mao, Recent Advances in 1, 4-dioxane Removal Technologies for Water and
Wastewater Treatment, 15 WATER 1535 (2023), available at https://www mdpi.com/2073-4441/15/8/1535.
64 See Lisa Sorg, Breaking: New Analysis Indicates That Toxics Were Present in Wilmington Drinking Water at
Extreme Levels, N.C. POLICY WATCH (Oct. 9, 2019), https://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2019/10/09/breaking new-
analysis-indicates-that-toxics-were-present-in-wilmington-drinking-water-at-extreme-levels/#sthash.OtzCYiv3 . dpbs.
61 See Lisa Sorg, PW Special Report Part Two: Lax Local Regulation Allows Toxic Carcinogen to Infiltrate
Drinking Water Across the Cape Fear River Basin, N.C. POLICY WATCH (July 23, 2020),
https://ncpolicywatch.com/2020/07/23/pw-special-report-part-two-lax-local-regulation-allows-toxic-carcino eg nto-
infiltrate-drinking-water-across-the-cape-fear-river-basin/.
66 DHHS, PFAS Fish Consumption Advisories, supra note 35.
M

Native American and 24 percent Black, and nearly 28 percent of community members live in
poverty.67 Unfortunately, the community is forced to experience water and air pollution from
industrial hog and poultry operations, more than a dozen unlined dumps, fourteen hazardous
waste sites, and multiple land clearing operations, all in addition to industrial and municipal
sources of PFAS.68 Moreover, because of the low lying terrain, the community experiences
extreme flooding, exacerbating these pollution concerns as waters carry harmful contaminants
onto people's land and homes.69
A large part of the Lumberton community depends on the Lumber River for recreational
and subsistence fishing —many fish throughout the River multiple times a week, hoping to catch
enough fish to eat. Indeed, the stretch of the Lumber River downstream of Lumberton's
discharge is a popular fishing and recreation spot. According to state resource officials, the
Lumber River hosts an estimated 47 fish species, including bluegill, largemouth bass, and
multiple types of sunfish.70 The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission concludes that
the Lumber River supports one of "the most diverse fish community among southeastern NC
rivers ... and offers unique angling opportunities."71
As discussed above, Lumberton discharges PFAS at incredibly high concentrations. That
pollution has been documented downstream— with instream concentrations reaching over 460
ppt.72 PFAS can bioaccumulate in animals, like fish.73 Studies in the Cape Fear River have
demonstrated that fish exposed to PFAS in our waterways have elevated concentrations in their
tissue,74 and nationally conducted research has confirmed that PFAS in fish tissue pose a
significant threat to those who consume the fish they catch.75 The levels are so concerning that
North Carolina has adopted strict fish consumption advisories for fish caught in that river
system.76 The fish advisories highlight PFOS as the pollutant of concern, due to its ability to
accumulate in large fish.77 The state now recommends that women of childbearing age, pregnant
women, nursing mothers, and children should not eat certain fish from this portion of the Cape
Fear River, including striped bass, bluegill, largemouth bass, flathead catfish, and redear.78 Other
adults should not eat more than one meal made from these fish per year.79 Lumberton's
discharge contains PFOS from its industrial users, and many of the fish susceptible to PFOS
pollution in the Cape Fear are also present in the Lumber River. The Cape Fear fish consumption
67 Quick Facts: Robeson County, North Carolina, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (July 2022),
hl�2s://www.census.%zov/guickfacts/robesoncouninorthcarolina.
68 See Lisa Sorg, Newsline Special Report: A Community Inundated with Industrial Waste, N.C. NEWSLINE (May 27,
2023), hops://ncnewsline.com/2023/05/27/newsline-special-report-a-community-inundated-with-industrial-waste/.
69 Id.
71 Kyle T. Rachels & J. Michael Fisk, N.C. Wildlife Res. Comm'n, Fisheries Resources of the Lumber River (2021),
at 4, hlWs://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Fishing/documents/2021/Fisheries-resources-of-the-Lumber-
River.pdflver--UdDo 8pc21U2MFpBzateON,g%3D%3 D.
71 Id. at 6.
72 DEQ, Lumberton PFAS Sampling Results, supra note 3, at 11-14.
73 See, e.g., Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS, supra note 10.
74 Frannie Nilsen, N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, 2022 Water and Fish Collection Project — Status Update (Dec. 5,
2022), at slides 12-24, hops://www.deq nc.gov/fish-water-status-updates-12522-saab-meetin /g open.
7s Barbo, supra note 31 at 9.
76 DHHS, PFAS Fish Consumption Advisories, supra note 35.
77 Id.
7s Id.
79 Id.
M

advisories make clear that sources other than Chemours can contribute to harmful levels of PFAS
in fish. Lumberton's discharges are thus particularly concerning for members of the Lumberton
community who enjoy fishing in the River or rely on an abundance of healthy fish for
recreational and subsistence purposes.
Moreover, the Lumber River is naturally and culturally significant, suggesting that any
industrial pollution should be limited. Since 1998, the Lumber River downstream of
Lumberton's discharge has been federally designated as a Wild and Scenic River under Section
2(a) of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.80 This designation was created to "preserve
certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free -flowing
condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations."81 In particular, this portion of the
River is designated to protect the waterway's fish, wildlife, botanical, and recreational values.82
The Lumber River is also included in the North Carolina Natural and Scenic River System,
meaning that the North Carolina General Assembly has deemed that the River "possess[es]
outstanding natural, scenic, education, geological, recreational, historic, fish and wildlife,
scientific and cultural values of great present and future benefit to the people."83 The Lumber
River is also culturally important to the Lumbee Tribe, who have for decades relied on the River
for food, water, and commerce. Finally, the stretch of River downstream of Lumberton's
discharge is also recognized as a "high priority" conservation area by the Southeast Conservation
Adaptation Strategy, meaning conservation in this portion of the River would yield large impacts
for plants and wildlife.84 Industrial pollution, including HAS and possible 1,4-dioxane from the
wastewater treatment plant, threatens these important natural, cultural, and conservation values.
IV. The law requires the Department to analyze limits for municipal wastewater
treatment plants and requires municipalities to control their industrial users.
In December 2022, EPA released guidance instructing state agencies how to address
PFAS through existing NPDES authorities.85 EPA's guidance explained that foundational tools
of the Clean Water Act could and should be used to control HAS released into wastewater
treatment plants like Lumberton's. The same tools exist for 1,4-dioxane. Federal and state law, as
well as EPA's guidance, make clear that the Department must consider effluent limits and permit
conditions to control Lumberton's pollution.
The Clean Water Act requires permitting agencies to, at the very least, incorporate
technology -based effluent limitations on the discharge of pollutants.86 When EPA has not issued
80 Lumber River, North Carolina, NAT'L WILD & RIVERS SYSTEM, https://www rivers.,gov/rivers/lumber.php (last
visited July 13, 2023).
" About the WSR Act, NAT'L WILD & SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, https://www.rivers.,gov/wsr-act.php (last visited July
13, 2023).
82 Lumber River, North Carolina, supra note 80.
83 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-135.142.
84 The Southeast Conservation Blueprint, Southeast Conservation Adaption Strategy,
hops://secassoutheast.org/blueprint (last visited July 13, 2023).
85 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 6.
86 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a) ("Technology -based treatment requirements under section 301(b) of the Act represent the
minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit..." (emphasis added)); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311; see
also EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 6 at 2.

a national effluent limitation guideline for a particular industry, 87 permitting agencies must
implement technology -based effluent limits on a case -by -case basis using their "best professional
judgment."88 North Carolina water quality laws further state that municipalities must be treated
like an industrial discharger if an industrial user "significantly impact[s]" a municipal treatment
system.89 In this situation, the agency must consider technology -based effluent limits for the
municipality, even if effluent limits and guidelines have not been published and adopted.90
If technology -based limits are not enough to ensure compliance with water quality
standards, the Department must include water quality -based effluent limits in the permit.91 North
Carolina's toxic substances standard protects the public from the harmful effects of toxic
chemicals, like PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.92 For instance, the toxic substances standard mandates
that the concentration of cancer -causing chemicals shall not result in "unacceptable health risks,"
defined as "more than one case of cancer per one million people exposed. ,93 In order to comply
with the Clean Water Act, therefore, the Department must analyze appropriate treatment
technology and then determine if a discharger's pollution has the "reasonable potential to cause,
or contribute" to pollution at levels that could harm human health.94
In addition to using effluent limits to control PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution, the
Department has tools and obligations under the Clean Water Act's pretreatment program.9' The
pretreatment program governs the discharge of industrial wastewater to wastewater treatment
plants and is intended to place the burden of treating polluted discharges on the entity that creates
the pollution, rather than on the taxpayers that support municipal wastewater plants.
Under the pretreatment requirements, municipalities are required to know what waste
they receive from their "Industrial Users."96 EPA has confirmed that this requirement extends to
pollutants that are not conventional or listed as toxic, like PFAS97 and the Department has
confirmed the same applies to 1,4-dioxane.98 Municipalities like Lumberton must instruct their
industries to identify their pollutants in an industrial waste survey99 and then to apply for a
pretreatment permit, by disclosing "effluent data," including on internal waste streams, necessary
to evaluate pollution controls. too Significant industrial users are further required to provide
87 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b).
88 40 C.F.R. § 125.3; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0406.
89 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0406(a)(1).
90 Id.
9140 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) (stating that
Department must "reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations").
92 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0208.
93 Id. at 2B.0208(a)(2)(B).
94 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i).
95 Id. § 403.8.
96Id. § 403.8(f)(2).
97 See U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024 14 (Oct.
2021), available at https://perma.cc/LK4U-RLBH.
98 See, e.g., NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane 2017 Report, supra note 60 at 5.
99 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(2)(ii); U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, at 4-3
(Jun. 2011), available at hlWs://www.evansville og v or,g/egov/documents/1499266949 62063.pdf.
'01 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual (2012), at 4-2 to 4-3, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/industrial user permitting manual full.pdf.
11

information on "[p]rincipal products and raw materials ... that affect or contribute to the
[significant industrial user's] discharge." 101
A municipality that runs a wastewater plant is required to regulate its industries so that
industries do not cause "pass through" or "interference" or otherwise violate pretreatment
laws.102 "Pass through" is when an industrial discharge causes the wastewater plant to violate its
own NPDES permit,103 including standard conditions such as the one requiring permittees to
"take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use" that has a
"reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment."104 Industries are
also not permitted to interfere with publicly -owned treatment works operations. "Interference"
occurs when a discharge disrupts the treatment works' operation or its sludge use or disposal and
violates the facility's NPDES permit or other applicable laws.10' Violating the prohibitions on
pass through or interference constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act's pretreatment
standards and requirements.106 Municipalities must also act "immediately and effectively to halt
or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the [treatment works] which reasonably appears to
present an imminent endangerment to the health or welfare of persons." 107 Rules like these are
further memorialized in cities' sewer use ordinances, which lay out specific rules that industrial
users must follow and steps the city must take if violations occur.
Municipalities like Lumberton have broad authority to control their industrial users so
that municipally owned treatment works can comply with these pretreatment laws. They can
"deny or condition" pollution permits for industries, control industrial pollution "through Permit,
order or similar means," and "require" "the installation of technology."108 Municipalities can
also implement local limits to control industrial pollution sent to treatment works in the first
place.109 And in addition to the implementing effluent limits, the Department can ensure that
municipalities comply with the Clean Water Act pretreatment program by including the
appropriate permit conditions in the municipalities' NPDES permit.
These rules are how the Clean Water Act "assures the public that [industrial] dischargers
cannot contravene the [Clean Water Act's] objectives of eliminating or at least minimizing
discharges of toxic and other pollutants simply by discharging indirectly through [wastewater
treatment plants] rather than directly to receiving waters." 110 The laws governing the program
10140 C.F.R. § 122.210)(6)(ii)(C).
102Id. §§ 403.8(a), 403.5(a)(1).
103 Pass through is defined as "a discharge which exits the [treatment works] into waters of the United States in
quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a
cause of a violation of any requirement of the [treatment works'] NPDES permit (including an increase in the
magnitude or duration of a violation)." Id. § 403.3(p).
104Id. § 122.41(d).
105Id. § 403.3(k).
106 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1).
107Id. § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B).
108Id. § 403.8(f)(1).
109Id. § 403.5.
110 General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources, 52 Fed. Reg. 1586, 1590 (Jan. 14, 1987)
(codified at 40 C.F.R. § 403).
12

ensure that municipally owned wastewater plants do not become dumping grounds for
uncontrolled industrial waste.
V. Lumberton's industries are violating the law by releasing PFAS and 1,4-dioxane
into the city's sewer system.
Lumberton is responsible for ensuring that its industrial users comply with the Clean
Water Act pretreatment program and the city's own local sewer use ordinances. The Department,
in turn, is responsible for ensuring that Lumberton does so and must incorporate the city's
pretreatment program "as enforceable conditions in the [wastewater treatment plant's] NPDES
permit.""' Because Lumberton's industries are releasing PFAS and other harmful chemicals into
the wastewater treatment plant, they are violating the city's permit, the Clean Water Act
pretreatment requirements and the city's municipal law.
First, Lumberton's industries are causing "pass through" and "interference" in violation
of the city's pretreatment program. As explained in Section IV above, "pass through" is when an
industrial discharge causes the wastewater plant to violate its own NPDES permit. PFAS and
1,4-dioxane pollution from Lumberton's industries cause "pass through" because the industries
cause Lumberton to discharge chemicals that it is not permitted to release and cause the city to
violate the standard conditions applicable to all NPDES permits, including the condition
requiring permittees to "take all reasonable steps to prevent or minimize any discharge or sludge
use" that has a "reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment."112
Second, Lumberton land applies biosolids produced during the wastewater treatment
process.113 Because these chemicals are not removed by conventional wastewater treatment
technology, the chemicals can end up in the city's sludge. Studies have shown that PFAS-
contaminated sludge that is land applied can runoff into surface waters that supply drinking
water for communities downstream and leach into groundwater which in turn threatens drinking
water wells.114 The PFAS and 1,4-dioxane coming from the city's industries are therefore likely
111 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, NPDES Permit Writers' Manual 9-10 (2010) [hereinafter "EPA NPDES Permit
Writers' Manual"], available at hops://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/pwm 2010.pdf, see also
40 C.F.R. § 403.8.
112 40 C.F.R. § 122.41(d).
113 Lumberton is permitted to land apply 2,000 dry tons of biosolids each year across more than 700 acres in
Robeson County. See Letter from Daniel Smith, Div. of Water Res., to Corey Walkers, City of Lumberton (Sept. 14,
2020) (approving the modification to Lumberton's non -discharge permit allowing for application of 2,000 dry tons
per year); City of Lumberton, Residuals Land Application Modification for City of Lumberton (Aug. 7, 2020), at
PDF pg. 88-89.
114 Andrew B. Lindstrom et al., Application of WWTP Biosolids and Resulting Perfluorinated Compound
Contamination of Surface and Well Water in Decatur, Alabama, USA, 45 ENv'T. SCi. & TECH. 8015 (2011);
Jennifer G. Sepulvado et al., Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of
Municipal Biosolids, 45 ENv'T. SCi. & TECH. (2011); Janine Kowalczyk et al., Transfer of Perfluorooctanoic Acid
(PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)From Contaminated Feed Into Milk and Meat of Sheep: Pilot Study,
63 ARCHIVES ENV T CONTAMINATION & TOXICOLOGY 288 (2012); Holly Lee et al., Fate of Polyfluoroalkyl
Phosphate Diesters and Their Metabolites in Biosolids-Applied Soil: Biodegradation and Plant Uptake in
Greenhouse and Field Experiments, 48 ENV'T. SCI. & TECH. 340 (2014).
13

causing "interference," by further interfering with the city's sludge processes, use, and disposal
practice.115
Lumberton's failure to impose specific limits to prevent pass through and interference, to
prohibit these illegal discharges, to enforce or remedy these continuing acts, and to revise and
adopt local limits to prevent them from occurring, are violations of Lumberton's NPDES Permit
and federal law,116 resulting in high levels of toxic pollution released into the environment.
In addition, Lumberton's industrial users are likely violating the city's sewer use
ordinance. Lumberton's sewer use ordinance sets a general prohibition against "contribut[ing] or
caus[ing] to be contributed into the POTW, directly or indirectly, any pollutant or wastewater
which causes interference or pass through." 117 Specifically, Lumberton prohibits any industrial
user from sending wastewater to the treatment plant that "caus[es] the treatment plant effluent to
violate State Water Quality Standards for toxic substances as described in 15A NCAC 2B
.0200."'" Lumberton's industrial users are likely causing the city to discharge PFAS and 1,4-
dioxane in concentrations that violate the toxic substances standard, in further violation of local
law. The city should "[t]ake appropriate actions"119 to address this pollution, including through
issuing, modifying, or revoking pretreatment permits.120
VI. The Department must control Lumberton's PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution.
The Department is aware that Lumberton discharges PFAS and that at least two of its
industrial users send 1,4-dioxane laden waste to the treatment plant.121 The Department did not,
however, impose effluent limits or permit conditions to control the city's pollution.122 Despite
noting that the city "accepts influent wastewater from several industrial facilities that are
potential sources of HAS and 1,4-dioxane," the agency only included monitoring requirements
for these chemicals.123 The law requires the Department to do more. And the state's recent Cape
Fear fish consumption advisories highlight the dire need to control all sources of pollution, like
Lumberton, before our state's fish resources are too toxic to consume.
a. The Department must require Lumberton to disclose its toxic pollution.
One major concern with the permitting materials for Lumberton's draft permit is that the
city did not disclose that it discharges PFAS and 1,4-dioxane into the Lumber River. The Clean
Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant, including PFAS or 1,4-dioxane, without a
NPDES permit.124 The discharge of a specific pollutant (or group of pollutants) cannot be
115 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(k).
16Id. §§ 122.41, 403.5(a)(1), 403.5(c)(1), (c)(2); see also N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Final NPDES Permit
Renewal Permit NC0024571 (June 30, 2017), at Part II, Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits.
117 Lumberton Code of the City, Ch. 23, Art. IV § 23-98(a).
118Id. § 23-98(b)(19).
119Id. § 23-98(d)(2).
120 See id. §§ 23-98(d)(2), 23-112.
121 See DEQ, Leachate PFAS Study, supra note 40, at Table 3; DEQ, Lumberton PFAS Sampling Results, supra
note 9, at 15-18.
122 Lumberton Draft Permit, supra note 1, at 3, 8.
123 Lumberton Draft Fact Sheet, supra note 2 at 8; Lumberton Draft Permit, supra note 1 at 3, 8.
124 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(a).
14

permitted if it is not disclosed in a NPDES permit application. For decades, EPA has stressed the
need for disclosure of pollutants during the permitting process:
[D]ischargers have a duty to be aware of any significant pollutant levels in their
discharge. [... ] Most important, [the disclosure requirements] provide the
information which the permit writers need to determine what pollutants are likely
to be discharged in significant amounts and to set appropriate permit limits. [... ]
[P]ermit writers need to know what pollutants are present in an effluent to
determine appropriate permit limits in the absence of applicable effluent
guidelines.125
In December 2022, EPA confirmed that these disclosure requirements apply to PFAS
stating that "no permit may be issued to the owner or operator of a facility unless the owner or
operator submits a complete permit application" providing all information "that the permitting
authority may reasonably require to assess the discharges of the facility" including information
regarding PFAS.12' The same is true for 1,4-dioxane.
Disclosure is considered adequate under the Clean Water Act when the applicant
provides enough information for a permitting agency to "be[] able to judge whether the discharge
of a particular pollutant constitutes a significant threat to the environment."127 To meet this
burden, an applicant must include all relevant information, including the concentration, volume,
and frequency of the discharge.128 The Clean Water Act places the burden of disclosure on the
permit applicant because they are in the best position to know what is in their discharge.129
In its enforcement action against Chemours for the company's discharge of PFAS into
the Cape Fear River, the Department stated:
Part of the permit applicant's burden in this regard is to disclose all relevant
information, such as the presence of known constituents in a discharge that pose a
potential risk to human health. The permit applicant is required to disclose "all
known toxic components that can be reasonably expected to be in the discharge,
125 Consolidated Permit Application Forms for EPA Programs, 45 Fed. Reg. 33,526-31 (May 19, 1980).
126 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 6, at 2.
127 Piney Run Pres. Ass'n v. Cty. Commis of Carroll Cty., Maryland, 268 F.3d. 255, 268 (4th Cir. 2001) ("Because
the permitting scheme is dependent on the permitting authority being able to judge whether the discharge of a
particular pollutant constitutes a significant threat to the environment, discharges not within the reasonable
contemplation of the permitting authority during the permit application process, whether spills or otherwise, do not
come within the protection of the permit shield.").
121 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 (EPA) (1998) ("In explaining the provisions of 40 C.F.R. §
122.53(d)(7)(iii), which required dischargers to submit quantitative data relating to certain conventional and
nonconventional pollutants that dischargers know or have reason to believe are present in their effluent, the [EPA]
stated: `permit writers need to know what pollutants are present in an effluent to determine appropriate limits in the
absence of effluent guidelines."').
121 S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d 560, 566 (4th Cir. 2014).
("The statute and regulations purposefully place the burden of disclosure on the permit applicant.").
15

including but not limited to those contained in a priority pollutant analysis." 15A
N.C.A.C. 2H .01050) (emphasis added),I30
Those same disclosure obligations apply to wastewater treatment plants like Lumberton.
In order to adequately inform the analysis discussed below, the Department should instruct
Lumberton to amend its permit application and disclose the presence of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in
the city's effluent. Importantly, if Lumberton does not disclose its PFAS and 1,4-dioxane
pollution, any discharge of those chemicals would be unlawful. 131
b. The Department must analyze and impose effluent limits for PFAS and], 4-dioxane.
As required by the Clean Water Act and discussed in Section IV of this letter, the
Department should consider available treatment technology for Lumberton's wastewater plant
because its waste is significantly impacted by industries that are suspected and confirmed
sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. Effective treatment technologies for HAS are available.
Relevant here, a reverse osmosis treatment system installed at the Seneca Meadows Landfill in
New York has virtually eliminated PFAS discharges from the landfill sent to the Seneca Falls
wastewater plant. 132 The reverse osmosis plant costs the landfill approximately three cents per
gallon, suggesting that the treatment is not only effective but also affordable. 133 Like reverse
osmosis, granular activated carbon is a cost-effective and efficient technology that can reduce
PFAS concentrations to virtually nondetectable levels. A granular activated carbon treatment
system at the Chemours' facility, for example, has reduced PFAS concentrations as high as
345,000 ppt from a creek contaminated by groundwater beneath the facility to nearly
nondetectable concentrations. 134 The Department must consider the feasibility of using these
technologies or similarly effective technologies to control Lumberton's discharges —either at the
point of the discharge or at the industrial user level.
As with PFAS, treatment technologies for 1,4-dioxane are available. For instance, the
chemical can be removed using advanced oxidation processes, such as using ultraviolet light in
combination with hydrogen peroxide.135 Such a process has been used at the Tucson
"' Amended Complaint, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality v. Chemours, 17 CVS 580, 6-7 (N.C. Super. 2018)
(citing 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k); Piney Run, 268 F.3d at 265), htt2s://perma.cc/ZT3U-7QJB [hereinafter "Chemours
Amended Complaint"].
131 See Piney Run, 268 F.3d. at 268; S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards, 758 F.3d at 567; In re Ketchikan Pulp Co.,
7 E.A.D. 605; see also Chemours Amended Complaint, supra note 130, at 6-7.
132 See David Shaw, Two Area Landfills Show High PFAS Levels in Leachate, Finger Lakes Times (Apr. 9, 2022),
https://www.fltimes.com/news/two-area-landfills-show-high-pfas-levels-in-leachate/article 8lf25f53-4c2a-58ee-
a378-8c35c5bcf872 html; Cornerstone Engineering and Geology, Seneca Meadows Landfill 2022 Annual Report
209-4233133 (Mar. 1, 2023), at 3-1 available at https://perma.cc/tJQ2W-7CZW.
133 Seneca Meadows Landfill 2022 Annual Report, supra note 132 at 7-3.
"' See Parsons, Engineering Report — Old Outfall 002 GAC Pilot Study Results (Sept. 2019), available at
https://www. chemours. com/j a/-/media/files/corporate/ 12e-old-outfa11-2-gac-pilot-report-2019-09-
30.pdOrev=6el242091aa846f888afa895eff80e2e&hash=040CAA7522E3D64B9E5445ED6F96BOFB; see also
Chemours Outfall 003, NPDES No. NC0089915 Discharge Monitoring Reports (2020-2022), available at
hLtps://perma.cc/8YND-XT5M.
135 Amie C. McElroy, et al., 1, 4-Dioxane in drinking water: emerging for 40 years and still unregulated, 7 CURRENT
OPINION IN ENV°T SCIENCE & HEALTH 117, 119 (2019), available at https:Hagris.fao.org/agris-
search/search. do?recordID=US201900256076.
[V

International Airport Area Superfund Site to remove legacy 1,4-dioxane contamination.I36 That
treatment system can remove over 97 percent of the chemical from polluted water. 137 Treatment
technology for 1,4-dioxane has also been installed at industries in North Carolina that discharge
into municipal sewer systems.138 The Department must assess treatment technology available to
control Lumberton's 1,4-dioxane waste.
Additionally, as discussed in Section IV, the Department must evaluate water quality -
based effluent limits for Lumberton's permit —particularly limits to ensure compliance with the
narrative toxic substances standard. EPA's health advisories for PFAS and countless toxicity
studies indicate that the chemicals pose unacceptable health risks at extremely low levels. And
the state's recent Cape Fear fish consumption advisories highlight the danger of unchecked
PFAS pollution.139 The Department has stated that PFAS "meet the definition of `toxic
substance"' and has included limits for HAS referencing the water quality standard and EPA's
health advisory for GenX in at least one NPDES permit.140 The Department should similarly
assess effluent limits in Lumberton's permit based on EPA's interim and final HAS health
advisories, EPA's proposed drinking water standards, and other available toxicity information
for the chemicals. The Department should also consider the state's recent Cape Fear fish
consumption advisories given the levels of PFOS present in Lumberton's discharge and in the
waste streams of the city's industrial users. Imposing limits of PFAS are how the Department can
and should prevent more of these consumption advisories from being issued throughout the state.
The Department must also ensure that Lumberton's 1,4-dioxane discharges do not violate
the narrative toxic substances standard. As the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission has made clear, the state uses this standard to set limits and conditions for 1,4-
dioxane in NPDES permits.141 The Department has interpreted the standard to require
concentrations of 1,4-dioxane be less than 0.35 ppb in rivers and streams that serve as drinking
water supplies, and 80 ppb for non -water supply waters.142
116 See Advanced Treatment for 1, 4-Dioxane — Tucson Removes Contamination Through UV -oxidation, TRo7ANUV
CASESTUDIES (2019), available at hops://www resources.trojanuv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Treatment-of-
Groundwater-Contaminated-with-l4-Dioxane-Tucson-Arizona-Case-Study_ -Environmental-Contaminant-
Treatment.pdf.
"' Id. at 2; see also Educational Brochure, TucsoN AfRPORT AREA REMEDIATION PROJECT, available at
https://www.tucsonaz.,gov/files/water/docs/AOP TARP educational signs.pdf.
13I See City of Greensboro, EMC SOC WQ S 19-010 Year One Report: May 1, 2021 — April 30, 2022 4 (June 13,
2022), available at hops://www.greensboro-nc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/53017/637908166316270000.
139 DHHS, PFAS Fish Consumption Advisories, supra note 35.
1ao Amended Complaint, North Carolina v. The Chemours Co., 17 CVS 580 (Apr. 9, 2018), at ¶ 152 (stating that
"the process wastewater from [Chemours] Fluoromonomers/Nafion® Membrane Manufacturing Area contains and
has contained substances or combinations of substances which meet the definition of "toxic substance" set forth in
15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0202," referring to GenX and other PFAS); N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, NPDES Permit
NCO090042 (Sept. 15, 2022), hops://perma.cc/WQV7-L8C4; N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Fact Sheet NPDES
Permit No. NCO090042 (Sept. 15, 2022), at 11-12, ho2s://perma.cc/EP5R-32A7.
... See, e.g., N.C. Env't Mgmt. Comm'n, Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2020-2022 Triennial Review — Surface Water
Quality Standards D-13 (2021), available at https://www.deg nc.goy/proposed-rules/15a-ncac-02b-0200-0300-
regulatory-impact-analysis/download?attachment (explaining that the state uses the narrative toxic substances
standard to set limits in NPDES permits).
"' NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane 2017 Report, supra note 60 at 2.
17

Importantly, the Department does not need extensive sampling to calculate allowable
limits for HAS and 1,4-dioxane in this NPDES permit. The Department can utilize a formula
that takes into consideration (1) the flow from the facility, (2) and flow of the river at the point of
the discharge and the water supply boundary, and (3) the applicable water quality standard to
calculate the maximum amount that Lumberton should be permitted to discharge. Limits are all
the more important here because of the significant recreational and subsistence fishing that
occurs around and downstream of the discharge.
c. The Department must impose conditions in Lumberton's permit requiring the city to
use its pretreatment authority to control industrial sources.
Utilization of the pretreatment program is the most effective and fair way to prevent toxic
industrial chemical pollution from contaminating our communities. Just last December, EPA
recognized that incorporating HAS into the pretreatment program is an important tool for state
agencies to utilize when faced with a municipal source of PFAS contamination.143 The same is
true for 1,4-dioxane. EPA's HAS NPDES Guidance explicitly directs that permits issued to
municipal wastewater treatment plants, like Lumberton, "contain requirements to identify and
locate all possible [industrial users]" that are "expected or suspected for PFAS discharges." 144
This directive is all the more important here when existing studies exist showing Lumberton's
industrial users discharge PFAS, but the city did not disclose such pollution. Once sources are
identified, EPA recommends that municipalities develop local limits for PFAS or impose best
management practices to control the pollution at the source.145 The Department should
incorporate similar directives here.
As the permitting authority for Lumberton and the approval authority of the city's
pretreatment program, the Department must incorporate NPDES requirements as necessary to
ensure compliance with the program. The Department should therefore include necessary
conditions in Lumberton's permit to require the town to: (1) update its industrial user survey and
determine all industrial sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, and (2) control any industrial sources
of the chemicals "through Permit, order," "the installation of technology," 146 local limits, 141 or
other means under the Clean Water Act pretreatment program.
As stated in EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual, "NPDES permits drive the
development and implementation of pretreatment programs."148 They do so by requiring "control
mechanisms issued to significant industrial users," "compliance monitoring activities," and
"swift and effective enforcement." 149 The Department must impose the above conditions in
Lumberton's permit for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.
141 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 6 at 4.
144 Id.
145 Id.
146 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1) (emphasis added).
147Id. § 403.5.
141 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, NPDES Permit Writers' Manual 9-10 (2010), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/pwm 2010.pdf.
149 Id.

d. A reopener for 1,4-dioxane does not replace the need for strict pollution controls.
Additionally, the reopener placed in Lumberton's permit is not enough to protect
downstream water quality from the utility's toxic chemical pollution, especially because it
entirely ignores the drastic PFAS pollution flowing from the facility. The Department cannot
issue a permit unless it ensures compliance with water quality standards,150 and a mere reopener
cannot overcome the Department's obligation to ensure that water quality standards will be met
before issuing a permit. Based on the Department's failure to stop other 1,4-dioxane discharges,
it is unlikely that Lumberton's permit will be reopened. The city of Greensboro, for example, has
consistently discharged high levels of 1,4-dioxane, and the Department has not reopened the
city's permit or acted on its renewal permit in a timely manner. 151 The Department must analyze
existing data and impose pollution limits for Lumberton's wastewater treatment plant before
issuing a final permit. What the agency has done in the current draft permit —requiring only
monitoring —is not enough.
e. The Department must impose PFAS monitoring requirements immediately.
In addition to adding limits and pretreatment conditions, the Department should update
the monitoring requirement for PFAS. The permit currently only directs Lumberton to sample for
PFAS quarterly 152 and does not require that testing start until six months after EPA finalizes a
PFAS sampling method.153 This requires amending for three reasons. First, as the Department is
aware, discharges from industrial users are unpredictable, and sporadic sampling is likely to
misrepresent the full scope of the pollution flowing from the Lumberton wastewater treatment
plant.154 This is all the more likely here where many of Lumberton's industrial users are landfills
who do not send routine and predictable waste streams to the facility. The Department must
151 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) ("No permit may be issued until the applicant provides sufficient evidence to
ensure that the proposed system will comply with all applicable water quality standards and requirements. No permit
may be issued when the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality
standards and regulations of all affected states.").
151 Compare N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, NPDES Permit No. NC0047384 (2014) (containing a reopener that states
"[t]his permit may be reopened and modified in the future to include 1,4-dioxane monitoring and/or reduction
measures, if the wastewater discharge is identified as contributing to violations of surface water quality standards")
with N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, T.Z. Osborne WWTP DEQ Special Study: 1,4-Dioxane Effluent Data (2020),
available at h!Ws:Hdeq.nc.gov/media/l8067/download (collecting effluent sample results between 2017 and 2020
and reaching as high as 957.5 ppb) and City of Greensboro, T.Z. Osborne 1,4-dioxane Grab Sample Data (Feb.
2022), hlWs://www.greensboro-nc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/52232/637837174143630000 (reporting 1,4-
dioxane concentrations ranging between 1.54 ppb and 823 ppb in Greensboro's effluent between May 5, 2021 and
February 15, 2022).
152 We note that the permit requirements listed in Part 1 direct the permittee to Condition A.(7), but should in fact
direct the permittee to Condition A.(6) for the PFAS monitoring requirements. Additionally, the table in Part 1
should state the monitoring frequency for clarity.
153 Lumberton Draft Permit, supra note 1, at 8.
15' For example, it wasn't until the Department required routine bi-weekly sampling for 1,4-dioxane that the
Department understood that High Point wastewater treatment plant was a significant source of the toxic pollution.
See N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Annual 1,4 Dioxane Progress Report, 1,4 Dioxane NPDES Permitting Strategy,
Env't Mgmt. Comm'n (Jan. 2023), at PDF pg. 87, available at
https://edocs.deq nc.,gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2618519&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources.
19

increase the frequency of the sampling if it genuinely wants to accurately document the scope of
the PFAS pollution flowing from the Lumberton wastewater treatment plant.
Second, the Department does not need to wait for EPA to issue a final method for PFAS
before requiring sampling to commence. In fact, in its HAS NPDES Guidance issued last
December, EPA stated that it "recommends using CWA wastewater draft analytical method
1633" in the absence of any final wastewater method.155 The Department should update the
monitoring condition to require sampling to begin as soon as the permit is issued, in line with
EPA's direction.
Third, the Department should instruct Lumberton to not only sample its effluent for
PFAS monitoring, too, but also its biosolids or sludge. As discussed above, the city has a permit
to land apply the biosolids produced by the wastewater treatment process. EPA instructs state
permitting agencies to include effluent, influent, and biosolids monitoring in permits issued to
municipal wastewater plants like Lumberton's.116 For the biosolids monitoring, too, the EPA
recommends using draft method 1633 in the absence of a final method. The Department should
make these changes to ensure this permit is in line with EPA's guidance.
VII. The Department should make additional changes in this permit.
There are additional changes that we recommend the Department make before finalizing
this permit. We call the Department's attention to the fact that the Lumber River suffers from
cumulative sources of pollution, which, when taken together, significantly impact the River's
integrity and the community that relies upon it. Because there are cumulative threats to the
Lumber River, we encourage the Department to think comprehensively about this permit and
evaluate it in the larger context of the river system. For example, we note that while the permit
has limits for Chromium VI, it does not set limits for Total Chromium.15' The same is true for
Total Nitrogen.158 There are multiple sources of Chromium and Nitrogen throughout the
watershed, and any addition of these pollutants can cause stress on the water system. We
encourage the Department to impose limits for Total Chromium and Total Nitrogen.
Additionally, the draft fact sheet notes that past monitoring shows a "statistically
significant" discrepancy in conductivity between upstream and downstream samples159 as well as
the possibility that Lumberton's discharge may impact dissolved oxygen levels downstream. 160
Despite these findings, the Department did not make any changes to the permit. In line with the
Department's findings, the permit should be amended to —at the very least —set a trigger for
each of these metrics that would cause the permit to be reopened and the pollution to be
addressed if levels become too dire. Because dissolved oxygen and conductivity are useful
151 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 6, at 2.
156 Id. at 4.
151 Lumberton Draft Permit, supra note 1, at 3.
158 Id.
151 Lumberton Draft Fact Sheet, supra note 2, at 4.
160 Id. at 3-4.
Off

indicators of other types of pollution, it is irresponsible to ignore the contributions the
Lumberton wastewater treatment plant is making.
VIII. Conclusion.
In summary, the Department must use this NPDES permit to control PFAS and 1,4-
dioxane waste being released into the Lumber River. The Department's own data shows that
Lumberton's wastewater contains PFAS at concentrations exceeding 11,000 ppt. The city's
wastewater contaminates stretches of the River used for recreational and subsistence fishing. In
order to protect those who use and rely on the River downstream of the facility, the Department
should withdraw and amend this permit in line with the changes discussed in this comment letter
to control Lumberton's harmful pollution.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
4UW"0,AOW
Hannah M. Nelson
21

ATTACHMENT 1

® Laboratories a
©000
a member u� The GEL Group
March 11, 2022
Edith Henderson
DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Re: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Work Order: 572111
Dear Edith Henderson:
PO Box 30712 Charleston. SC 29417
2040 Savage Road Chadeston SC 20407
P 843 556.8171
F 843 766.1178
GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the enclosed analytical results for the
sample(s) we received on February 25, 2022. This original data report has been prepared and reviewed in
accordance with GEL's standard operating procedures.
Test results for NELAP or ISO 17025 accredited tests are verified to meet the requirements of those standards,
with any exceptions noted. The results reported relate only to the items tested and to the sample as received by
the laboratory. These results may not be reproduced except as full reports without approval by the laboratory.
Copies of GEL's accreditations and certifications can be found on our website at www.gel.com.
Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical services to enable you to meet your analytical needs
on time every time. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 4487.
Sincerely,
(�r1L
Delaney Stone for
Brielle Luthman
Project Manager
Purchase Order: NCDEQ-DWR
Enclosures
gel.com
Page 1 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis Report
for
NCDQ001 NC Dept Environmental Quality
Client SDG: 572111 GEL Work Order: 572111
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
** Analyte is a Tracer compound
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
B The target analyte was detected in the associated blank.
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
X Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
The designation ND, if present, appears in the result column when the analyte concentration is not detected above
the limit as defined in the 'U' qualifier above.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL Laboratories LLC
standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Brielle Luthman.
Pd,., r I (; � �
Reviewed by
Page 2 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID:
Upstream
Sample ID:
572111001
Matrix:
Water
Collect Date:
22-FEB-22 13:35
Receive Date:
25-FEB-22
Collector:
Client
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As Received"
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-
UX ND
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic
acid (NVHOS)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
0.631
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-
propanoic acid (Gen-X)
4-
UX ND
(Heptafluoroisopropoxy)hexafluorob
utanoic acid (PFECA-G)
Nafion Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
X 4.56
Nation Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
UX ND
Nation Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP6)
UX ND
Hydro -EVE
UX ND
Nafion Byproduct I (PFESA BPI)
UX ND
Nafon Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP2)
UX ND
Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxahepanoic
U ND
acid (NFDHA or PFECA B)
Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic
U ND
acid (PFEESA or PES)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic)
UX ND
acid (PF04DA)
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
UX ND
(PF030A)
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
JX 0.224
(PF02HxA)
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
UX ND
(PFMOAA)
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid
J 0.233
(PFMOPrA)
Perfluoro(4-methoxybutanoic) acid
U ND
(PFMOBA)
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
UX ND
(EVE)
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
BX 1.28
R-EVE
UX ND
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,1 1 -
UX ND
pentaoxadodecanoic) acid (PF05DA
or TAFN4)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
UX ND
(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1 M132 03/09/22 1953 2235795
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.175
0.438
ng/L
0.0175
1
0
Page 3 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analvsis
Company:
DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address :
4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact:
Edith Henderson
Project:
DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Upstream
Sample ID: 572111001
Parameter Qualifier Result
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As Received"
(PEPA)
Perfluoro-2-
X 0.727
(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
(PMPA)
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-
U ND
oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(F-
53B Minor)
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-l-
U ND
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
EtFOSE)
2-(N-methylperfluoro-l-
U ND
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
McFOSE)
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
U ND
oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid (F-53B
Major)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 (4:2
U ND
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 (6:2
U ND
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2
U ND
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U ND
octanesulfonamide (N-EtFOSA)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U ND
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
U ND
octanesulfonamide (N-McFOSA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
U ND
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
U ND
(PFDoS)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
J 1.13
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
2.21
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
U ND
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
U ND
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
U ND
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
0.175
0.351
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1 JLS 03/09/22 1743 2235795
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.44
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.30
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.33
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.37
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.578
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.578
1.56
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.701
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.578
1.70
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.684
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
2
Page 4 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Upstream
Sample ID: 572111001
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As Received"
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid U
ND
0.578
1.67
ng/L
0.0175
1
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
2.25
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid U
ND
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
(PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
2.52
0.578
1.60
ng/L
0.0175
1
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
4.00
0.701
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid U
ND
0.614
1.68
ng/L
0.0175
1
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) U
ND
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid U
ND
1.16
3.51
ng/L
0.0175
1
(PFODA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide U
ND
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
6.12
0.701
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
7.58
0.701
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid J
0.633
0.578
1.65
ng/L
0.0175
1
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
4.03
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA) U
ND
0.701
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) U
ND
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) U
ND
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic U
ND
0.578
1.75
ng/L
0.0175
1
acid (DONA,ADONA)
The following Prep Methods were performed:
Method Description
Analyst
Date
Time Prep Batch
EPA 537.1 Modified PFCs Extraction
in Liquid
LD1
03/02/22
1050 2235790
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
Method Description Analyst Comments
1 EPA 537.1 Modified
2 EPA 537.1 Modified
Notes:
Page 5 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Upstream
Sample ID: 572111001
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor Lc/LC: Critical Level
DL: Detection Limit PF: Prep Factor
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity RL: Reporting Limit
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Page 6 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID:
Effluent Lumberton Hold
Sample ID:
572111002
Matrix:
Water
Collect Date:
22-FEB-22 13:58
Receive Date:
25-FEB-22
Collector:
Client
Parameter Qualifier Result
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As Received"
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-
UX ND
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic
acid (NVHOS)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
1.01
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-
propanoic acid (Gen-X)
4-
UX ND
(Heptafluoroisopropoxy)hexafluorob
utanoic acid (PFECA-G)
Nafion Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
X 1.42
Nation Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
UX ND
Nation Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP6)
UX ND
Hydro -EVE
UX ND
Nafion Byproduct I (PFESA BPI)
UX ND
Nafon Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP2)
UX ND
Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxahepanoic
U ND
acid (NFDHA or PFECA B)
Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic
U ND
acid (PFEESA or PES)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic)
UX ND
acid (PF04DA)
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
UX ND
(PF030A)
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
JX 0.398
(PF02HxA)
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
JX 0.192
(PFMOAA)
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid
0.742
(PFMOPrA)
Perfluoro(4-methoxybutanoic) acid
U ND
(PFMOBA)
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
UX ND
(EVE)
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
BX 51.6
R-EVE
UX ND
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,1 1 -
UX ND
pentaoxadodecanoic) acid (PF05DA
or TAFN4)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
JX 0.391
(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1 M132 03/09/22 2014 2235795
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
1.19
3.60
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.180
0.450
ng/L
0.0180
1
0
Page 7 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analvsis
Company:
DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address :
4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact:
Edith Henderson
Project:
DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Effluent Lumberton Hold
Sample ID: 572111002
Parameter Qualifier Result
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As
Received"
(PEPA)
Perfluoro-2-
X
1.79
(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
(PMPA)
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-
U
ND
oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(F-
53B Minor)
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
EtFOSE)
2-(N-methylperfluoro-l-
87.6
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
McFOSE)
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
U
ND
oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid (F-53B
Major)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 (6:2
28.9
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
octanesulfonamide (N-EtFOSA)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
7.65
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
12.6
octanesulfonamide (N-McFOSA)
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDoS)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
4.33
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
3.40
(PFHpS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
9.76
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroponanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFNS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
92.6
(PFOSA)
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
3.45
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
0.180
0.360
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.595
1.80
ng/L
0.0180
1 JLS 03/09/22 1753 2235795
1.19
3.60
ng/L
0.0180
1
1.19
3.60
ng/L
0.0180
1
1.19
3.54
ng/L
0.0180
1
1.19
3.39
ng/L
0.0180
1
1.19
3.42
ng/L
0.0180
1
1.19
3.60
ng/L
0.0180
1
1.19
3.60
ng/L
0.0180
1
1.19
3.60
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.595
3.60
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.595
1.60
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.595
1.75
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.595
1.71
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.595
1.64
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.631
1.73
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.595
1.80
ng/L
0.0180
1
0.595
1.69
ng/L
0.0180
1
2
Page 8 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Effluent Lumberton Hold
Sample ID: 572111002
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As
Received"
(PFPeS)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA)
8.33
0.721
1.80
ng/L
0.0180
1
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA)
73.4
0.595
1.80
ng/L
0.0180
1
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic U
ND
0.595
1.80
ng/L
0.0180
1
acid (DONA,ADONA)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2
338
5.95
17.3
ng/L
0.0180
5
JLS 03/10/22 1342 2235795
FTS)
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
365
3.60
9.01
ng/L
0.0180
5
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
130
2.97
9.01
ng/L
0.0180
5
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid U
ND
5.95
18.0
ng/L
0.0180
5
(PFHxDA)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
422
2.97
9.01
ng/L
0.0180
5
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid U
ND
5.95
18.0
ng/L
0.0180
5
(PFODA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
493
3.60
9.01
ng/L
0.0180
5
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
553
2.97
9.01
ng/L
0.0180
5
N-methylperfluoro-1-
4620
59.5
180
ng/L
0.0180
50
JLS 03/10/22 1311 2235795
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
967
35.1
90.1
ng/L
0.0180
50
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
665
29.7
90.1
ng/L
0.0180
50
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
1610
36.0
90.1
ng/L
0.0180
50
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
1280
36.0
90.1
ng/L
0.0180
50
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
730
29.7
90.1
ng/L
0.0180
50
The following Prep Methods were performed:
Method Description
Analyst
Date
Time
Prep Batch
EPA 537.1 Modified PFCs Extraction in
Liquid
LD1
03/02/22
1050
2235790
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
Method Description Analyst Comments
1 EPA 537.1 Modified
2 EPA 537.1 Modified
3 EPA 537.1 Modified
4 EPA 537.1 Modified
Notes:
3
4
Page 9 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Effluent Lumberton Hold
Sample ID: 572111002
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor Lc/LC: Critical Level
DL: Detection Limit PF: Prep Factor
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity RL: Reporting Limit
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Page 10 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID:
Downstream
Sample ID:
572111003
Matrix:
Water
Collect Date:
22-FEB-22 14:35
Receive Date:
25-FEB-22
Collector:
Client
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier
Result
DL
RL
Units
PF
DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As
Received"
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-
X
77.4
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1 M132 03/09/22 2035 2235795 1
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic
acid (NVHOS)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
1.96
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-
propanoic acid (Gen-X)
4-
UX
ND
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(Heptafluoroisopropoxy)hexafluorob
utanoic acid (PFECA-G)
Nafion Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
X
22.9
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
Nation Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP6)
X
0.623
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
Hydro -EVE
X
0.498
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
Nafion Byproduct 1 (PFESA BPI)
UX
ND
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
Nafion Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP2)
X
3.11
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxahepanoic
U
ND
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
acid (NFDHA or PFECA B)
Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic
U
ND
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
acid (PFEESA or PES)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic)
UX
ND
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
acid (PF04DA)
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
JX
0.350
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PF030A)
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
X
1.07
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PF02HxA)
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
X
3.72
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFMOAA)
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid
J
0.309
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFMOPrA)
Perfluoro(4-methoxybutanoic) acid
J
0.389
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFMOBA)
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
UX
ND
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(EVE)
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
BX
26.3
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
R-EVE
X
16.8
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,11-
UX
ND
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
pentaoxadodecanoic) acid (PF05DA
or TAFN4)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
JX
0.356
0.173
0.432
ng/L
0.0173
1
(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid
(PEPA)
Page 11 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Downstream Project: NCDQ00222
Sample ID: 572111003 Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As
Received"
Perfluoro-2-
X
1.29
(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
(PMPA)
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-
U
ND
oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid (F-
53B Minor)
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
EtFOSE)
2-(N-methylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
McFOSE)
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
U
ND
oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid (F-53B
Major)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
octanesulfonamide (N-EtFOSA)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
octanesulfonamide (N-McFOSA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
J
2.68
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDoS)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
11.8
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
12.2
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
J
1.10
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
U
ND
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFHpS)
0.173
0.346
ng/L
0.0173
1
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1 JLS 03/10/22 1321 2235795 2
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.40
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.25
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.28
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.32
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
0.570
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
0.570
1.54
ng/L
0.0173
1
0.691
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
0.570
1.68
ng/L
0.0173
1
0.674
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
0.570
1.64
ng/L
0.0173
1
Page 12 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Downstream
Sample ID: 572111003
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As Received"
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 5.20
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid U ND
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 2.82
0.570
1.57
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 10.7
0.691
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid U ND
0.605
1.66
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) J 0.967
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid U ND
1.14
3.46
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFODA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide U ND
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 7.33
0.691
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 11.4
0.691
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid U ND
0.570
1.63
ng/L
0.0173
1
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 43.4
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA) U ND
0.691
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) U ND
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) U ND
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic U ND
0.570
1.73
ng/L
0.0173
1
acid (DONA,ADONA)
Nafion Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4) X 198
1.73
4.32
ng/L
0.0173
10 MB2 03/10/22 1534 2235795 3
The following Prep Methods were performed:
Method Description
Analyst
Date
Time Prep Batch
EPA 537.1 Modified PFCs Extraction in Liquid
LD1
03/02/22
1050 2235790
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
Method Description Analyst Comments
1 EPA 537.1 Modified
2 EPA 537.1 Modified
3 EPA 537.1 Modified
Notes:
Page 13 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: Downstream
Sample ID: 572111003
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor Lc/LC: Critical Level
DL: Detection Limit PF: Prep Factor
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity RL: Reporting Limit
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Page 14 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID:
NCO024571
Sample ID:
572111004
Matrix:
Water
Collect Date:
22-FEB-22 15:03
Receive Date:
25-FEB-22
Collector:
Client
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As Received"
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
48.4
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-
propanoic acid (Gen-X)
4-
X 0.569
(Heptafluoroisopropoxy)hexafluorob
utanoic acid (PFECA-G)
Nafion Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP6)
X 21.4
Hydro -EVE
X 14.6
Nation Byproduct 1 (PFESA BPI)
UX ND
Nation Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP2)
X 91.1
Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic
U ND
acid (NFDHA or PFECA B)
Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic
U ND
acid (PFEESA or PES)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic)
X 1.93
acid (PF04DA)
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
X 8.24
(PF030A)
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
X 20.2
(PF02HxA)
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
X 41.5
(PFMOAA)
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid
6.37
(PFMOPrA)
Perfluoro(4-methoxybutanoic) acid
11.2
(PFMOBA)
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
UX ND
(EVE)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,1 1 -
X 0.603
pentaoxadodecanoic) acid (PF05DA
or TAFN4)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
X 7.15
(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid
(PEPA)
Perfluoro-2-
X 14.1
(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
(PMPA)
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-
U ND
oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid (F-
53B Minor)
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U ND
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1 M132 03/09/22 2056 2235795 1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.431
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.172
0.344
ng/L
0.0172
1
0.568
1.72
ng/L
0.0172
1 JLS 03/09/22 1814 2235795 2
1.14
3.44
ng/L
0.0172
1
Page 15 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: NCO024571
Sample ID: 572111004
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS
"As
Received"
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
EtFOSE)
2-(N-methylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
McFOSE)
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
U
ND
oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid (F-53B
Major)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 (6:2
6.04
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
octanesulfonamide (N-EtFOSA)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
octanesulfonamide (N-McFOSA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
J
2.00
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDoS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
6.86
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
U
ND
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
78.4
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
12.8
(PFHxS)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
4.08
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
U
ND
(PFODA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
U
ND
1.14
3.44
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.38
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.24
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.27
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.31
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.44
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.44
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.44
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.44
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.568
3.44
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.568
1.67
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.672
1.72
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.568
1.72
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.568
1.64
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.568
1.72
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.568
1.57
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.603
1.65
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.568
1.72
ng/L
0.0172 1
1.14
3.44
ng/L
0.0172 1
0.568
1.72
ng/L
0.0172 1
Page 16 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: NCO024571
Sample ID: 572111004
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As Received"
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 14.1
0.689
1.72
ng/L
0.0172
1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 77.7
0.689
1.72
ng/L
0.0172
1
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid 2.17
0.568
1.62
ng/L
0.0172
1
(PFPeS)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) U ND
0.568
1.72
ng/L
0.0172
1
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic U ND
0.568
1.72
ng/L
0.0172
1
acid (DONA,ADONA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 352
2.84
7.66
ng/L
0.0172
5
JLS 03/10/22 1413 2235795
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 354
3.44
8.61
ng/L
0.0172
5
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid U ND
5.68
17.2
ng/L
0.0172
5
(PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 203
3.44
8.61
ng/L
0.0172
5
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA) U ND
3.44
8.61
ng/L
0.0172
5
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) U ND
2.84
8.61
ng/L
0.0172
5
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 1240
28.4
86.1
ng/L
0.0172
50
JLS 03/10/22 1331 2235795
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2- X 2850
8.61
21.5
ng/L
0.0172
50
MB2 03/10/22 1616 2235795
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic
acid (NVHOS)
Nation Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4) X 3420
8.61
21.5
ng/L
0.0172
50
Nation Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5) X 1250
8.61
21.5
ng/L
0.0172
50
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid) BX 829
8.61
21.5
ng/L
0.0172
50
R-EVE X 390
56.8
172
ng/L
0.0172
50
The following Prep Methods were performed:
Method Description
Analyst
Date
Time
Prep Batch
EPA 537.1 Modified PFCs Extraction in Liquid
LD1
03/02/22
1050
2235790
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
3
4
5
Method
Description Analyst Comments
1
EPA 537.1 Modified
2
EPA 537.1 Modified
3
EPA 537.1 Modified
4
EPA 537.1 Modified
5
EPA 537.1 Modified
Notes:
Page 17 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Address : 4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Contact: Edith Henderson
Project: DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA
Client Sample ID: NCO024571
Sample ID: 572111004
Report Date: March 11, 2022
Project: NCDQ00222
Client ID: NCDQ001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor Lc/LC: Critical Level
DL: Detection Limit PF: Prep Factor
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity RL: Reporting Limit
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Page 18 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
DWR 2022-PFAS and PFOA QC Summary Renort Date: March 11, 2022
Page 1 of 17
4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact: Edith Henderson
Workorder: 572111
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
QC1205031622 LCS
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-
19.2
x 19.3
ng/L
101
(60%-158%)
MB2
03/09/2215:18
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic
acid (NVHOS)
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-
18.0
18.4
ng/L
102
(59%-144%)
JLS
03/09/22 15:15
oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid (F-
53B Minor)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
19.2
21.6
ng/L
113
(67%-144%)
MB2
03/09/2215:18
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic
acid (Gen-X)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
19.2
X 19.5
ng/L
102
(58%-144%)
(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid
(PEPA)
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-l-
19.2
16.8
ng/L
88
(54%-128%)
JLS
03/09/2215:15
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
EtFOSE)
2-(N-methylperfluoro-l-
19.2
13.3
ng/L
69
(52%-141%)
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
McFOSE)
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic
19.2
21.5
ng/L
112
(67%-136%)
acid (DONA,ADONA)
4-
19.2
X 20.4
ng/L
106
(73%-141%)
MB2
03/09/2215:18
(Heptafluoroisopropoxy)hexafluoro
butanoic acid (PFECA-G)
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
17.9
18.8
ng/L
105
(68%-135%)
JLS
03/09/2215:15
oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid (F-53B
Major)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 (4:2
17.9
19.2
ng/L
107
(56%-151%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 (6:2
18.2
21.8
ng/L
120
(60%-153%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2
18.4
23.6
ng/L
128
(60%-141%)
FTS)
Hydro -EVE 19.2 x 20.7 ng/L 108 (61%-148%) MB2 03/09/2215:18
Page 19 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 2 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
19.2
22.0
ng/L
115
(23%-155%) JLS 03/09/2215:15
octanesulfonamide (N-EtFOSA)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
19.2
21.5
ng/L
112
(57%-139%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-I-
19.2
19.2
ng/L
100
(20%-154%)
octanesulfonamide (N-McFOSA)
N-methylperfluoro-I-
19.2
18.3
ng/L
96
(59%-145%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Nafion Byproduct 1 (PFESA BPI)
19.2
X
16.4
ng/L
86
(35%-138%) MB2 03/09/22 15:18
Nafion Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP2)
19.2
X
19.8
ng/L
103
(63%-143%)
Nafion Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
19.2
X
12.0
ng/L
63
(18%-158%)
Nafion Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
19.2
x
16.1
ng/L
84
(34%-149%)
Nafion Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP6)
19.2
x
21.4
ng/L
111
(59%-145%)
Nonafluoro-316-dioxaheptanoic
19.2
23.2
ng/L
121
(48%-149%)
acid (NFDHA or PFECA B)
Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic
19.2
17.1
ng/L
89
(52%-148%)
acid (PFEESA or PES)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,1 1 -
19.2
X
19.4
ng/L
101
(58%-147%)
pentaoxadodecanoic) acid
(PF05DA or TAFN4)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic)
19.2
X
21.4
ng/L
112
(60%-151%)
acid (PF04DA)
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) 19.2 X 22.5 ng/L 118 (62%-148%)
acid (PF030A)
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid 19.2 X 20.9 ng/L 109 (60%-144%)
(PF02HxA)
Page 20 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 3 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Perfluoro(4-methoxybutanoic) acid
19.2
22.9
ng/L
120
(58%-142%)
MB2
03/09/22 15:18
(PFMOBA)
Perfluoro-2-
19.2
X 18.9
ng/L
99
(50%-150%)
(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
(PMPA)
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
19.2
X 18.6
ng/L
97
(52%-144%)
(PFMOAA)
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic
19.2
18.5
ng/L
97
(60%-149%)
acid (PFMOPrA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
17.0
16.5
ng/L
97
(70%-144%)
JLS
03/09/22 15:15
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
19.2
22.8
ng/L
119
(73%-151%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.5
18.5
ng/L
100
(58%-134%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
19.2
18.3
ng/L
95
(65%-145%)
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
18.5
15.9
ng/L
86
(57%-134%)
(PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
19.2
21.1
ng/L
110
(65%-137%)
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
19.2
X 17.2
ng/L
90
MB2
03/09/22 15:18
(EVE)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
18.2
17.7
ng/L
97
(68%-138%)
JLS
03/09/22 15:15
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
19.2
21.1
ng/L
110
(71%-133%)
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid
19.2
20.3
ng/L
106
(69%-144%)
(PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 17.5 18.7 ng/L 107 (67%-145%)
(PFHxS)
Page 21 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 4 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
19.2
19.8
ng/L
104
(70%-138%)
JLS
03/09/22 15:15
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.4
19.7
ng/L
107
(64%-133%)
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
19.2
20.6
ng/L
108
(69%-133%)
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
19.2
15.6
ng/L
82
(35%-165%)
(PFODA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
19.2
19.4
ng/L
101
(64%-134%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
19.2
19.9
ng/L
104
(65%-133%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
19.2
21.4
ng/L
112
(66%-139%)
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
18.0
18.6
ng/L
103
(67%-136%)
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
19.2
20.4
ng/L
106
(72%-143%)
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
19.2
BX 20.9
ng/L
109
(49%-153%)
MB2
03/09/22 15:18
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA)
19.2
19.4
ng/L
101
(66%-138%)
JLS
03/09/22 15:15
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA)
19.2
21.2
ng/L
110
(58%-140%)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
19.2
20.4
ng/L
107
(63%-135%)
R-EVE
19.2
x 17.0
ng/L
89
(41%-158%)
MB2
03/09/2215:18
QC1205031621 MB
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-
UX ND
ng/L
03/09/2214:57
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic
acid (NVHOS)
Page 22 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 5 of 17
Parmname NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D% REC%
Range Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-
U
ND
ng/L
JLS
03/09/22 14:54
oxaundecane- 1 -sulfonic acid (F-
53B Minor)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
U
ND
ng/L
MB2
03/09/2214:57
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic
acid (Gen-X)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
UX
ND
ng/L
(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid
(PEPA)
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
JLS
03/09/22 14:54
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
EtFOSE)
2-(N-methylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
McFOSE)
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic
U
ND
ng/L
acid (DONA,ADONA)
4-
UX
ND
ng/L
MB2
03/09/2214:57
(Heptafluoroisopropoxy)hexafluoro
butanoic acid (PFECA-G)
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
U
ND
ng/L
JLS
03/09/22 14:54
oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid (F-53B
Major)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
Hydro -EVE
UX
ND
ng/L
MB2
03/09/2214:57
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
JLS
03/09/22 14:54
octanesulfonamide (N-EtFOSA)
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamide (N-McFOSA)
Page 23 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 6 of 17
Parmname
NOM Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
N-methylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
ng/L JLS 03/09/2214:54
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Naflon Byproduct 1 (PFESA BPI)
UX
ND
ng/L M132 03/09/22 14:57
Nafon Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP2)
UX
ND
ng/L
Nafon Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
UX
ND
ng/L
Naflon Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
UX
ND
ng/L
Naflon Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP6)
UX
ND
ng/L
Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxahepanoic
U
ND
ng/L
acid (NFDHA or PFECA B)
Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic
U
ND
ng/L
acid (PFEESA or PES)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,1 I -
UX
ND
ng/L
pentaoxadodecanoic) acid
(PF05DA or TAFN4)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic)
UX
ND
ng/L
acid (PF04DA)
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic)
UX
ND
ng/L
acid (PF030A)
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
UX
ND
ng/L
(PF02HxA)
Perfluoro(4-methoxybutanoic) acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFMOBA)
Perfluoro-2-
UX
ND
ng/L
(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
(PMPA)
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
UX
ND
ng/L
(PFMOAA)
Page 24 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 7 of 17
Parmname
NOM Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D% REC%
Range Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic
U
ND
ng/L
MB2
03/09/2214:57
acid (PFMOPrA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
JLS
03/09/22 14:54
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
UX
ND
ng/L
MB2
03/09/22 14:57
(EVE)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
JLS
03/09/22 14:54
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) U ND ng/L
Page 25 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 8 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample
Qual
QC
Units RPD/D%
REC% Range
Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
JLS
03/09/22 14:54
(PFODA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
JX
0.339
ng/L
MB2
03/09/22 14:57
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA)
U
ND
ng/L
JLS
03/09/22 14:54
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
U
ND
ng/L
R-EVE
UX
ND
ng/L
MB2
03/09/2214:57
QC1205031623 571338009 MS
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-
17.4 X
0.687
X
19.0
ng/L
105 (50%-145%)
03/09/2219:11
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic
acid (NVHOS)
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-
16.4 U
ND
18.5
ng/L
113 (42%-138%)
JLS
03/09/2217:22
oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid (F-
53B Minor)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
17.4
0.529
19.6
ng/L
109 (51%-159%)
MB2
03/09/2219:11
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic
acid (Gen-X)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
17.4 X
0.678
X
17.3
ng/L
96 (50%-148%)
(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid
(PEPA)
Page 26 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 9 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample
Qual
QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-
17.4
U
ND
18.4
ng/L
105
(44%-127%)
JLS
03/09/2217:22
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
EtFOSE)
2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-
17.4
U
ND
15.1
ng/L
86
(39%-138%)
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
McFOSE)
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic
17.4
U
ND
18.1
ng/L
104
(62%-132%)
acid (DONA,ADONA)
4-
17.4
UX
ND
X
18.2
ng/L
105
(58%-157%)
M132
03/09/2219:11
(Heptafluoroisopropoxy)hexafluoro
butanoic acid (PFECA-G)
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
16.2
U
ND
17.6
ng/L
108
(54%-139%)
JLS
03/09/2217:22
oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid (F-5313
Major)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 (4:2
16.3
U
ND
16.3
ng/L
100
(53%-151%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 (6:2
16.6
U
ND
17.4
ng/L
105
(50%-154%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2
16.7
U
ND
18.3
ng/L
109
(40%-152%)
FTS)
Hydro -EVE
17.4
UX
ND
X
17.7
ng/L
102
(61%-142%)
M132
03/09/2219:11
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
17.4
U
ND
16.4
ng/L
94
(26%-138%)
JLS
03/09/2217:22
octanesulfonamide (N-EtFOSA)
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
17.4
U
ND
19.5
ng/L
112
(38%-148%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
17.4
U
ND
20.5
ng/L
118
(26%-139%)
octanesulfonamide (N-McFOSA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
17.4
U
ND
19.4
ng/L
112
(40%-144%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Nafion Byproduct 1 (PFESA BPI)
17.4
UX
ND
X
15.0
ng/L
86
(38%-133%)
M132
03/09/22 19:11
Nafion Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP2)
17.4
X
2.24
X
18.2
ng/L
91
(40%-155%)
Page 27 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 10 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample
Qual
QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Naflon Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
17.4
X
1.06
X
67.6
ng/L
382 *
(45%-160%) MB2
03/09/22 19:11
Naflon Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
17.4
UX
ND
X
45.2
ng/L
259 *
(50%-150%)
Nafion Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP6)
17.4
UX
ND
X
17.8
ng/L
102
(61%-141%)
Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxahepanoic
17.4
U
ND
23.1
ng/L
133
(43%-156%)
acid (NFDHA or PFECA B)
Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic
17.4
U
ND
14.8
ng/L
85
(50%-148%)
acid (PFEESA or PES)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,11-
17.4
UX
ND
X
18.0
ng/L
103
(43%-160%)
pentaoxadodecanoic) acid
(PF05DA or TAFN4)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic)
17.4
UX
ND
X
20.2
ng/L
116
(45%-163%)
acid (PF04DA)
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic)
17.4
UX
ND
X
20.0
ng/L
114
(40%-162%)
acid (PF030A)
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
17.4
X
0.943
X
16.9
ng/L
91
(38%-165%)
(PF02HxA)
Perfluoro(4-methoxybutanoic)acid
17.4
U
ND
17.5
ng/L
100
(31%-150%)
(PFMOBA)
Perfluoro-2-
17.4
X
9.79
X
23.4
ng/L
78
(50%-150%)
(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
(PMPA)
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
17.4
X
3.53
X
18.2
ng/L
84
(40%-182%)
(PFMOAA)
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic
17.4
J
0.285
12.8
ng/L
72
(19%-167%)
acid (PFMOPrA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
15.4
J
0.736
16.2
ng/L
100
(52%-147%) JLS
03/09/22 17:22
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 17.4 U ND 20.2 ng/L 113 (57%-149%)
Page 28 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 11 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
16.8
U
ND
17.3
ng/L
103
(45%-136%)
JLS 03/09/22 17:22
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
17.4
U
ND
18.2
ng/L
104
(44%-143%)
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
16.9
U
ND
15.8
ng/L
94
(47%-138%)
(PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
17.4
U
ND
19.3
ng/L
110
(45%-142%)
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
17.4
Ux
ND x
16.2
ng/L
93
MB2 03/09/22 19:11
(EVE)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
16.6
U
ND
17.7
ng/L
107
(56%-149%)
JLS 03/09/22 17:22
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
17.4
U
ND
18.2
ng/L
104
(51%-149%)
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid
17.4
U
ND
16.6
ng/L
95
(32%-151%)
(PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
15.9
2.66
16.1
ng/L
84
(50%-148%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
17.4
U
ND
21.8
ng/L
125
(50%-150%)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
16.7
U
ND
17.1
ng/L
102
(48%-138%)
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
17.4
U
ND
21.4
ng/L
123
(54%-146%)
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
17.4
U
ND
15.6
ng/L
89
(18%-140%)
(PFODA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
17.4
U
ND
18.0
ng/L
103
(49%-143%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 17.4 2.44 22.5 ng/L 115 (42%-150%
(PFOS)
Page 29 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Workorder: 572111
QC Summary
Page 12 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample
Qual
QC Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
17.4
U
ND
19.5
ng/L
109
(50%-151%)
JLS
03/09/22 17:22
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
16.4
U
ND
14.0
ng/L
86
(55%-151%)
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
17.4
U
ND
18.5
ng/L
104
(51%-146%)
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
17.4
BX
40.3
BX
45.0
ng/L
27 *
(32%-155%)
MB2
03/09/22 19:11
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA)
17.4
U
ND
18.1
ng/L
104
(41%-148%)
JLS
03/09/22 17:22
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA)
17.4
U
ND
18.0
ng/L
104
(41%-142%)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
17.4
U
ND
17.2
ng/L
99
(44%-141%)
R-EVE
17.4
UX
ND
X
62.2
ng/L
356*
(45%-164%)
MB2
03/09/2219:11
QC1205031624 571338009 MSD
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-
18.9
X
0.687
X
21.6
ng/L
13
110
(0%-30%)
03/09/2219:32
tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic
acid (NVHOS)
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-
17.8
U
ND
19.2
ng/L
4
108
(0%-36%)
JLS
03/09/2217:33
oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid (F-
53B Minor)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
18.9
0.529
22.7
ng/L
15
117
(0%-28%)
MB2
03/09/2219:32
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic
acid (Gen-X)
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-
18.9
X
0.678
X
20.2
ng/L
15
103
(0%-34%)
(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid
(PEPA)
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-l-
18.9
U
ND
21.3
ng/L
15
112
(0%-39%)
JLS
03/09/2217:33
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
EtFOSE)
2-(N-methylperfluoro-l-
18.9
U
ND
18.8
ng/L
22
99
(0%-40%)
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol (N-
McFOSE)
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic
18.9
U
ND
21.1
ng/L
15
ill
(0%-28%)
acid (DONA,ADONA)
Page 30 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 13 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample
Qual
QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
4-
18.9
UX
ND
X
20.8
ng/L
13
110
(0%-31%)
M132 03/09/2219:32
(Heptafluoroisopropoxy)hexafluoro
butanoic acid (PFECA-G)
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
17.6
U
ND
19.3
ng/L
9
109
(0%-33%)
JLS 03/09/2217:33
oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid (F-53B
Major)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 (4:2
17.7
U
ND
18.7
ng/L
13
105
(0%-39%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 (6:2
18.0
U
ND
17.2
ng/L
1
96
(0%-40%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2
18.2
U
ND
23.8
ng/L
26
131
(0%-44%)
FTS)
Hydro -EVE
18.9
Ux
ND
X
21.2
ng/L
18
112
(0%-29%)
M132 03/09/2219:32
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
18.9
U
ND
22.7
ng/L
33
120
(0%-42%)
JLS 03/09/2217:33
octanesulfonamide (N-EtFOSA)
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
18.9
U
ND
19.7
ng/L
1
104
(0%-36%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-I-
18.9
U
ND
22.0
ng/L
7
116
(0%-40%)
octanesulfonamide (N-McFOSA)
N-methylperfluoro-I-
18.9
U
ND
25.1
ng/L
26
133
(0%-36%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Naflon Byproduct 1 (PFESA BPI)
18.9
UX
ND
X
19.0
ng/L
24
100
(0%-33%)
M132 03/09/22 19:32
Naflon Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP2)
18.9
x
2.24
X
20.7
ng/L
13
97
(0%-26%)
Naflon Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
18.9
x
1.06
X
75.4
ng/L
11
392 *
(0%-32%)
Naflon Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
18.9
UX
ND
X
57.6
ng/L
24
304 *
(0%-34%)
Nafion Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP6)
18.9
Ux
ND
X
21.7
ng/L
20
114
(0%-30%)
Page 31 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Workorder: 572111
QC Summary
Page 14 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample
Qual
QC Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic
18.9
U
ND
26.6
ng/L
14
140
(0%-33%) MB2
03/09/2219:32
acid (NFDHA or PFECA B)
Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic
18.9
U
ND
18.3
ng/L
21
96
(0%-28%)
acid (PFEESA or PES)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,11-
18.9
UX
ND
X
20.5
ng/L
13
108
(0%-44%)
pentaoxadodecanoic) acid
(PF05DA or TAFN4)
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic)
18.9
UX
ND
X
22.7
ng/L
11
120
(0%-38%)
acid (PF04DA)
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic)
18.9
UX
ND
X
22.3
ng/L
11
118
(0%-41%)
acid (PF030A)
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
18.9
X
0.943
X
20.0
ng/L
17
101
(0%-31%)
(PF02HxA)
Perfluoro(4-methoxybutanoic) acid
18.9
U
ND
21.8
ng/L
22
115
(0%-46%)
(PFMOBA)
Perfluoro-2-
18.9
X
9.79
X
26.2
ng/L
11
87
(0%-30%)
(perfluoromethoxy)propanoic acid
(PMPA)
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
18.9
X
3.53
X
22.3
ng/L
20
99
(0%-41%)
(PFMOAA)
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic
18.9
J
0.285
15.9
ng/L
21
83
(0%-35%)
acid (PFMOPrA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
16.8
J
0.736
20.2
ng/L
22
116
(0%-27%) JLS
03/09/22 17:33
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
18.9
U
ND
24.9
ng/L
21
128
(0%-23%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.3
U
ND
18.5
ng/L
7
101
(0%-36%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
18.9
U
ND
23.0
ng/L
24
122
(0%-35%)
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
18.3
U
ND
17.7
ng/L
11
97
(0%-35%)
(PFDoS)
Page 32 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 15 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
18.9
U
ND
23.7
ng/L
21
125
(0%-30%)
JLS 03/09/22 17:33
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
18.9
Ux
ND X
19.6
ng/L
19
103
MB2 03/09/22 19:32
(EVE)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
18.0
U
ND
23.0
ng/L
26
128
(0%-30%)
JLS 03/09/22 17:33
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
18.9
U
ND
18.7
ng/L
3
99
(0%-26%)
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid
18.9
U
ND
19.5
ng/L
16
103
(0%-33%)
(PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.3
2.66
20.5
ng/L
24
103
(0%-31%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
18.9
U
ND
22.3
ng/L
2
118
(0%-26%)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.2
U
ND
19.2
ng/L
12
106
(0%-35%)
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
18.9
U
ND
22.4
ng/L
5
118
(0%-30%)
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
18.9
U
ND
17.3
ng/L
10
91
(0%-44%)
(PFODA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
18.9
U
ND
21.8
ng/L
19
115
(0%-28%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
18.9
2.44
25.1
ng/L
11
120
(0%-31%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
18.9
U
ND
20.0
ng/L
3
103
(0%-28%)
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
17.8
U
ND
18.2
ng/L
26
102
(0%-31%)
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 18.9 U ND 21.9 ng/L 17 113 (0%-24%
Page 33 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 16 of 17
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range
Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 2235795
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
18.9 BX
40.3 BX
56.0
ng/L
22
83
(0%-34%)
M132
03/09/22 19:32
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA)
18.9 U
ND
23.0
ng/L
23
121
(0%-32%)
JLS
03/09/22 17:33
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA)
18.9 U
ND
21.5
ng/L
17
114
(0%-35%)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
18.9 U
ND
22.5
ng/L
27
119
(0%-34%)
R-EVE
18.9 UX
ND X
76.2
ng/L
20
401 *
(0%-35%)
M132
03/09/22 19:32
Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
< Result is less than value reported
> Result is greater than value reported
A The TIC is a suspected aldol-condensation product
B The target analyte was detected in the associated blank.
C Analyte has been confirmed by GUMS analysis
D Results are reported from a diluted aliquot of the sample
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range
H Analytical holding time was exceeded
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
JNX Non Calibrated Compound
N Organics --Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based
on nearest internal standard response factor
N Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based on nearest
internal standard response factor
N/A RPD or %Recovery limits do not apply.
N1 See case narrative
ND Analyte concentration is not detected above the detection limit
NJ Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
P Organics --The concentrations between the primary and confirmation columns/detectors is >40% different. For HPLC, the difference is >70%.
Q One or more quality control criteria have not been met. Refer to the applicable narrative or DER.
Page 34 of 40 SDG: 572111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 572111
Page 17 of 17
Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
R Sample results are rejected
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
UJ Compound cannot be extracted
X Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
Y QC Samples were not spiked with this compound
^ RPD of sample and duplicate evaluated using +/-RL. Concentrations are <5X the RL. Qualifier Not Applicable for Radiochemistry.
h Preparation or preservation holding time was exceeded
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more or %RPD not applicable.
The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than
five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +/- the
RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
* Indicates that a Quality Control parameter was not within specifications.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
Page 35 of 40 SDG: 572111

Chemistry Laboratory
Samples Submitted to: ( ) Asheville Regional Lab - Swannanoa
Purpose / Investigation:
PFAS Sampling
Sample Collector(s):
#1�
#3
Please Print
#1 Reserved for Lead Sampler
{�
#2 G4/ %e iJ1-4 Ye
#4
Field Storage conditions & location:
(when applicable)
Location Code
or
Location Description
o
Date Time 'd
m
# Of Sample
Tag Number
Collected Collected
Containers
cl
.21.E .3
4
} y4 p
F �+° C tLL d�f'i'i
,�� �2-
tl (0CI J
d"' „C
`i% M tYd _.`
y �
i fix'
Relinquished by:
Date Time Received by:
Date
Time
(signature)
Relinquished Relinquished signature)
Received
Received
Cs
7
Revised 3/2/2021 - AW Page of °_
Page 36 of 40 SDG: 572111

'KXLaboratorieS LW L
SAMPLE RECEIPT & REVIEW FORM
Client: KV ISDG/AR/COClWorkOrder:
�50
Received B : bC
Date Received:
-�"—" Cucis p cabk:
FedE .Express` edEx Ground UPS Field Services Courier Other
Corder and Traddng Number
`Y 1t� �� n i di
Suspected Hnmrd Information
Z
*If Net Counts > 100cpm on samples not marked "radioactive", contact the Radiation Safety Group for further investigation.
Class Shipped: UN#:
A)Shipped as a DOT Hazardous?
If UN2910, Is the Radioactive Shipment Survey Compliant? Yes_ No_
B) Did the client designate the samples are to be
COC notation or radioactive stickers on containers equal client designation.
received as radioactive?
r
C) Did the IL30 classify the samples as
aximum Net Counts Observed* (Observed Counts - Area Background Counts): CPM / mR/Hr
radioactive?
Classified as: Rad 1 Rad 2 Rod 3
COC notation or hazard labels on containers equal client designation.
D) Did the client designate samples are hazardous?
or E is yes, select Hazards below.
E) Did the RSO identi ssiblc hazards?
PCBs Flammable Foreign Soil RCRA Asbestos Beryllium Other.
Sample Receipt Ctite. Ie
,b dApiOj; containers received iritaet and
t
Comn nWQuniifitrs (Required for Nan-Conlarming Items)
Circle Applicable: Seals broken Dn nged,container Leaking container Oth:r(descn?:)
ChaiII of custody documents included
Circle Applicable: Client contacted and provided COC. COC created upon receipt
with shipment?
Prescrvallon Method:W et Ice Icq racks Dryice None Other.
Samples requiring cold preservation
*all temperatures a roomdeCbi Celsius TEENER:
sri:hin (0 < 6 deg. C)?*
Daily checlr performed and passed on IR
Temperature Device Serial #:IRS-21 _
r
temperature gun?
SLcondary Temperature Device Seridgt (If Applicsole):
'
Circle Applicable: Seats broken Damnged container Leaking container Other ',describe)
5
Sample containers intact and sealed?
Samples requiring chemical preservation
Peple ID's and Containers Affected:
6
at proper pH7
lIf
Prescrvation added, Lot#:
If Yes, are Encores or Soil Kits present for solids? Yes_ No_ NA(If yes, take to VOA Freezer)
Do any samples require Volatile
Do li OA vials contain acid preservation? Yes_ No_ NA__(If unknown, select No)
AIE liquid VOA vials free of hearispam? Yes_ No_ NA
/
Analysis?
Sample M's and containers affected:
ID's and tests affected:
0
Samples received within holding time?
'M and containers affected:
Sample ID's on COC match ID's on
9
bottles?
10
Date & time on COC match date & time
Circle Applicable: No dates on containers No times on containers COC missing info Other (describe)
on bottles?
11
Number of containers received match
Circle Applicable: No container count on COC Other (describe)
number indicated on COC?
12
Are sample containers identifiable as
GEL provided by use of GEL labels?
COC form is properly signed in
Circle Applicable: Not relinquished Other (describe)
13
relinquished/received sections?
Comments (Use Continuation Form if needed):
PM (or PMA) review: Initials ��J Date 2- 2 2 Z Page 1 of J—
N
GL-CHL-SR-001 Rev 7
Page 37 of 40 SDG: 572111

List of current GEL Certifications as of 11 March 2022
State
Certification
Alabama
42200
Alaska
17-018
Alaska Drinking Water
SC00012
Arkansas
88-0651
CLIA
42DO904046
California
2940
Colorado
SC00012
Connecticut
PH-0169
DoD ELAP/ ISO17025 A2LA
2567.01
Florida NELAP
E87156
Foreign Soils Permit
P330-15-00283, P330-15-00253
Georgia
SC00012
Georgia SDWA
967
Hawaii
SC00012
Idaho
SC00012
Illinois NELAP
200029
Indiana
C—SC-01
Kansas NELAP
E-10332
Kentucky SDWA
90129
Kentucky Wastewater
90129
Louisiana Drinking Water
LA024
Louisiana NELAP
03046 (AI33904)
Maine
2019020
Maryland
270
Massachusetts
M—SCO12
Massachusetts PFAS Approv
Letter
Michigan
9976
Mississippi
SC00012
Nebraska
NE—OS-26-13
Nevada
SC000122021-1
New Hampshire NELAP
2054
New Jersey NELAP
SCO02
New Mexico
SC00012
New York NELAP
11501
North Carolina
233
North Carolina SDWA
45709
North Dakota
R-158
Oklahoma
2019-165
Pennsylvania NELAP
68-00485
Puerto Rico
SC00012
S. Carolina Radiochem
10120002
Sanitation Districts of L
9255651
South Carolina Chemistry
10120001
Tennessee
TN 02934
Texas NELAP
T104704235-21-19
Utah NELAP
SC000122021-36
Vermont
VT87156
Virginia NELAP
460202
Washington
C780
Page 38 of 40 SDG: 572111

LCMSMS-Misc
Technical Case Narrative
NC Dept Environmental Quality
SDG #: 572111
Product: The Extraction and Analysis of Per and Polyfluroalkyl Substances Using LCMSMS
Analytical Method: EPA 537.1 Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-OA-E-076 REV# 12
Analytical Batches: 2235795 and 2235790
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).
GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
572111001 Upstream
572111002 Effluent Lumberton Hold
572111003 Downstream
572111004 NCO024571
1205031621 Method Blank (MB)
1205031622 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1205031623 571338009(NonSDG) Matrix Spike (MS)
1205031624 571338009(NonSDG) Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD)
The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:
All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.
Quality Control (QC) Information
Matrix Spike (MS) Recovery Statement
The MS or MSD (See Below) recovered spiked analytes outside of the established acceptance limits. As similar
recoveries were displayed in the MS and MSD, the failures were attributed to sample matrix interference and the
data were reported.
Sample
Analyte
Value
1205031623 (Non SDG 571338009MS)
Nafion Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
382* (45%-160%)
Nafion Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
259* (50%-150%)
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
27* (32%-155%)
R-EVE
356* (45%-164%)
1205031624 (Non SDG 571338009MSD)
Nafion Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
392* (45%-160%)
Nafion Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
304* (50%-150%)
R-EVE
401* (45%-164%)
Technical Information
Sample Dilutions
Page 39 of 40 SDG: 572111

The following samples were diluted to bring the over range concentrations within the calibration range.
572111002 (Effluent Lumberton Hold), 572111003 (Downstream) and 572111004 (NC0024571). The following
sample and/or QC were diluted due to the Internal Standard Recovery not within the limits. 572111002 (Effluent
Lumberton Hold).
Analyte
572111
002
003
004
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)ethane sulfonic acid (NVHOS)
1X
1X
50X
Nafion Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP4)
1X
1 OX
50X
Nafion Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP5)
1X
1X
50X
Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 (8:2 FTS)
5X
1X
1X
N-methylperfluoro-l-octanesulfonamidoacefic acid (N-McFOSAA)
50X
1X
1X
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
1X
1X
5X
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
5X
1X
5X
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
50X
1X
1X
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDOA)
5X
1X
1X
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
50X
1X
1X
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
5X
1X
5X
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
50X
1X
5X
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
5X
1X
1X
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid (PFODA)
5X
1X
1X
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
5X
1X
1X
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
50X
1X
1X
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
50X
1X
50X
Perfluoropropanoic acid (PPF Acid)
1X
1X
50X
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA)
1X
1X
5X
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA)
1X
1X
5X
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFUnA)
5X
1X
1X
R-EVE
1X
1X
50X
Certification Statement
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 40 of 40 SDG: 572111

ATTACHMENT 2

Ja�Z ED S T, ))s
1 NITED STATus ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC"PION AGENCY
Q•yi WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
w
$ OFFIC6 OF WATER
0
F2Tgt PROlip
December S, 2022
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Addressing PFAS Discharges in NPDES Permits and Through the Pretreatment Program
and Monitoring Programs
FROM: Radhika Fox
Assistant Administrator
TO: EPA Regional Water Division Directors, Regions 1-10
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is an important tool
established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) to help address water pollution by regulating point sources
that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. Collectively, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and states issue thousands of permits annually, establishing important monitoring and
pollution reduction requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), industrial facilities,
and stormwater discharges nationwide. The NPDES program interfaces with many pathways by which
per -and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) travel and are released into the environment, and ultimately
impact water quality and the health of people and ecosystems. Consistent with the Agency's
commitments in the October 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024
(PFAS Strategic Roadman), EPA will work in cooperation with our state -authorized permitting
authorities to leverage the NPDES program to restrict the discharge of PFAS at their sources. In addition
to reducing PFAS discharges, this program will enable EPA and the states to obtain comprehensive
information on the sources and quantities of PFAS discharges, which can be used to inform appropriate
next steps to limit the discharges of PFAS.
This memorandum provides EPA's guidance to states and updates the April 28, 2022 guidance I to EPA
Regions for addressing PFAS discharges when they are authorized to administer the NPDES permitting
program and/or pretreatment program. These recommendations reflect the Agency's commitments in the
PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which directs the Office of Water to leverage NPDES permits to reduce
PFAS discharges to waterways "at the source and obtain more comprehensive information through
monitoring on the sources of PFAS and quantity of PFAS discharged by these sources." While the
Office of Water works to revise Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) and develop water quality
criteria to support technology -based and water quality -based effluent limits for PFAS in NPDES
permits, this memorandum describes steps permit writers can implement under existing authorities to
reduce the discharge of PFAS.
' Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations Where EPA is the Pretreatment Control
Authority, https://www.coa.eov/system/tiles/documents/2022-04/nndes pfas-memo.pdf.

This memorandum also provides EPA's guidance for addressing sewage sludge PFAS contamination
more rapidly than possible with monitoring based solely on NPDES permit renewals. States may choose
to monitor the levels of HAS in sewage sludge across POTWs and then consider mechanisms under
pretreatment program authorities to prevent the introduction of HAS to POTWs based on the
monitoring results.
EPA recommends that the following array of NPDES and pretreatment provisions and monitoring
programs be implemented by authorized states and POTWs, as appropriate, to the fullest extent available
under state and local law. NPDES and pretreatment provisions may be included when issuing a permit
or by modifying an existing permit pursuant to 40 CFR 122.62.
A. Recommendations for Annlicable Industrial Direct Dischargers
1. Applicability: Industry categories known or suspected to discharge PFAS as identified on page 14
of the PFAS Strategic Roadmap include: organic chemicals, plastics & synthetic fibers (OCPSF);
metal finishing; electroplating; electric and electronic components; landfills; pulp, paper &
paperboard; leather tanning & finishing; plastics molding & forming; textile mills; paint formulating,
and airports. This is not an exhaustive list and additional industries may also discharge PFAS. For
example, Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities may receive wastes from the
aforementioned industries and should be considered for monitoring. There may also be categories of
dischargers that do not meet the applicability criteria of any existing ELG; for instance, remediation
sites, chemical manufacturing not covered by OCPSF, and military bases.
EPA notes that no permit may be issued to the owner or operator of a facility unless the owner or
operator submits a complete permit application in accordance with applicable regulations, and
applicants must provide any additional information that the permitting authority may reasonably
require to assess the discharges of the facility (40 CFR 122.21(e), (g)(13)).2 The applicant may be
required to submit additional information under CWA Section 308 or under a similar provision of
state law.
2. Effluent -and wastewater residuals monitoring: In the absence of a final 40 CFR Part 136 method,
EPA recommends using CWA wastewater drill analytical method 1633 (see 40 CFR
122.21(e)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv)(B)). EPA also recommends that monitoring include
each of the 40 HAS parameters detectable by draft method 1633 and be conducted at least quarterly
to ensure that there are adequate data to assess the presence and concentration of HAS in
discharges. All PFAS monitoring data must be reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
(see 40 CFR 122.41(I)(4)(i)). The draft Adsorbable Organic Fluorine CWA wastewater method 1621
can be used in conjunction with draft method 1633, if appropriate. Certain industrial processes may
generate PFAS-contaminated solid waste or air emissions not covered by NPDES permitting and
permitting agencies should coordinate with appropriate state authorities on proper containment and
disposal to avoid cross-inedia contamination. EPA's draft analytical method 1633 may be
appropriate to assess the amount and types of PFAS for some of these wastestreams.3
For more, see NPDES Permit Writer's Manual Section 4.5.1.
' See httas://www.eua.gov/water-research/pfas-analytical-metht)ds-development-and-saminline-research for a list of EPA -
approved methods for other media.
2

3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for discharges of PFAS, including product substitution,
reduction, or elimination of PFAS, as detected by draft method 1633: Pursuant to 40 CFR
122.44(k)(4), EPA recommends that NPDES permits for facilities incorporate the following
conditions when the practices are "reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and standards
or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA."4
a. BMP conditions based on pollution prevention/source reduction opportunities, which may
include:
i. Product elimination or substitution when a reasonable alternative to using PFAS is available
in the industrial process.
ii. Accidental discharge minimization by optimizing operations and good housekeeping
practices.
iii. Equipment decontamination or replacement (such as in metal finishing facilities) where
HAS products have historically been used to prevent discharge of legacy PFAS following
the implementation of product substitution.
b. Example BMP permit special condition language:
i. PFAS pollution prevention/source reduction evaluation: Within 6 months of the effective
date of the permit, the facility shall provide an evaluation of whether the facility uses or has
historically used any products containing PFAS, whether use of those products or legacy
contamination reasonably can be reduced or eliminated, and a plan to implement those steps.
ii. Reduction or Elimination: Within 12 months of the effective date of the permit, the facility
shall implement the plan in accordance with the HAS pollution prevention/source reduction
evaluation.
iii. Annual Report: An annual status report shall be developed which includes a list of potential
PFAS sources, summary of actions taken to reduce or eliminate PFAS, any applicable source
monitoring results, any applicable effluent results for the previous year, and any relevant
adjustments to the plan, based on the findings.
iv. Reporting: When EPA's electronic reporting tool for DMRs (called "NetDMR") allows for the
permittee to submit the pollution prevention/source reduction evaluation and the annual
report, the example permit language can read, "The pollution prevention/source reduction
evaluation and annual report shall be submitted to EPA via EPA's electronic reporting tool
for DMRs (called "NetDMR").
4. BMPs to address PFAS-containing firefighting foams for stormwater permits: Pursuant to
122.44(k)(2), where appropriate, EPA recommends that NPDES stormwater pen -nits include BMPs
to address Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) used for firefighting, such as the followings
a. Prohibiting the use of AFFFs other than for actual firefighting.
b. Eliminating PFOS and PFOA -containing AFFFs.
c. Requiring immediate clean-up in all situations where AFFFs have been used, including
diversions and other measures that prevent discharges via storm sewer systems.
5. Permit Limits: As specified in 40 CFR 125.3, technology -based treatment requirements under
CWA Section 301(b) represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed in NPDES
permits. Site -specific technology -based effluent limits (TBELs) for PFAS discharges developed on a
best professional judgment (BPJ) basis may be appropriate for facilities for which there are no
applicable effluent guidelines (see 40 CFR 122.44(a), 125.3). Also, NPDES permits must include
water quality -based effluent limits (WQBELs) as derived from state water quality standards, in
4 For more on BMPs, see NPDES Permit Writer's Manual Section 9.1 and EPA Guidance Manual for Developing Best
Manaeement Practices.
s Naval Air Station Whidbey Island MS4 permit incorporates these provisions.
3

addition to TBELs developed on a BP] basis, if necessary to achieve water quality standards,
including state narrative criteria for water quality (CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C); 40 CFR 122.22(d)).
If a state has established a numeric criterion or a numeric translation of an existing narrative water
quality standard for PFAS parameters, the permit writer should apply that numeric criterion or
narrative interpretation in permitting decisions, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(iii) and
122.44(d)(1)(vi)(A), respectively.
B. Recommendations for Publicly Owned Treatment Works
1. Applicability: All POTWs, including POTWs that do not receive industrial discharges, and
industrial users (IUs) in the industrial categories above.
2. Effluent, influent, and biosolids monitoring: In the absence of a final 40 CFR Part 136 method,
EPA recommends using CWA wastewater draft analytical method 1633 (see 40 CFR
122.21(e)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv)(B)). EPA also recommends that monitoring include
each of the 40 HAS parameters detectable by draft method 1633 and be conducted at least quarterly
to ensure that there are adequate data to assess the presence and concentration of HAS in
discharges. All PFAS monitoring data must be reported on DMRs (see 40 CFR 122.41(I)(4)(i)). The
draft Adsorbable Organic Fluorine CWA wastewater method 1621 can be used in conjunction with
draft method 1633, if appropriate.
3. Pretreatment program activities:
a. Update IU Inventory: Permits to POTWs should contain requirements to identify and locate all
possible IUs that might be subject to the pretreatment program and identify the character and
volume of pollutants contributed to the POTW by the ]Us (see 40 CFR 403.8(0(2)). As EPA
regulations require, this information shall be provided to the pretreatment control authority (see
40 CFR 122.440) and 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6)) within one year. The IU inventory should be revised,
as necessary, to include all IUs in industry categories expected or suspected of HAS discharges
listed above (see 40 CFR 403.12(i)).6
b. Utilize BMPs and pollution prevention to address PFAS discharges to POTWs. EPA
recommends that POTWs:
i. Update IU permits/control mechanisms to require quarterly monitoring. These IUs should be
input into the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with appropriate linkage to
their respective receiving POTWs. POTWs and states may also use their available authorities
to conduct quarterly monitoring of the lUs (see 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2), 403.10(e) and (f)(2)).
ii. Where authority exists, develop lU BMPs or local limits. 40 CFR 403.5(c)(4) authorizes
POTWs to develop local limits in the form of BMPs. Such BMPs could be like those for
industrial direct discharges described in A.3 above.
iii. In the absence of local limits and POTW legal authority to issue IU control mechanisms, state
pretreatment coordinators are encouraged to work with the POTWs to encourage pollution
prevention, product substitution, and good housekeeping practices to make meaningful
reductions in HAS introduced to POTWs.
h EI,G categories of airport deicing, landfills, textile mills, and plastics molding and forming do not have categorical
pretreatment standards, and therefore small -volume indirect dischargers in those categories would not ordinarily be
considered Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and may not be captured on an existing IU inventory. IUs under the faint
Fonnulating category are only subject to Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS), and existing sources may need to
be inventoried.
4

C. Recommended Biosolids Assessment
1. Where appropriate, states may work with their POTWs to reduce the amount of PFAS
chemicals in biosolids, in addition to the NPDES recommendations in Section 13 above,
following these general steps:?
a. EPA recommends using draft method 1633 to analyze biosolids at POTWs for the presence of 40
HAS chemicals.$
b. Where monitoring and IU inventory per section B.2 and B.3.a above indicate the presence of
HAS in biosolids from industrial sources, EPA recommends actions in B.3.b to reduce HAS
discharges from IUs.
c. EPA recommends validating HAS reductions with regular monitoring of biosolids. States may
also use their available authorities to conduct quarterly monitoring of the POTWs (see 40 CFR
403.10(f)(2)).
D. Recommended Public Notice for Draft Permits with PFAS-Specific Conditions
1. In addition to the requirements for public notice described in 40 CFR 124.10, EPA
recommends that NPDES permitting authorities provide notification to potentially affected
downstream public water systems (PWS) of draft permits with PFAS-specific monitoring,
BMPs, or other conditions:
a. Public notice of the draft permit would be provided to potentially affected PWS with intakes
located downstream of the NPDES discharge.
b. NPDES permit writers are encouraged to collaborate with their drinking water program
counterparts to determine on a site -specific basis which PWS to notify.
i. EPA's Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source Waters (DWMAPS) tool may
be helpful as a screening tool to identify potentially affected PWS to notify.
c. EPA will provide instructions on how to search for facility -specific discharge monitoring data
in EPA's publicly available search tools.
' EPA is currently evaluating the potential risk of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids and supporting studies and activities to
evaluate the presence of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids. This recommendation is not meant to supersede the PFOA and PFOS
risk assessment or supporting activities. The conclusions of the risk assessment and supporting studies may indicate that
regulatory actions or more stringent requirements are necessary to protect human health and the environment.
8 While water quality monitoring activities (including monitoring of PFAS associated with NPDES permit or pretreatment
requirements) at POTWs are generally not eligible for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), monitoring for the
specific purpose of project development (planning, design, and construction) is eligible. Monitoring in this capacity, and
within a reasonable timeframe, can be integral to the identification of the best solutions (through an alternatives analysis) for
addressing emerging contaminants and characterizing discharge and point of disposal (e.g., land application of biosolids).
Though ideally the planning and monitoring for project development would result in a CWSRF-eligible capital project, in
some instances, the planning could lead to outcomes other than capital projects to address the emerging contaminants.
5

ATTACHMENT 3

North Carolina
Collective Study Report
Collective Study of PFAS and 1,4-
Dioxane in Landfill Leachate and
Estimated Influence on Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facility Influent
National Waste & Recycling
Association - Carolinas Chapter
H&H Job No. NWA-001
March 10, 2020
.14
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd, Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.liarthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4241 main

North Carolina Collective Study Report
National Waste & Recycling Association - Carolinas Chapter
H&H Job No. NWA-001
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
2.0 General Overview............................................................................................................................3
2.1 Background Information.............................................................................................................
3
2.2 Waste Management System Considerations..............................................................................4
2.3 Other Related Studies..................................................................................................................
5
2.4 Regulatory Status.........................................................................................................................
7
3.0 Sampling Activities.........................................................................................................................9
3.1 Locations Sampled......................................................................................................................9
3.2 Sampling Methodology..............................................................................................................
9
3.3 Laboratory Analyses.................................................................................................................12
3.4 Discussion of Sampling Results and Comparison to Other Studies.......................................13
4.0 Influence on WWTP Influent......................................................................................................15
4.1 Description of Receiving WWTPs...........................................................................................15
4.2 WWTP Sampling Data Source................................................................................................15
4.3 Discussion of WWTP Influent Sampling Results and Comparison to Other Studies ...........
16
4.4 Leachate Contribution to WWTP Daily Mass........................................................................17
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................18
6.0 References.......................................................................................................................................20
1 hart hickman
S:AAAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)ANWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

I -+ —f 9r—t,]--
Table 1
Literature Summary of PFOS and PFOA in Landfill Leachate
Table 2
Landfill and WWTP Facility Information
Table 3
Leachate Analytical Data
Table 4
PFOS and PFOA Daily Leachate Mass Calculations
Table 5
1,4-Dioxane Daily Leachate Mass Calculations
Table 6
PFOS and PFOA Daily WWTP Mass Calculations
Table 7
1,4-Dioxane Daily WWTP Mass Calculations
Table 8
Percent of WWTP Daily Mass Contributed by Landfill Leachate
List of Figures
Figure 1 PFOA & PFOS Concentrations in Landfill Leachate Based on Literature Summary
Figure 2
Facility Location Map
Figure 3
PFOS and PFOA Daily Leachate Mass Summary
Figure 4
PFOS and PFOA Daily WWTP Mass Summary
Figure 5
PFOS Landfill Leachate Contribution to WWTP Daily Mass
Figure 6
PFOA Landfill Leachate Contribution to WWTP Daily Mass
Figure 7 1,4-Dioxane Daily Leachate Mass Summary
Figure 8 1,4-Dioxane Landfill Leachate Contribution to WWTP Daily Mass
List of Appendices
Appendix A Laboratory Analytical Reports
ii hart hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)INWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

North Carolina Collective Study Report
National Waste & Recycling Association - Carolinas Chapter
H&H Job No. NWA-001
1.0 Introduction
Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) has prepared this North Carolina Collective Study Report on behalf
of the Carolinas Chapter of the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and certain
member companies. This report documents the results of a study of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and 1,4-dioxane in municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)
leachate and its possible influence on wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) facility influent.
In February 2019, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) met with
representatives of the landfill industry to discuss the potential presence of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane
in leachate as part of a statewide effort to better understand the presence of these emerging
chemicals in the environment. During the meeting, NCDEQ inquired about sampling landfill
leachate to begin to understand PFAS and 1,4-dioxane content and its influence on leachate
treatment/disposal practices, including publicly owned WWTPs that receive leachate for
treatment. Rather than participating landfills sampling and reporting individually, representatives
of the landfill industry agreed to participate in a collective study involving active MSWLFs in
North Carolina. From these discussions with NCDEQ, the Carolinas Chapter of the NWRA
committed to collect leachate samples from nine privately -owned or operated MSWLFs, including
four landfills that transport leachate to WWTPs located within the Cape Fear River Basin and five
landfills that transport leachate to WWTPs located across the remainder of the State. This report
documents the scope and results of the sampling program. Where available, the results of the
sampling were evaluated in conjunction with WWTP influent volumes and published sampling
data in order to estimate the relative contribution of landfill leachate to overall WWTP influent
mass of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. The goals and objectives of the sampling program were presented
to NCDEQ in a Scoping Document, dated August 8, 2019. NCDEQ issued a letter, dated August
14, 2019, concurring with the plan outlined in the Scoping Document.
1 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

This North Carolina Collective Study Report is organized into sections to include the following:
• General overview of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in landfill leachate, including background
information, waste management system considerations, a summary of previous studies, and
North Carolina regulatory status;
• Description of sampling activities and results; and
• Discussion of the WWTPs receiving the landfill leachate and calculations related to
estimating the contribution of landfill leachate to overall WWTP influent mass.
2 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

2.0 General Overview
2.1 Background Information
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that have been manufactured and used in a variety of
industries worldwide since the 1940s. The most extensively produced and studied PFAS
compounds are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS). Another
notable PFAS compound is 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic
acid (PFPrOPrA), which has the trade name GenX and is used in manufacturing nonstick coatings
(United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2019a).
PFAS have been used to make a variety of consumer
products that are resistant to water, grease, or stains. PFAS
have also been used in firefighting foams and various
industrial processes (Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Council [ITRC], 2017). PFAS do not occur naturally, but
are widespread in the environment and have been found in
people, wildlife, and fish all over the world. Certain PFAS
can accumulate in the human body for long periods of time
and do not break down easily in the environment (Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], 2020).
PFOS and PFOA have been largely phased out by industry
in the United States, with this phase -out beginning in the
early 2000s. However, PFOS and PFOA are still being
produced internationally and imported into the United States
in consumer goods. Landfills receive a large variety of
residential and industrial waste containing PFAS
compounds (see inset) (ITRC, 2017).
3 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

PFAS are considered to be contaminants of emerging concern
(CECs). CECs are chemicals that present known or potential
human health effects or environmental risks, but either do not have
regulatory cleanup standards or regulatory standards are evolving
due to new science, detection capabilities or pathways, or both
(ITRC, 2017). PFAS were the primary focus of the North Carolina
Collective Study; however, at the request of the NCDEQ, another
CEC, 1,4-dioxane, was also included in the sampling and
analytical program. 1,4-Dioxane has been used as a solvent in the
manufacture of other chemicals, as a stabilizer for chlorinated
solvents, and as a laboratory reagent. It can also be found as a by-
product in many consumer and industrial products (EPA, 2017a,
ATSDR, 2011, and ATSDR, 2012) (see inset). Disposal of these
products in landfills can result in 1,4-dioxane in landfill leachate
(Maine Department of Environmental Protection [MDEP], 2020).
2.2 Waste Management System Considerations
Landfills and WWTPs play an important role in managing wastes
for our communities. It is important to note that landfills and
WWTPs are receivers of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane and are not the
producers or original sources. Rather, consumer products and other
wastes disposed of in these facilities represent the source. Modern
landfills are well -engineered and managed facilities designed to
protect the environment from contaminants that may be present in
the waste stream. MSWLFs must meet stringent regulatory
requirements (see inset) (EPA, 2017b). North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15A Subchapter 13B requires
that MSWLF liner systems include either 1) a geomembrane liner
installed above and in direct and uniform contact with a compacted
clay liner with a minimum thickness of 24 inches and a permeability
4 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

of no more than 1.0 x 10-7 cm/sec or 2) a geomembrane liner installed above and in direct and
uniform contact with a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) overlying a compacted clay liner with a
minimum thickness of 18 inches and a permeability of no more than 1.0 x 10-5 cm/sec. Landfill
leachate is generated from rainfall travelling through landfill waste or liquids within the waste
itself. The leachate is effectively captured through liner and leachate collection systems. A
common method of leachate disposal is discharge to a local publicly -owned WWTP where it is
handled with other household, commercial, and various industrial wastewaters. Management of
leachate in this way provides for a closed system where there is no direct exposure to the public
(NTH Consultants, Ltd. [NTH], 2019).
Because PFAS and 1,4-dioxane are so ubiquitous, publicly -owned WWTPs receive wastewater
from multiple sources that may contain PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. In addition to landfill leachate,
other potential sources containing PFAS and/or 1,4-dioxane include wastewater from industrial,
commercial, and agricultural operations and domestic sewage generated from homes, workplaces,
and other public and private facilities. Biosolids (sewage sludge) from WWTPs may contain PFAS
compounds (EPA, 2018; MDEP, 2020a; Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and
Energy, 2020). Biosolids are commonly disposed of via land application, incineration, or
landfilling. Because MSWLFs are strictly regulated and include liners and leachate collection
systems engineered to prevent releases of pollutants to the environment, disposal of biosolids in
MSWLFs may represent the preferred management option.
2.3 Other Related Studies
NTH, on behalf of the Michigan Waste & Recycling Association (MWRA), recently performed a
statewide study of landfill leachate PFAS impacts on WWTP influent in the State of Michigan
(herein referred to as the Michigan Study). This effort represented one of the largest studies
conducted on active landfill leachate to date. The results of the study were documented in a
Technical Report dated March 1, 2019 (NTH, 2019). Testing performed as part of the Michigan
Study included collection of leachate samples from 32 active MSWLFs located in the State of
Michigan and analysis of the samples for PFOS and PFOA. Data related to leachate disposal
methods and volumes were gathered for each of the MSWLFs tested. The results were evaluated
5 14
hart hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

with respect to publicly available sampling data for WWTPs located across the State of Michigan.
The North Carolina Collective Study presented in this report was performed using an approach
similar to the Michigan Study. The results of the Michigan Study are discussed in conjunction
with the results of the North Carolina Collective Study in Sections 3.4 and 4.0 of this report.
The Michigan Study also included a review of literature related to PFAS in landfill leachate. The
literature review identified two key publications: National Estimate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFAS) Release to U.S. Municipal Landfill Leachate (Lang et al, 2017) and Review of
the Fate and Transformation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Landfills (Hamid
et al, 2018). Lang et al (2017) evaluated the concentrations of PFAS compounds in 95 samples of
leachate from landfills of varying climates and waste ages in the United States. According to the
summary presented in the Michigan Study report, Lang et al demonstrated that PFOA and PFOS
concentrations in leachate generally have been decreasing over time, with greater rates of decline
in humid regions. Hamid et al (2018) compiled data from 11 literature sources that document
PFAS leachate concentrations from dozens of landfills and more than 162 leachate samples from
across the globe. The data show that PFOS and PFOA concentrations vary widely in different
regions of the world, and are likely reflective of the consumer products and industrial materials
used, produced, and disposed in each country. Reported concentrations for landfills in China were
notably higher than elsewhere, which is likely due to the continued production of consumer goods
containing PFAS and associated industrial waste from the manufacturing processes. Note that
PFAS-containing products manufactured in China and other countries are often imported into the
United States for purchase and eventually disposed of in United States landfills. PFOS and PFOA
concentration data based on the literature review performed during the Michigan Study are
summarized in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 1.
Additional studies of PFAS in landfill leachate are underway since the date of the Michigan Study.
Locally, the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory (NC Collaboratory) has funded research being
performed by the NC PFAS Testing (PFAST) Network. The NC Collaboratory was established
by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2016 to facilitate and fund research and make
recommendations to the General Assembly. The PFAST Network consists of investigators from
6 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

various NC universities performing multiple studies related to PFAS. One of these studies is being
led by Dr. Morton Barlaz at North Carolina State University and focuses on PFAS in landfill
leachate. The purpose of the study is to assess the relative importance of MSWLFs and domestic
wastewater as contributors of PFAS to WWTPs and potentially to surface water (PFAST Network,
2019). The results of the PFAST Network study have not yet been published and therefore could
not be incorporated into the North Carolina Collective Study documented in this report.
No comprehensive studies have been identified regarding 1,4-dioxane concentrations in landfill
leachate. More data are available regarding 1,4-dioxane concentrations in public water systems
(PWS). Monitoring of 1,4-dioxane in PWS was required by the EPA Third Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3). Adamson et al (2017) documents an evaluation of 1,4-
dioxane concentrations in PWS located across the United States based on data collected under the
UCMR 3. The results of the study identified detectable concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in 2 1 % of
4,864 PWS. The study concluded that the data indicated a decreasing trend in concentrations and
detection frequency over time. The study also concluded that detections of 1,4-dioxane were
highly associated with detections of other chlorinated solvent compounds, which is attributed to
the use of 1,4-dioxane as a solvent stabilizer.
2.4 Regulatory Status
The regulatory status of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane are currently evolving as additional studies are
completed regarding human health risks and ecological effects. No regulatory standards or
screening levels have been developed by EPA or the State of North Carolina that are applicable to
landfill leachate. Levels that have been established for drinking water are summarized below, but
it should be noted that these levels do not apply to landfill leachate.
PFAS
EPA has not adopted Federal regulatory standards or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for
PFAS compounds to date. EPA has established a Health Advisory Level for combined or
individual PFOS and PFOA of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L, equivalent to parts per trillion). EPA's
7 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

health advisories are non -enforceable and non -regulatory but provide technical information to state
agencies and other public health officials on health effects, analytical methodologies, and
treatment technologies associated with drinking water contamination (EPA, 2019b).
North Carolina also has not adopted regulatory standards for PFAS compounds to date. North
Carolina has established a Drinking Water Health Goal for PFPrOPrA (GenX) of 140 ng/L.
According to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS), the
PFPrOPrA Drinking Water Health Goal is not a regulatory level and is not a boundary line between
a "safe" or "dangerous" level, but can be used to provide information to affected communities and
residents about potential risks from exposure to GenX through drinking water (NCDHHS, 2020).
1,4-Dioxane
EPA has not adopted Federal regulatory standards or MCLs for 1,4-dioxane to date. EPA has
established a Drinking Water Health Advisory Level of 35 micrograms per liter (µg/L, equivalent
to parts per billion). As referenced above, EPA's health advisories are non -enforceable and non -
regulatory but provide technical information to state agencies and other public health officials
(EPA, 2019b).
North Carolina has established a 2L Groundwater Standard under Title 15A NCAC 2L .0202 of 3
µg/L for 1,4-dioxane. The 2L Standards are the maximum allowable concentrations resulting from
any discharge of contaminants that may be tolerated without creating a threat to human health or
would otherwise render the groundwater unsuitable for it intended best usage. Although a 2L
Groundwater Standard has been established, NCDEQ has relied on the EPA Drinking Water
Health Advisory Level of 35 µg/L when evaluating the potential for impacts to public water
supplies (NCDEQ, 2020).
8 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

3.0 Sampling Activities
3.1 Locations Sampled
In accordance with the August 2019 Scoping Document, leachate samples were collected from the
following nine active MSWLF facilities located across the State of North Carolina:
1. Great Oak Landfill (7607-MSWLF-2015)
2. Sampson County Disposal, LLC (8202-MSWLF-2000)
3. South Wake MSW Landfill (9222-MSWLF-2008)
4. Upper Piedmont Regional Landfill (7304-MSWLF-1997)
5. BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V (13 04-MSWLF- 1992)
6. Uwharrie Environmental Regional Landfill (6204-MSWLF-1995)
7. East Carolina Regional Landfill (0803-MSWLF-1993)
8. Chambers Development MSW Landfill (0403-MSWLF-2010)
9. Foothills Environmental Landfill (1403-MSWLF-1998)
Prior to sampling, H&H contacted each landfill and requested information regarding site contacts,
leachate collection and disposal systems, access limitations, typical leachate sampling locations,
leachate volumes, and leachate disposal methods. This information is summarized in Table 2.
The landfill locations are shown on Figure 2.
3.2 Sampling Methodology
Sampling was performed by H&H staff with experience sampling for PFAS and other constituents
of concern. Sampling procedures were in accordance with the guidance document "PFC Sampling
Procedures, January 2019" issued by the NCDEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Solid
Waste Section (herein referred to as NC DWM Sampling Guidance). Prior to sampling, a Health
& Safety Plan was prepared to cover safety concerns associated with the proposed field activities.
Sampling bottles, bottle coolers, and PFAS-free water for blanks and decontamination were
9 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

obtained from the laboratory, GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) located in Charleston, South
Carolina.
Because PFAS are present in many commonly used materials, the PFCs Sampling Checklist form
included with the NC DWM Sampling Guidance was followed by field personnel to reduce the
potential for cross -contamination of samples with PFAS from external sources. Each sampler
washed their hands before sampling and utilized a minimum of three layers of nitrile gloves at
each sampling location to maintain a "clean hands" approach after encountering various
surfaces. Sampling supplies were placed on new high -density polyethylene (HDPE) sheeting in
close proximity to the sampling location.
Sampling was performed September 16 through 19, 2019. Leachate collection/management
systems vary by landfill facility; therefore, samples were collected under three general scenarios
as described below. The sampling scenario for each facility is indicated on Table 2.
Valve at Bottom of Holdinja Tank/Dischar eg Line
• At locations where a sample port was located at the bottom of the holding tank and/or the
discharge line (all locations except BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V and Great
Oak Landfill), the valve was opened to clear any potential sediment and to adjust the flow
to an appropriate rate for sample collection. Using fresh nitrile gloves, the sampler then
removed the lid of the sample container and collected the sample keeping the sample
container lid in the opposite hand. Upon completion of sampling, bottles were capped,
placed in Zip -lock bags, and placed into laboratory -supplied coolers filled with ice.
Because samples were collected directly into laboratory -supplied sampling containers and
no separate sampling apparatus was used, no equipment blanks were collected for these
locations.
Direct From Lagoon
• At the BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V, the sampling team mobilized to the
leachate lagoon and set up a sampling station on the edge of the lagoon utilizing new HDPE
sheeting. Samples were collected by submerging a new unpreserved laboratory -supplied
10 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

sample container approximately 1-foot below the surface of the lagoon, then transferring
the contents into the laboratory -supplied sample containers to be submitted for analysis.
Upon completion of sampling, bottles were capped, placed in Zip -lock bags, and placed
into laboratory -supplied coolers filled with ice. Because samples were collected using
laboratory -supplied sampling containers and no separate sampling apparatus was used, no
equipment blanks were collected for this location.
Direct From Holding Tank
• At the Great Oak Landfill, the level of leachate in the holding tank was insufficient to
collect a sample from the discharge port; therefore, samples were collected directly from
the manhole hatch located at the top of the leachate holding tank. On September 17, 2019,
samples were collected using a new properly decontaminated HDPE bucket and cotton
string for analysis of both PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. H&H returned to the site on September
30, 2019, to resample for 1,4-dioxane due to issues with damage to sample containers
during transport to the laboratory. During the sampling on September 30, 2019, samples
were collected using a new HDPE bailer and cotton string for analysis of 1,4-dioxane. To
complete the sampling, leachate was extracted from the holding tank using the bucket or
bailer and transferred into the sample containers. The sampling station at the platform on
top of the holding tank was covered with new HDPE sheeting. In addition, the "windmill"
technique was utilized while bailing to prevent the bailer or string from contacting potential
PFAS containing surfaces. Upon completion of sampling, bottles were capped, placed in
Zip -lock bags, and placed into laboratory -supplied coolers filled with ice. For quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC), an equipment blank was collected during each
sampling event from the bucket or bailer using PFAS-free water provided by the
laboratory.
Each sample was assigned a unique identification number beginning with the first four digits of
the NCDEQ permit number. Samples collected for analysis of PFAS were placed in coolers
separate from samples collected for analysis of 1,4-dioxane. The sample coolers were shipped to
GEL under chain -of -custody protocol for analysis as described in Section 3.3.
11 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

3.3 Laboratory Analyses
The samples from each facility were analyzed for PFAS by modified EPA Method 537.1 using
Method PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with Table B-15 of Department of Defense Quality
Systems Manual (QSM) Version 5.3 and 1,4-dioxane by EPA Method 8270 Selective Ion
Monitoring. The list of PFAS compounds included in the analyses was based on prior discussions
between NWRA member companies and NCDEQ staff. At the request of NCDEQ, samples from
Sampson County Disposal, LLC were also analyzed for PFPrOPrA by modified EPA Method
537.1.
Three items were identified during review of the laboratory QA/QC data which are discussed
below:
• For sample 0403-1 (Chambers Development MSWLF), the surrogate recovery for the 1,4-
dioxane sample analysis was below acceptable limits. The analytical results indicated 60%
surrogate recovery with an estimated sample concentration of 9.22 µg/L. If this
concentration is adjusted upward based on 100% recovery instead of 60%, the estimated
1,4-dioxane concentration in the sample would be 15.4 µg/L ([9.22 µg/L x 100%] / 60% _
15.4 µg/L). Following the initial analysis, GEL re -analyzed a second portion of the sample.
However, the re -analysis was performed outside the method -recommended holding time.
The results of the second analysis indicated a concentration of 14.8 µg/L. Based on the
adjusted initial sample analysis result and the re -analysis result, H&H concludes that there
is sufficient data to conclude the concentration in the sample is reasonably on the order of
approximately 15 µg/L.
• For sample 1304-1 (BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V), GEL inadvertently did
not analyze the 1,4-dioxane sample collected on September 16, 2019. A second sample
(ID 1,1A,2,2A) was collected by landfill facility personnel on December 4, 2019 and
analyzed for 1,4-dioxane.
12 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

• The equipment blank sample collected from Great Oak Landfill (sample 7607-EB)
contained perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA) at a laboratory estimated concentration of 1.12
ng/L. The concentration detected was J-flagged, which means the concentration is
estimated above the laboratory method detection limit but below the
quantification/reporting limit. PFBA was also detected in the primary leachate sample
collected from Great Oak Landfill (sample 7607). Based on these data, there is less
confidence in PFBA concentrations reported for the Great Oak Landfill.
Laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix A.
3.4 Discussion of Sampling Results and Comparison to Other Studies
The results of the laboratory analyses indicated detectable concentrations of PFOS, PFOA, and
other HAS compounds in each of the collected samples. 1,4-Dioxane was also detected in each
of the samples. A summary of laboratory analytical data for the full set of constituents of concern
is provided in Table 3.
Concentrations of PFOS and PFOA detected in the
samples were compared to concentrations detected
in leachate samples collected during the Michigan
Study. The comparison data are summarized in
Table 4. The results of the comparison indicated
mean concentrations detected during the North
Carolina Collective Study were generally similar
to those detected during the Michigan Study (see
inset). Variations in minimum and maximum
concentrations between the North Carolina and Michigan studies are likely a result of differing
sample sizes. Comparison to published literature references (as referenced in Section 2.2)
indicates that concentrations detected during the North Carolina Collective Study are also within
13 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

the range of values reported during other studies in the United States and other Western world
regions, but more than an order of magnitude lower than maximum values reported for China.
Similar to the procedure followed during the Michigan Study, the analytical data and estimated
annual leachate volumes
provided by each MSWLF
facility were used to calculate the
daily mass of PFOS and PFOA
contained within landfill
leachate for each facility. The
calculations based on the North
Carolina Collective Study data indicate a mean daily mass of less than 0.001 lbs/day of PFOS or
PFOA (see inset). Comparison of estimated daily mass values for the North Carolina Collective
Study to those calculated during the Michigan Study indicate generally similar values. Daily mass
calculations for PFOS and PFOA are summarized in Table 4 and depicted on Figure 3.
Daily mass calculations were also performed for 1,4-dioxane based on data collected during the
North Carolina Collective Study. The results of the calculations indicated a mean daily mass of
less than 0.1 lbs/day of 1,4-dioxane (see inset). The Michigan Study did not include analysis for
1,4-dioxane, nor were comprehensive published references identified for typical 1,4-dioxane
concentrations in landfill leachate.
As such, no additional data are
available for comparison.
However, based on the general
similarity in PFAS concentrations
reported in the North Carolina Collective Study, Michigan Study, and United States published
literature, the 1,4-dioxane concentrations detected during the North Carolina Collective Study are
expected to be similar to those for other MSWLFs across the United States. Daily mass
calculations for 1,4-dioxane are summarized in Table 5 and depicted on Figure 7.
14 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

4.0 Influence on WWTP Influent
4.1 Description of Receiving WWTPs
The MSWLFs covered under the North Carolina Collective Study each dispose of leachate via one
or more publicly -owned WWTPs. H&H compiled locations for the receiving WWTPs based on
information provided by each landfill. A summary of the receiving WWTP names, addresses, and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit numbers is provided in Table
2. H&H determined the permitted flow for each WWTP based on information obtained from
permit applications on the NCDEQ on-line Laserfiche document repository. Permitted flows are
used rather than actual flows to be consistent with the approach used by NCDEQ during evaluation
of the WWTP sampling data referenced below.
4.2 WWTP Sampling Data Source
In 2019, the NCDEQ DWR issued letters to publicly owned utilities with pretreatment programs and
industrial dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin requiring influent sampling for 1,4-dioxane and
PFAS for three consecutive months beginning in July 2019. The sampling was performed in July,
August, and September 2019. H&H retrieved the results of the sampling from the NCDEQ website
(NCDEQ, 2020). Discussions in this report are based on average concentrations detected during the
three monthly sampling events between July and September 2019.
The NCDEQ website contains PFAS and 1,4-dioxane data for the following WWTPs which receive
leachate from landfills in the North Carolina Collective Study, including:
• City of Asheboro WWTP
• East Burlington WWTP
• Utley Creek Water Reclamation Facility
• Harnett County Lillington Plant
15 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

4.3 Discussion of WWTP Influent Sampling Results and Comparison to Other Studies
The WWTP sampling data are summarized on Table 6. For the WWTPs that receive leachate from
facilities in the North Carolina Collective Study, the concentrations of PFOS and PFOA in the
influent range from 8.86 to 49.5 ng/L (based on the average of the samples collected at each
WWTP). Based on documentation provided on the NCDEQ website, NCDEQ concluded that the
PFOS and PFOA concentrations for these facilities would not cause levels at downstream PWS
intakes that exceed the EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory Level of 70 ng/L.
For 1,4-dioxane, the average concentrations of WWTP influent range from 5.95 to 18.5 µg/L, with
the exception of one outlier which indicated a significantly higher average concentration of 163
µg/L. Based on documentation provided on the NCDEQ website, the elevated outlier
concentration is primarily attributed to an industrial discharger rather than a landfill leachate
source. Overall, for the WWTPs that receive leachate from facilities in the North Carolina
Collective Study, NCDEQ concluded that the 1,4-dioxane concentrations for these WWTPs are
not anticipated to cause levels that exceed the EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory Level of 35
µg/L at downstream PWS intakes.
The WWTP sampling and flow data were used to calculate the estimated daily mass of PFOS,
PFOA, and 1,4-dioxane for each facility with available data. For PFOS and PFOA, the calculated
daily mass values were then compared to WWTP daily mass values calculated during the Michigan
Study. The results of this comparison indicated that the daily PFOS and PFOA mass for the North
Carolina WWTPs are generally similar to or lower than the corresponding daily mass for the
Michigan WWTPs. Daily WWTP mass calculations summarized in Tables 6 and 7, and depicted
on Figures 4 and 8.
16 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

4.4 Leachate Contribution to WWTP Daily Mass
In order to evaluate the relative contribution of
landfill leachate to WWTP daily mass, the daily
mass values calculated for leachate were compared
to the daily mass values calculated for WWTP
influent. The results of these calculations for the
North Carolina Collective Study facilities are
summarized in Table 8. The PFOS and PFOA data
are depicted along with similar data from the
Michigan Study on Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The 1,4-dioxane data are depicted on Figure 8.
Review of the graphical depiction demonstrates that the mass of PFOS, PFOA, and 1,4-dioxane
from landfill leachate represents a minor contribution to overall WWTP influent mass. The
estimated percent contribution of landfill leachate to overall WWTP mass for the sites in the North
Carolina Collective Study ranges from only 0.3 to 10.2% for PFOS, PFOA, and 1,4-dioxane (see
inset), with an average of 3.3%. The PFOS and
PFOA results are corroborated by the larger data set
included in the Michigan Study, which also
confirms that landfill leachate represents a minor
contribution to overall WWTP influent mass and
non-leachate sources represent a much larger contribution.
17 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The North Carolina Collective Study included collection of leachate samples from nine MSWLF
facilities located across the State of North Carolina for analysis of PFAS constituents and 1,4-
dioxane. Where available, the results of the sampling were evaluated in conjunction with WWTP
influent volumes and published sampling data in order to estimate the relative contribution of
landfill leachate to overall WWTP influent mass of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. The data were also
evaluated with respect to the results of a larger study performed in Michigan using similar
methodology.
The results of the North Carolina Collective Study clearly show that landfill leachate represents
a minor contribution of PFOS, PFOA, and 1,4-dioxane mass to overall WWTP influent mass
for these compounds. Non-leachate sources contribute significantly more mass to WWTP
influent than leachate. These conclusions are supported by both the North Carolina Collective
Study and the Michigan Study. Importantly, NCDEQ concluded that WWTP influent sampling
data for facilities in the Cape Fear River Basin that receive leachate from landfills in the Collective
Study indicate that PFOS, PFOA, and 1,4-dioxane concentrations do not pose a threat to
downstream PWS intakes.
MSWLFs and WWTPs generally have an interdependent relationship for waste management
(WWTPs accept leachate from MSWLFs and MSWLFs accept biosolids from WWTPs).
Landfills and WWTPs are not producers of the original sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.
Rather, they both receive and manage PFAS contaminated waste and wastewater from
households, business, and industry. MSWLFs and WWTPs are designed to manage waste in
ways that are protective of human health and the environment. If long term reductions of CECs
in the environment are to be achieved, then manufacturing and product utilization in society need
to be addressed. The evidence provided by this report that landfill leachate represents only a small
percentage of total influent mass of HAS and 1,4-dioxane into WWTPs indicates the ubiquitous
nature of these compounds in society. In spite of this ubiquitous nature, it is encouraging to note
18 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

that in the Cape Fear River basin, NCDEQ concluded that WWTP discharges do not represent a
threat to drinking water supplies in most cases.
Based on the findings of both the North Carolina Collective Study and the Michigan Study, continued
work towards HAS and 1,4-dioxane source reduction solutions, such as the United States' phase -out
of PFOS and PFOA in manufacturing, is recommended. We also recommend collaboration between
the solid waste and WWTP industries, NCDEQ, and the scientific community in order to identify best
management practices and other solutions for safe management of wastes generated by our
communities.
19 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

6.0 References
Adamson, David, Pina, Elizabeth, Cartwright, Abigail, Rauch, Sharon, Anderson, Hunter, Mohr,
Thomas, & Connor, John. (October 15, 2017). 1,4-Dioxane drinking water occurrence data from
the third unregulated contaminant monitoring rule. Science of The Total Environment, Volume
596-597, Pages 236-245.
ATSDR. (April 2012). Public Health Statement 1,4-Dioxane.
ATSDR. (March 2011). 1,4-Dioxane. Retrieved from
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=199
ATSDR. (February 2020). PFAS Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/Pfas—fact—sheet.html.
EPA. (November 2017). Technical Fact Sheet —1, 4-Dioxane.
EPA. (November 14, 2017). Landfills. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/landfills.
EPA. (November 15, 2018). EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of Unregulated
Pollutants in Land Applied Biosolids on Human Health and the Environment. Report No. 19-P-002.
EPA. (February 13, 2019). Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS. Retrieved
from https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-
and-pfos
EPA. (December 19, 2019). Per -and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/pfas.
Hamid, Hanna, Li, Loretta, & Grace, John. (December 21, 2017). Review of the Fate and
Transformation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Landfills. Environmental
Pollution, vol. 235, pp. 74-84.
ITRC. (November 2017). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Fact Sheets.
Lang, Johnsie, Allred, Brent, Field, Jennifer, Levis, James, & Barlaz, Morton. (January 2017).
National Estimate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Release to U.S. Municipal
Landfill Leachate. Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 2197-2205.
MDEP. (Retrieved February 2020a) FA Qs: 1,4-Dioxane. Retrieved from
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/faqs-l4-dioxane.
MDEP. (Retrieved February 2020.) Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Retrieved
from https://www.maine.gov/dep/spills/topics/pfas/index.html.
20 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Michigan PFAS Action
Response Team. (Retrieved February 2020.) PFAS and Biosolids. Retrieved from
https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/0,903 8,7-365-86704_89705---,00.html.
NCDEQ. (Retrieved February 2020). Key Issues. Retrieved from https:Hdeq.nc.gov/news/key-
issues.
NCDEQ, Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section. (January 2019). PFC Sampling
Procedures.
NCDHHS. (January 2020). GenX in the Lower Cape Fear River Basin. Retrieved from
https:Hepi.dph.ncdhhs.gov/oee/a—z/genx.html.
NC PFAST Network. (June 9, 2019). New PFAS Research Opportunities, Team #S: Other
Applied R&D. Presentation retrieved from
https://ncpfastnetwork. com/files/2019/06/09_DeWitt_Lightning-Talk.pdf
NTH Consultants, Ltd. (March 1, 2019). Michigan Waste & Recycling Association Statewide
Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on Water Resource Recovery Facility
Influent Technical Report.
21 hart � hickman
S:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\NC Collective Study Rpt 03-10-2020.docx
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

TABLES
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Table 1
Literature Summary of PFOS and PFOA in Landfill Leachate
North Carolina Collective Study
H&H Job No. NWA-001
Source Cited
Location/
Region
Sample Size
PFOA'
Detection Concentration Median
Frequency Range
N n /I 3 (ng/1)
PFOS2
Detection Concentration Median
Frequency Range
N (ng/1) (ng/1)
Huset, et al (2011)
USA
5
100
380 - 1,000
490
100
56 -160
97
Allred, et al (2015)
USA
6
100
150 - 5,000
1,055
100
25 - 590
155
Lang, et al (2017)
USA
87
100
30 - 5,000
590
96
3 - 800
99
Benskin, et al (2012)
Canada
5
100
210 - 1,500
520
100
80 - 4,400
390
Kallenborn, et al (2004)
Nordic Countries
NA
NA
90 - 501
230
NA
30 - 190
80
Bossi, et al (2008)
Denmark
NA
NA
0-6
3
NA
0-4
NA
Woldegiorgis, et al (2008)
Sweden
NA
NA
40 - 1,000
540
NA
30 - 1,500
550
Busch, et al (2010)
Germany
20
95
0 - 926
57
100
0 - 235
3
Fuertes, et al (2017)
Spain
6
100
200 - 585
437
17
0 - 44
NA
Gullen, et al (2016)
Australia
17
100
19 - 2,100
450
89
0-100
31
Gullen, et al (2017)
Australia
97
64
17 - 7,500
600
65
13 - 2,700
220
Yan, et al 2015
China
6
100
281 - 214,000
2,260
100
1,150 - 6,020
1,740
Notes:
1. PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic acid
2. PFOS = Perfluorooctanesulfonate
3. ng/L = nanograms per liter
Data Source: Michigan Waste & Recycling Association Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on Water Resource Recovery Facility Influent (March 2019).
page 1 of 1
Z:WAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\Tab1es 20200302 Hart & Hickman, P.C.

Table 2
Landfill and WWTP Facility Information
North Carolina Collective Study
H&H Job No. NWA-001
Estimated Annual
Description Sampling
2
WWTP NPDES Permit
WWTP Permitted Flow
Landfill Name
NCDEQ Permit Number
Landfill Address
Leachate Volume
Locattion
Receiving WWTP' Name
Limit
Receiving WWTP Address
Receiving WWTP River Basin
(gallons/day)
Number
(gallons/day)*
Foothills Environmental
1403-MSWLF-1998
2800 Cheraw Road
24,364
Valve at Bottom of Holding
Henry Fork WWTP
NC0040797
9,000,000
4014 River Road
Catawba
Landfill
Lenoir, NC 28645
Tank
Hickory, NC
BFI-Charlotte Motor
1304-MSWLF-1992
5105 Morehead Road
40,027
Direct from Lagoon
Rocky River Regional
NC0036269
26,500,000
6400 Breezy Lane
Yadkin Pee Dee
Speedway Landfill V
Concord, NC 28027
WWTP
Concord, NC
Chambers Development
0403-MSWLF-2010
375 Dozer Drive
17,452
Valve at Bottom of Holding
Anson County WWTP
NC0041408
3,500,000
1306 Hollywood Road
Yadkin Pee Dee
MSWLF
Polkton, NC 28135
Tank
Wadesboro, NC
Uwharrie Environmental
6204-MSWLF-1995
500 Landfill Road
31,649
Valve at Bottom of Holding
Town of Troy WWTP
NCO028916
1,200,000
Troy, NC
Yadkin Pee Dee
Regional Landfill
Mt Gilead, NC 27306
Tank
Great Oak Landfill
7607-MSWLF-2015
3597 Old Cedar Falls Road
9,589
Direct from Holding Tank
City of Asheboro WWTP
NC0026123
9,000,000
1032 Bonkemeyer Dr
Cape Fear
Randleman, NC 27317
Asheboro, NC
Upper Piedmont Regional
7304-MSWLF-1997
9650 Oxford Road
31,830
Valve at Bottom of Holding
East Burlington WWTP
NC0023868
12,000,000
225 Stone Quarry Road
Cape Fear
Landfill
Rou emont, NC 27572
Tank
Haw River, NC
5,260
Utley Creek Water
NC0063096
6,000,000**
150 Treatment Plant Road
Cape Fear
Wake County South Wake
9222-MSWLF-2008
6124 Old Smithfield Road
Valve on Discharge Line
Reclamation Facility
Holly Springs, NC
tr
Street 700 Lafayette Seet
MSWLF
Apex, NC 27502
3,890
City of Lumberton WWTP
NCO024571
20,000,000
Lumberton,
Lumber
8,658
Harnett County Lillington
NCO021636
7,500,000
175 Bain Street
Cape Fear
Plant
Lillington, NC
16,219
Harnett County South Plant
NC0088366
15,000,000
3224 Shady Grove Road
Cape Fear
Sampson County Disposal,
8202-MSWLF-2000
7434 Roseboro Highway
Valve on Discharge Line
Spring Lake, NC
20,411
City of Lumberton WWTP
NCO024571
20,000,000
tr
Street 700 Lafayette Seet
Lumber
LLC
Roseboro, NC 28382
Lumberton,
22,137
Not applicable -
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Evaporation
East Carolina Regional
0803-MSWLF-1993
1922 Republican Road
41,044
Valve at Bottom of Holding
Tar River Regional WWTP
NC0030317
21,000,000
3031 Treatment Plant Road
Tar -Pamlico
Landfill
Aulander, NC 27805
Tank
Rocky Mount, NC
Notes:
1. WWTP = wastewater treatment plant
2. NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
= Permitted flow obtained from Section A.6 of latest NPDES permit application retrieved from North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality on-line Laserfiche document repository in December 2019.
" = After receiving an Authorization to Construct, the treatment capacity will increase to 8 millions of gallons per day.
page 1 of 1
Z \ AA -Master Projects\National waste and Recycling Association (NwA)wwA-ool\Report\Tablea 20200302 Hart & Hickman, P.C.

Table 3
Leachate Analytical Data
North Carolina Collective Study
H&H Job No. NWA-001
Parameter
Sample ID
9222-1
1403-1
1304-1
0403-1
6204-1
7607-1
0803-1
7304-1
8202-1
Sampling Date
09/18/19
09/16/19
09/16/19*
09/16/19
09/17/19
09/17/19**
09/19/19
09/17/19
09/18/19
Landfill Name
Wake County
South Wake
MSWLF
Foothills
Environmental
Landfill
BFI-Charlotte
Motor Speedway
Landfill V
Chambers
Development
MSWLF
Uwharrie
Environmental
Regional Landfill
Great Oak
Landfill
East Carolina
Regional Landfill
Upper Piedmont
Regional Landfill
Sampson County
Disposal, LLC
Laboratory Method
Units2
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2 FTS)
EPA 537.1 Mod
ng/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2 FTS)
EPA 537.1 Mod
ng/L
ND
ND
ND
180J4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 8:2 FTS
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
ND
ND
39.7
ND
35.8J
ND
ND
ND
ND
N-eth I erfluoro-1-octanesulfonamidoacetic acid NEtFOSAA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
ND
101
87.2
14.9J
68.0
15.6J
237
48.7
43.8
N-meth Iperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamidoacetic acid NMeFOSAA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
35.8J
257
258
50.5
180
42.4
230
106
104
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
EPA 537.1 Mod
ng/L
600
744
1920
831
2400
303EB5
650
743
4770
Perfluorobutanesulfonate PFBS
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
1420
4400
5260
6290
2870
72.2
3850
1420
7530
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTeDA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Perfluorotridecanoic acid PFTrDA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Perfluorodecanesulfonate PFDS
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
ND
ND
6.87J
ND
ND
7.10J
ND
14.9J
ND
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
17.3J
82.6
590
23.6
632
18.5J
90.8
48.0
90.9
Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
7.40J
ND
63.3
ND
184
ND
ND
ND
9.17J
Perfluoroheptanesulfonate PFHpS
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
ND
6.82J
8.17J
ND
9.40J
ND
9.39J
ND
ND
Perfluorohe tanoic acid PFHpA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
241
571
983
249
1560
68.4
689
344
5520
Perfluorohexanesulfonate PFHxS
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
237
794
925
218
640
59.1
536
190
424
Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
2940
3920
3470
2200
5540
449
3610
2350
6730
Perfluorononanesulfonate PFNS
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
20.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13AJ
ND
Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
28.8
71.4
269
15.5J
326
32.8
89.0
44.1
128
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide PFOSA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
ND
7.08J
11.5J
ND
ND
8.75J
17.3J
ND
ND
Perfluorooctanesulfonate PFOS
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
82.3
296
356
84.2
356
83.9
402
254
222
Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
803
1650
2210
345
3690
108
1640
884
1790
Perfluoro entanesulfonate PFPeS
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
32.3
50.6
73.2
19.6
41.4
10.3J
54.7
28.1
61.0
Perfluoro entanoic acid PFPeA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
577
1070
2160
780
2150
159
1220
621
86400
Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUdA
EPA 537.1 Mod
n /L
ND
7.04J
30.8
ND
33.0
7.44J
ND
ND
10.2J
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptaffluoropropoxy)-propanoic
acid PFPrOPrA
EPA 537.1 Mod
ng/L
NAB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10800
1,4-Dioxane
EPA 8270 SIM
µg/L
30.0
99.7
214
14.8Q$
357
469
157
177
184
Notes:
1. MSWLF = municipal solid waste landfill
2. ng/L = nanograms per liter; µg/L = micrograms per liter
3. ND = Not detected above laboratory method detection limt
4. J = Estimated concentration between method detection limit and reporting limit
5. EB = Constituent was also detected in associated equipment blank sample
6. PFPrOPrA also known by trade name GenX
7. NA = Not analyzed
8. Q = Value indicates results of reanalysis outside laboratory holding time
* = BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V was resampled for 1,4-dioxane (new sample ID 1,1A,2,2A) on 12/4/19
** = Great Oak Landfill (sample ID 7607-1) was resampled for 1,4-dioxane analysis on 9/30/19
page 1 of 1
Z:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\Tables 20200302 Hart & Hickman, P.C.

Table 4
PFOS and PFOA Daily Leachate Mass Calculations
North Carolina Collective Study
H&H Job No. NWA-001
Sampling Reference
Average
Leachate Volume
(gallons/day)
PFOS'
(ng/L)
PFOAZ
(ng/L)
PFOS
Daily Mass
(Ibs/day)°
PFOA
Daily Mass
(Ibs/day)
North Carolina Collective Study
Wake County South Wake MSWLF5 9,151 82.3 803 0.00001 0.00001
Foothills Environmental Landfill
24,364
296
1,650
0.00006
0.00006
BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V
40,027
356
2,210
0.00012
0.00074
Chambers Development MSWLF
17,452
84
345
0.00001
0.00005
Uwharrie Environmental Regional Landfill
31,649
356
3,690
0.00009
0.00098
Great Oak Landfill
9,589
84
108
0.00001
0.00001
East Carolina Regional Landfill
41,044
402
1,640
0.00014
0.00056
Upper Piedmont Regional Landfill
31,830
254
884
0.00007
0.00024
Sampson County Disposal, LLC*
45,288
222
1,790
0.00008
0.00068
Minimum
9,151
82
108
0.00001
0.00001
Maximum
45,288
402
3,690
0.00014
0.00098
Geometric Mean
24,152
199
1,005
0.00004
0.00013
Michigan Stud
Arbor Hills Landfill
98,400
220
3,200
0.00018
0.0026
Autumn Hills RDF7
54,800
380
1,300
0.00017
0.0006
Brent Run Landfill
16,400
110
540
0.00002
0.0001
C&C Expanded Sanitary Landfill
42,000
450
1,300
0.00015
0.0004
Carleton Farms Landfill
123,300
250
1,800
0.00026
0.0018
Central Sanitary Landfill
30,100
470
2,500
0.00012
0.0006
Citizen's Disposal Inc.
32,900
180
1,100
0.00005
0.0003
Dafter Sanitary Landfill
16,500
130
680
0.00002
0.0001
Eagle Valley RDF
32,900
170
490
0.00005
0.0001
Glens Sanitary Landfill
3,800
210
770
0.00001
0.00002
Granger Grand River Landfill
64,400
160
240
0.00009
0.0001
Granger Wood Street Landfill
19,200
110
470
0.00002
0.0001
K&W Landfill
17,500
170
830
0.00002
0.0001
Manistee County Landfill
4,700
220
420
0.000009
0.000016
McGill Road Landfill
13,700
170
760
0.00002
0.0001
Michigan Environs Inc. (Menominee)
13,100
100
1,400
0.00001
0.0002
Northern Oaks RDF
12,300
220
1,000
0.00002
0.0001
Oakland Heights Development
17,800
230
780
0.00003
0.0001
Orchard Hill Sanitary Landfill
12,500
110
650
0.00001
0.0001
Ottawa County Farms Landfill
82,200
530
1,800
0.0004
0.0012
People's Landfill
21,900
710
2,500
0.00013
0.0005
Pine Tree Acres RDF
74,000
430
1,800
0.0003
0.001
Pitsch Sanitary Landfill
15,000
260
1,300
0.00003
0.0002
Sauk Trail Hills Landfill
20,500
610
2,800
0.00010
0.0005
SC Holdings
16,000
410
960
0.00005
0.0001
Tri-CityRDF
9,600
160
1,200
0.00001
0.0001
Venice Park RDF MH#20/Venice Park RDF MH#21**
32,900
190
0.0002
0.0007
19100
Vienna Junction Industrial Park Sanitary Landfill
13,700
130
1,300
0.00001
0.0001
Waters Landfill
NONE
230
930
NONE
NONE
Westside RDF
60,800
160
1,300
0.00008
0.0007
Whitefeather Landfill
NONE
550
1,700
NONE
NONE
Woodland Meadows RDF -Van Buren
54,800
510
2,000
0.00023
0.0009
Riverview 003/Riverview 004/Riverview 007**
37,400
270
1,900
0.00004
0.0003
140
860
8.5
38
South Kent Outfall/South Kent Hauled**
48,000
960
2
0.0002
0.0001
Smith's Creek Landfill**
1 32,900
1 120
1 510
1 0.00003
1 0.0001
Minimum
3,800
9
16
0.00001
0.00002
Maximum
123,300
960
3,200
0.00040
0.00260
Geometric Mean
25,501
222
881
0.00005
0.00022
Notes:
1. PFOS = Perfluorooctanesulfonate
2. PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic acid
3. ng/L = nanograms per liter
4. Ibs/day = pounds per day
5. MSWLF = municipal solid waste landfill
6. Michigan Study = Michigan Waste & Recycling Association Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on Water Resource Recovery
Facility Influent (March 2019)
7. RDF = recycling and disposal facility
* = Leachate volume does not include volume disposed of via evaporation.
** = Multiple laboratory results reported, average used for daily mass calculations.
page 1 of 1
Z:\AAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\Tables 20200302 Hart & Hickman, P.C.

Table 5
1,4-Dioxane Daily Leachate Mass Calculations
North Carolina Collective Study
H&H Job No. NWA-001
Sampling Reference
Average
Leachate Volume
(gallons/day)
1,4-Dioxane
(µg/L)
1,4-Dioxane Daily
Mass
(Ibs/day)2
North Carolina Collective Study
Wake Countv South Wake MSWLF3 9,151 30.0 0.0023
Foothills Environmental Landfill 24,364 99.7 0.0203
BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V
40,027
214
0.0716
Chambers Development MSWLF
17,452
14.8Q4
0.0022
Uwharrie Environmental Regional Landfill
31,649
357
0.0944
Great Oak Landfill
9,589
469
0.0376
East Carolina Regional Landfill
41,044
157
0.0538
Upper Piedmont Regional Landfill
31,830
177
0.0471
Sampson County Disposal, LLC*
45,288
184
0.0696
Minimum
Maximum
9,151
14.8
0.0022
45,288
469
0.0944
Geometric Mean
24,152
120
0.0255
Notes:
1. µg/L = micrograms per liter
2. Ibs/day = pounds per day
3. MSWLF = municipal solid waste landfill
4. Q = value indicates results of reanalysis outside laboratory holding time
* = Leachate volume is representative of volume disposed at WWTPs.
page 1 of 1
Z kAAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\Tables 20200302 Hart & Hickman, P. C.

Table 6
PFOS and PFOA Daily WWTP Mass Calculations
North Carolina Collective Study
H&H Job No. NWA-001
Facility
WWTP' Permitted
Flow Limit
(gallons/day)*
PFOS'
Concentration
(ng/1)4
PFOA'
Concentration
(ng/1)
PFOS
Daily Mass
(Ibs/day)'
PFOA
Daily Mass
(Ibs/day)
WWTPs that receive leachate from landfills
in North Carolina Collective Study
City of Asheboro WWTP
9,000,000
10.6
19.3
0.0008
0.0014
East Burlington WWTP
12,000,000
49.5
39.6
0.0050
0.0040
Utley Creek Water Reclamation Facility
6,000,000"
10
9.8
0.0005
0.0005
Harnett County Lillin ton Plant
7,500,000
8.86
20.2
0.0006
0.0013
Michigan Study'WWTPs that receive leachate
from landfills included in Stud
Menominee
3,200,000
5.6
12
0.0001
0.0003
Clinton River
30,600,000
7.68
4.94
0.0019
0.0013
Genesee Co-Ragnone
25,900,000
5.22
4
0.0012
0.0009
GLWA
650,000,000
7.54
6.02
0.0406
0.0324
Grand Rapids
61,100,000
12.7
5.06
0.0066
0.0026
Holland
12,000,000
3.79
8.93
0.0004
0.0009
Lansing
35,000,000
ND'
4.98
ND
0.0014
Sandusky
2,550,000
7.98
12.2
0.0002
0.0003
Three Rivers
2,750,000
7.39
21.44
0.0002
0.0005
Wyoming
22,000,000
6.2 to 26.4
5.08 to 25
0.0048
0.0046
YCUA
51,200,000
4.8 to 7.51
1 12
1 0.0032
1 0.0051
Michigan Study WWTPs
that receive leachate
from landfills not
included in Study
Bay City
18,000,000
18.2
4.87
0.0027
0.0007
Downriver
125,000,000
22.2
7.2
0.0230
0.0075
Flint
50,000,000
62.4
10.3
0.0258
0.0043
Kalamazoo
53,500,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
Muskegon Co Metro
43,000,000
10.5 to 24.3
11.7 to 36.9
0.0086
0.0131
North Kent S A
8,000,000
31.1
11.2
0.0021
0.0007
Port Huron
20,000,000
19.5
64.6
0.0032
0.0107
S Huron Valle UA SHUVA
24,000,000
ND
3.76
ND
0.0007
Notes:
1. WWTP = wastewater treatment plant
2. PFOS = PerFluorooctanesulfonate
3. PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic acid
4. ng/L = nanograms per liter
5. Ibs/day = pounds per day
6. Michigan Study = Michigan Waste & Recycling Association Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on Water Resource Recovery Facility
Influent (March 2019)
7. ND = not detected
* = Permitted flow obtained from Section A.6 of latest National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application retrieved from North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality on-line Laserfiche document repository in December 2019.
= After receiving an Authorization to Construct, the treatment capacity will increase to 8 millions of gallons per day. The
lower value of 6 millions of gallons per day was conservatively used for concentration calculations.
Table only shows facilities for which sampling data are available.
For Michigan sites, daily mass calculations performed using maximum value where multiple data are available. For North Carolina sites, concentrations shown and
associated daily mass calculations are based on average values for three sampling events performed between July and September 2019.
page 1 of 1
Z:V -Master-jecfsWati-I WasteendRecyclingAssociation(NWA)WWA-001\Rep,rffablea20200302 Hart & Hickman, P.C.

Table 7
1,4-Dioxane Daily WWTP Mass Calculations
North Carolina Collective Study
H&H Job No. NWA-001
WWTP1 Permitted
1,4-Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane Daily
Facility
Flow Limit
Concentration
s
(gallons/day)*
(µg/l)2
Mass (Ibs/day)
WWTPs that receive leachate from landfills in North Carolina Collective Study
City of Asheboro WWTP
9,000,000
163
12.2927
East Burlington WWTP
12,000,000
18.5
1.8583
Utley Creek Water Reclamation Facility
6,000,000**
7.3
0.3635
Harnett County Lillington Plant
7,500,000
5.95
0.3729
Notes:
1. WWTP = wastewater treatment plant
2. µg/L = micrograms per liter
3. Ibs/day = pounds per day
* = Permitted flow obtained from Section A.6 of latest National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application
retrieved from North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality on-line Laserfiche document repository in December 2019.
** = After receiving an Authorization to Construct, the treatment capacity will increase to 8 millions of gallons per day. The
lower value of 6 millions of gallons per day was conservatively used for concentration calculations.
Concentrations shown and associated daily mass calculations are based on average values for three sampling events
performed between July and September 2019.
page 1 of 1
Z:~-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\Tables 20200302 Hart & Hickman, P.C.

Table 8
Percent of WWTP Daily Mass Contributed by Landfill Leachate
North Carolina Collective Study
H&H Job No. NWA-001
Landfill Name
Average
Leachate Volume
(gallons/day)
Receiving
WWTP' Name
WWTP Permitted
Flow Limit
(gallons per day)*
Constituent
Concentration Data
Daily Mass Data
Percentage of
WWTP Influent
Daily Mass
Associated with
Landfill
Leachate***
Concentration
Units'
Landfill Leachate
Concentration
WWTP Influent
Concentration
Landfill Leachate
Daily Mass
(Ibs/day)
WWTP Influent
Daily Mass
(Ibs/day)
Wake County
South Wake
5,260
Utley Creek Water
Reclamation
Facility
6,000,000**
PFOS'
n /L
82.3
10
0.00000
0.0005
0.7 %
PFOA'
n /L
803
9.8
0.00004
0.0005
7.2%
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
885
20
0.00004
0.0010
3.9%
1,4-Dioxane
/L
30
7.3
0.00132
0.3635
0.4%
MSWLF°
3,890
City of Lumberton
WWTP
20,000,000
PFOS
n /L
82.3
NS
0.00000
NS
NS
PFOA
n /L
803
NS
0.00003
NS
NS
PFOS-PFOA
n /L
885
NS
0.00003
NS
NS
1,4-Dioxane
p /L
30
NS
0.00098
NS
NS
Foothills
Environmental
Landfill
24,364
Henry Fork
WWTP
9,000,000
PFOS
ng/L
296IN
0.00006
NS
NS
PFOA
n /L
0.00034
NS
NS
pFOS+pFOA
n /L
0.00040
NS
NS
1,4-Dioxane
p /L
0.02030
NS
NS
BFI-Charlotte
Motor Speedway
Landfill V
40,027
Rocky River
Regional WWTP
26,500,000
PFOS
n /L
0.00012
NS
NS
PFOA
n /L
0.00074
NS
NS
PFOS+PFOA
n/L
0.00086
NS
NS
1,4-Dioxane
p /L
0.07157
NS
NS
Chambers
Development
MSWLF
17,452
Anson County
WWTP3,500,000
PFOS
n /L
ja46
0.00001
NS
NS
PFOA
n /L
0.00005
NS
NS
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
0.00006
NS
NS
1,4-Dioxane
p /L
0.00216
NS
NS
Uwharrie
Environmental
Regional Landfill
31,649
Town of Troy
WWTP1,200,000
PFOS
n /L0.00009
NS
NS
PFOA
n /L
0.00098
NS
NS
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
0.00107
NS
NS
1,4-Dioxane
p /L
0.09441
NS
NS
Great Oak Landfill
9,589
City of Asheboro
WWTP
9,000,000
PFOS
n /L
83.g
10.6
0.00001
0.0008
0.8%
PFOA
n /L
108
19.3
0.00001
0.0014
0.6%
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
192
29.9
0.00002
0.0022
0.7%
1,4-Dioxane
p /L
469
163
0.03758
12.2927
0.3%
East Carolina
Regional Landfill
41,044
Tar River Regional
WWTP
21,000,000
PFOS
n /L
402
NS
0.00014
NS
NS
PFOA
n /L
1640
NS
0.00056
NS
NS
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
2042
NS
0.00070
NS
NS
1,4-Dioxane
p /L
157
NS
0.05384
NS
NS
Upper Piedmont
Regional Landfill
31,830
East Burlington
WWTP
12,000,000
PFOS
n /L
254
49.5
0.00007
0.0050
1.4%
PFOA
n /L
884
39.6
0000024
0.0040
5.9%
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
1138
89.0
0.00030
0.0089
3.4%
1,4-Dioxane
/L
177
18.5
0.04707
1.8583
2.5%
8,658
Harnett County
Lillington Plant
7,500,000
PFOS
n /L
222
8.86
0000002
0.0006
2.9%
PFOA
n /L
1790
20.2
0.00013
0.0013
10.2%
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
2012
29.0
0.00015
0.0018
8.0%
1,4-Dioxane
/L
184
5.95
0.01331
0.3729
3.6%
PFPrOPrA`
n /L
10800
NS
0.00078
NS
NS
Sampson County
16,219
Harnett County
South Plant
15,000,000
PFOS
n /L
222
NS
0.00003
NS
NS
PFOA
n /L
1790
NS
0.00024
NS
NS
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
2012
NS
0.00027
NS
NS
1,4-Dioxane
/L
184
NS
0.02494
NS
NS
PFPrOPrA
n /L
10800
NS
0.00146
NS
NS
Disposal, LLC
20,411
City of Lumberton
WWTP
20,000,000
PFOS
n /L
222
NS
0.00004
NS
NS
PFOA
n /L
1790
NS
0.00031
NS
NS
PFOS+PFOA
n /L
2012
NS
0.00034
NS
NS
1,4-Dioxane
184
NS
0.03138
NS
NS
PFPrOPrA
10800
NS
0.00184
NS
NS
22,137
Evaporation
Not applicable
PFOS
222
NA
NA
NA
NA
PFOA
f
1790
NA
NA
NA
NA
PFOS+PFOA
2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,4-Dioxane
184
NA
NA
NA
NA
PFPrOPrA
10800
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
1. WWTP= wastewater treatment plant
2. ng/L = nanograms per liter; pg/L = micrograms per liter
3. Ibs/day = pounds per day
4. MSWLF = municipal solid waste landfill
5. PFOS = pernuorooctanesulfonate
6. PFOA= pernuorooctanoic acid
7. NS = no sampling data available
8. Q = value indicates results of reanalysis outside laboratory holding time
9. PFPrOPrA = 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic acid (trade name GenX)
10. NA = not applicable
* = Permitted flow obtained from Section A.6 of latest National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application retrieved from North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality on-line Loserfiche
document repository in December 2019.
* = After receiving an Authorization to Construct, the treatment capacity will increase to 8 millions of gallons per day. The lower value of 6 millions of gallons per day was conservatively used for concentration
calculations.
` * = WWTP mass attributed to landfill leachate only includes contributions from landfills covered under the North Carolina Collective Study.
page 1 of 1
Z:WAA-Master Projects\National Waste and Recycling Association (NWA)\NWA-001\Report\Tables Hart & Hickman, P.C.

FIGURES
hart lwiii hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

10,000
9,500
9,000
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
6,500
6,000
5,500
c
g 5,000
L
4,500
U
a 4,000
U
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1
United States PFOA
t Max: 5000
•Median: 712
IMin: 30
Figure 1
PFOA & PFOS Concentrations in Landfill Leachate Based on Literature Summary
United States PFOS
t Max: 800
•Median: 117
1 Min: 3
Notes:
1. ng/L = nanograms per liter
2. Concentration is beyond the scale of the graph (>20
times scale of graph)
Europe PFOA
t Max: 1000
• Median: 253
1 Min: 0
Europe PFOS
t Max: 1500
•Median: 211
1Min: 0
1
Australia PFOA
t Max: 7500
• Median: 525
1 Min: 17
Australia PFOS
t Max: 2700
• Median: 126
1 Min:0
Source: Michigan Waste & Recycling Association Statewide Study on
Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on Water Resource Recovery
Facility Influent (March 2019)
214000 z
China PFOA
t Max: 214000
• Median: 2660
Min: 281
China PFOS
t Max:6020
0 Median: 1740
1 Min: 1150
Page 1 of 1

iM.• YL"
Saponi
:
Winston-
Sdtsa
Salem
❑9
Greensboro
Durham
2164
High Point
Rocky Mount
Lenoir
F Ly�li
rlattonati>
Morganton
Lake 9 Statesville
1 G ,�
7
Raleifjh
P
O
For t
; ,;IV&S Brookford
Salisbury ii�ff 5 eboro
❑
- I. • dl .
Mooresville
Lake
1178 ff o
Greenville
2269 ft No rmar.
F., , ,. ,
9461.
Sanford
NORTH
Ld�a
,9s9R
AROLINA
L':
IAMh�
Goldsboro
Shelby
F t
Cohan-
41I
Kinston
Nantahala
charlotte
National
Forest
Fort Biagg
FAhlary
Reservation
I ni
Fayetteville
Rockingham
8
❑
Faast H
Lum1:�?
Sdtsa
� l,��k:on
Lumbert .I i
Figure ID
Landfill Name
1
Foothills Environmental Landfill
2
BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V
3
Chambers Development MSWLF 1
4
Uwharrie Environmental Regional Landfill
5
Great Oak Landfill
6
Upper Piedmont Regional Landfill
7
Wake County South Wake MSWLF
8
Sampson County Disposal, LLC
9
East Carolina Regional Landfill
LEGEND
❑ LANDFILL LOCATION
NOTE:
1. MSWLF = MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
LANDFILL LOCATION NUMBERS ARE CODED TO THE TABLE AS SHOWN.
.yrtle Beach
Long Bay
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NIPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIs User Community
TITLE
FACILITY LOCATION MAP
N
PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTIVE STUDY
0 40 80
2923 South Tryon Street - Suite 100
,1111111 �}
hart h i c k m a n Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007 (p)704-586-0373 (f)
Miles
SMARTER ENVIRnNNIENTAL SOLUTIONS License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
DATE: 2-14-20
REVISION NO: 0
Page 1 of 1
JOB NO: NWA-001
FIGURE NO: 2

Figure 3 - PFOS and PFOA Daily Leachate Mass Summary
Wake County South Wake MSWLF
Foothills Environmental Landfill
BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V
Chambers Development MSWLF
Uwharrie Environmental Regional Landfill
Great Oak Landfill
East Carolina Regional Landfill
Upper Piedmont Regional Landfill
Sampson County Disposal, LLC
e
RM
b
d
00
Arbor Hills Landfill
Autumn Hills RDF
Brent Run Landfill
b
C&C Expanded Sanitary Landfill
d
Carleton Farms Landfill
Central Sanitary Landfill
PM
Citizen's Disposal Inc.
d
Dafter Sanitary Landfill
b
Eagle Valley RDF
b
Glens Sanitary Landfill
h
Granger Grand River Landfill
d
Granger Wood Street Landfill
b
K&W Landfill
b
Manistee County Landfill
`
McGill Road Landfill
`
Michigan Environs Inc. (Menominee)
6m=
Northern Oaks RDF
b
Oakland Heights Development
b
Orchard Hill Sanitary Landfill
b
Ottawa County Farms Landfill
People's Landfill
d
Pine Tree Acres RDF
Pitsch Sanitary Landfill
b
Sauk Trail Hills Landfill
d
SC Holdings
b
Tri-City RDF
b
Venice Park RDF MH#20/Venice Park RDF MH#21
Vienna Junction Industrial Park Sanitary Landfill
b
Waters Landfill
Westside RDF
Whitefeather Landfill
Woodland Meadows RDF -Van Buren
Riverview 003/Riverview 004/Riverview 007
d
South Kent Outfall/South Kent Hauled
Smith's Creek Landfill
`
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025
Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
■ PFOS ❑ PFOA
PC
0.0030
Notes:
1. MI Study = Michigan Waste & Recycling Association
Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on
Water Resource Recovery Facility Influent (March 2019)
2. Ibs/day = pounds per day
Page 1 of 1

Figure 4 - PFOS and PFOA Daily WWTP Mass Summary
City of Asheboro WWTP
`
East Burlington WWTP
WWTPs that receive leachate
from landfills in North Carolina
Collective Study
Utley Creek Water Reclamation Facility
Harnett County Lillington Plant
Menominee
Clinton River
Genesee Co-Ragnonc
GLWA
Grand Rapids
�•
Michigan Study WWTPs that
receive leachate from landfills
Holland
`
included in Study
Lansing
Sandusky `
Three Rivers
Wyoming
YCUA
Bay City
Downriver
Flint
Kalamazoo Michigan Study WWTPsthat
receive leachate from landfills
Muskegon Co Metro not included in Study
North Kent S A
Port Huron
S Huron Valley UA (SHUVA) 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
■ PFOS ■ PFOA
Daily Mass (Ibs/day) Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
(—
Notes:
1. MI Study = Michigan Waste & Recycling Association
Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on
Water Resource Recovery Facility Influent (March 2019)
2. Ibs/day = pounds per day
Page 1 of 1

Figure 5 - PFCIS Landfill Leachate Contribution to WWTP Daily Mass
INC Study
Utley Creek
City of Asheboro
East Burlington
Harnett Lillington
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
■ PFOS Daily Leachate Mass ❑ PFOS Daily WWTP Mass
NC and MI Studies
Utley Creek 0
City of Asheboro ❑
a
East Burlington 0
in
v
z
Harnett Lillington i]
CRWRR 0
Downriver
Genesee Co-...r7
GLWA
GRAND RAPIDS
HOLLAND
LANSING
n
MENOMINEE 0
PORT HURON 0
SANDUSKY
THREE RIVERS 0
WYOMING 0
YCUA
0.000 0.005
0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
0.040 0.045 0.050
Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
■ PFOS Daily Leachate Mass ■ PFOS Daily WWTP Mass
Notes:
1. MI Study = Michigan Waste & Recycling Association
Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on
Water Resource Recovery Facility Influent (March 2019)
2. Ibs/day = pounds per day
Page 1 of 1

Figure 6 - PFOA Landfill Leachate Contribution to WWTP Daily Mass
INC Study
Utley Creek
City of Asheboro
East Burlington
Harnett Lillington
0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.005
Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
■ PFOA Daily Leachate Mass 0 PFOA Dailv WWTP Mass
NC and MI Studies
Utley Creek ❑
City of Asheboro
-a
East Burlington
i+
v
Z
Harnett Lillington
CRWRR 0
Downriver
Genesee Co-...
GLWA
GRAND RAPIDS MEEK=
HOLLAND
LANSING
MENOMINEE F-1
PORT HURON
SANDUSKY 0
THREE RIVERS Kj
WYOMING 0
YCUA
0.000 0.005
0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
0.040 0.045
Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
■ PFOA Daily Leachate Mass ■ PFOA Daily WWTP Mass
Notes:
1. MI Study = Michigan Waste & Recycling Association
Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on
Water Resource Recovery Facility Influent (March 2019)
2. Ibs/day = pounds per day
Page 1 of 1

Figure 7 - 1,4-Dioxane Daily Leachate Mass Summary
Sampson County Disposal, LLC
Upper Piedmont Regional Landfill
East Carolina Regional Landfill
Great Oak Landfill
Uwharrie Environmental Regional Landfill
Chambers Development MSWLF
BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill V
Foothills Environmental Landfill
Wake County South Wake MSWLF
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
■ 1,4-Dioxane
Note:
1. Ibs/day = pounds per day Page 1 of 1

Utley Creek
City of Asheboro
East Burlington
Harnett Lillington
Figure 8 - 1,4-Dioxane Landfill Leachate Contribution to WWTP Daily Mass
NC Study
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Daily Mass (Ibs/day)
■ 1,4-Dioxane Daily Leachate Mass ❑ 1,4-Dioxane Daily WWTP Mass
Notes:
1. Ibs/day = pounds per day
2. Maximum 1,4-dioxane daily leachate mass is 0.1 Ibs/day.
Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX A
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS
hart lwiii hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

® Laboratories a
©000
a member u� The GEL Group
November 08, 2019
Mr. Jim Riley
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Re: Analytical for South Wake MSWLF
Work Order: 490673
Dear Mr. Riley:
PO Box 30712 Charleston. SC 29417
2040 Savage Road Chadeston SC 20407
P 843 556.8171
F 843 766.1178
GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the enclosed analytical results for the
sample(s) we received on September 19, 2019. This revised data report has been prepared and reviewed in
accordance with GEL's standard operating procedures. This package was revised to include PFPeA and PFOA.
Test results for NELAP or ISO 17025 accredited tests are verified to meet the requirements of those standards,
with any exceptions noted. The results reported relate only to the items tested and to the sample as received by
the laboratory. These results may not be reproduced except as full reports without approval by the laboratory.
Copies of GEL's accreditations and certifications can be found on our website at www.gel.com.
Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical services to enable you to meet your analytical needs
on time every time. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 4289.
Sincerely,
f
Julie Robinson
Project Manager
Purchase Order: GELP19-0905
Enclosures
gel.com
Page 1 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis Report
for
NWRA001 NWRA — Carolinas Chapter
Client SDG: 490673 GEL Work Order: 490673
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
** Analyte is a Tracer compound
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
The designation ND, if present, appears in the result column when the analyte concentration is not detected above
the limit as defined in the 'U' qualifier above.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL Laboratories LLC
standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Julie Robinson.
f
Reviewed by
Page 2 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
Address : 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Project: Analytical forSouth Wake MSWLF
Client Sample ID:
9222-1
Sample ID:
490673001
Matrix:
Misc Liquid
Collect Date:
18-SEP-19 10:00
Receive Date:
19-SEP-19
Collector:
Client
Report Date: November 8, 2019
Project: NWRA00119
Client ID: NWRA001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As
Received"
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
J
35.8
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorodutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
1420
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
J
17.3
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
J
7.40
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
241
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
237
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
2940
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
20.7
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
28.8
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
U
ND
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
82.3
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFDA)
803
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
32.3
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
577
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
U
ND
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
FTS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
600
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
U
ND
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)
U
ND
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
FTS)
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
13.2 40.0 ng/L 0.200 1 JLS 10/04/19 1109 1921240 1
13.2 40.0 ng/L 0.200 1
6.60
17.8
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
19.4
ng/L
0.200
1
7.80
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
19.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.2
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
7.00
19.2
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.6
ng/L
0.200
1
8.00
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
7.00
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.8
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
132
384
ng/L
0.200
10 JLS
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
1320
3760
ng/L
0.200
100 JLS
1320
3800
ng/L
0.200
100
10/02/19 0622 1921240 2
10/02/19 1016 1921240 3
Page 3 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
Address : 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Project: Analytical forSouth Wake MSWLF
Client Sample ID: 9222-1
Sample ID: 490673001
Report Date: November 8, 2019
Project: NWRA00119
Client ID: NWRA001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
SW846 8270 SIM 1,4-Dioxane in Liquid "As Received"
1,4-Dioxane 30.0 10.0 20.0 ug/L 0.200 10 JM133 09/24/19 1314 1919444 4
The following Prep Methods were performed:
Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch
EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Comp] PFCs Extraction in Liquid
SW846 3535A SW8270E SIM Prep 1,4-Dioxane
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
LMl 09/27/19 0830 1921239
SJW 1 09/23/19 1200 1919441
Method Description Analyst Comments
1 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
2 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
3 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
4 SW846 3535A/8270E SIM
Surrogate/Tracer Recovery Test Result Nominal Recovery% Acceptable Limits
1,4-Dioxane-d8 SW846 8270 SIM 1,4-Dioxane in Liquid "As 26.2 ug/L 40.0 66* (70%-130%)
Received"
Notes:
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor Lc/LC: Critical Level
DL: Detection Limit PF: Prep Factor
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity RL: Reporting Limit
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Page 4 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter QC Summary Renort Date: November 8, 2019
Page 1 of 7
1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Workorder: 490673
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
QC1204391614 LCS
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
18.2
15.7
ng/L
86
(60%-145%) JLS 10/02/19 06:05
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
18.5
20.4
ng/L
110
(56%-143%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
18.7
17.5
ng/L
94
(57%-138%)
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
19.5
19.3
ng/L
99
(63%-131%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
19.5
21.5
ng/L
111
(62%-133%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
17.2
16.6
ng/L
96
(68%-136%)
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
19.5
19.7
ng/L
101
(70%-133%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.8
16.8
ng/L
89
(53%-142%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
19.5
18.0
ng/L
93
(62%-135%)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
19.5
19.5
ng/L
100
(66%-131%)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
18.5
18.1
ng/L
98
(66%-138%)
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
19.5
17.9
ng/L
92
(67%-135%)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.7
14.5
ng/L
82
(64%-137%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
19.5
18.9
ng/L
97
(67%-133%)
Page 5 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490673
Page 2 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.7
17.5
ng/L
93
(66%-130%) JLS
10/02/19 06:05
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
19.5
21.1
ng/L
108
(66%-134%)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
19.5
21.5
ng/L
111
(68%-137%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
19.5
19.8
ng/L
102
(61%-131%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
19.5
18.8
ng/L
97
(63%-145%)
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
18.3
16.5
ng/L
90
(62%-139%)
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
19.5
19.3
ng/L
99
(69%-132%)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
19.5
22.5
ng/L
115
(65%-143%)
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
19.5
19.9
ng/L
102
(57%-149%)
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
19.5
19.1
ng/L
98
(65%-134%)
QC1204391615 LCSD
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
17.6
20.5
ng/L
26
116
(0%-35%)
10/02/19 06:14
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
17.9
17.6
ng/L
14
98
(0%-36%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
18.1
19.9
ng/L
13
110
(0%-39%)
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
18.8
20.1
ng/L
4
107
(0%-25%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
18.8
21.9
ng/L
2
116
(0%-26%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Page 6 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490673
Page 3 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
16.7
17.2
ng/L
4
103
(0%-30%) JLS 10/02/19 06:14
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
18.8
19.3
ng/L
2
102
(0%-30%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.2
17.2
ng/L
3
95
(0%-28%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
18.8
21.1
ng/L
16
112
(0%-29%)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
18.8
19.0
ng/L
3
101
(0%-30%)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
17.9
17.7
ng/L
2
99
(0%-30%)
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
18.8
19.6
ng/L
9
104
(0%-30%)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.2
16.8
ng/L
15
98
(0%-30%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
18.8
20.9
ng/L
10
111
(0%-23%)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.1
18.2
ng/L
4
101
(0%-27%)
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
18.8
18.7
ng/L
12
99
(0%-27%)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
18.8
20.2
ng/L
6
107
(0%-30%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
18.8
19.9
ng/L
1
106
(0%-27%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 18.8 18.9 ng/L 0 100 (0%-30%
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid 17.7 17.3 ng/L 4 98 (0%-29%
(PFPeS)
Page 7 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490673
Page 4 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
18.8
20.0
ng/L
3
106
(0%-30%) JLS 10/02/19 06:14
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
18.8
20.6
ng/L
9
109
(0%-30%)
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
18.8
17.7
ng/L
11
94
(0%-35%)
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
18.8
21.2
ng/L
10
112
(0%-28%)
QC1204391613 MB
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
ng/L
10/02/19 05:56
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) U ND ng/L
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFHpS)
Page 8 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490673
Page 5 of 7
Parmname NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
U
ND
ng/L JLS 10/02/19 05:56
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
U
ND
ng/L
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
Batch 1919444
QC1204387349 LCS
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00
3.55
ug/L 89 (70%-130%) JMB3 09/24/1912:24
Page 9 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490673
Page 6 of 7
Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
Semi -Volatile -GUMS
Batch 1919444
QC1204387350 LCSD
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00 3.18 ug/L 79 (70%-130%) JM133 09/24/1912:49
QC1204387348 MB
1,4-Dioxane U ND ug/L 09/24/1911:59
** 1,4-Dioxane-d8
Notes:
4.00 3.05 ug/L 76 (70%-130%)
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
< Result is less than value reported
> Result is greater than value reported
A The TIC is a suspected aldol-condensation product
B The target analyte was detected in the associated blank.
C Analyte has been confirmed by GUMS analysis
D Results are reported from a diluted aliquot of the sample
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range
H Analytical holding time was exceeded
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
JNX Non Calibrated Compound
N Organics --Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based
on nearest internal standard response factor
N Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based on nearest
internal standard response factor
N/A RPD or %Recovery limits do not apply.
N1 See case narrative
ND Analyte concentration is not detected above the detection limit
NJ Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
P Organics --The concentrations between the primary and confirmation columns/detectors is >40% different. For HPLC, the difference is >70%.
Q One or more quality control criteria have not been met. Refer to the applicable narrative or DER.
R Sample results are rejected
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
UJ Compound cannot be extracted
Page 10 of 16 SDG: 490673 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490673 Page 7 of 7
Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
X Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
Y QC Samples were not spiked with this compound
^ RPD of sample and duplicate evaluated using +/-RL. Concentrations are <5X the RL. Qualifier Not Applicable for Radiochemistry.
h Preparation or preservation holding time was exceeded
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more or %RPD not applicable.
The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than
five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +/- the
RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
* Indicates that a Quality Control parameter was not within specifications.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
Page 11 of 16 SDG: 490673 Rev1

Technical Case Narrative
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
SDG #: 490673
GUMS Semivolatile
Product: Analysis of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Analytical Method: SW846 3535A/8270E SIM
Analytical Procedure: GL-OA-E-073 REV# 2
Analytical Batch: 1919444
Preparation Method: SW846 3535A
Preparation Procedure: GL-OA-E-073 REV# 2
Preparation Batch: 1919441
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).
GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
490673001 9222-1
1204387348 Method Blank (MB)
1204387349 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1204387350 Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:
All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.
Quality Control (QQ Information
Surrogate Recoveries
Sample (See Below) did not meet surrogate recovery acceptance criteria. The sample was analyzed at a dilution.
As a result, one or more surrogates were diluted out of the acceptance limits.
Sample
Analyte
Value
490673001 (9222-1)
1, 4-Dioxane-d8
66* (70%-130%)
Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
An LCSD was used in place of matrix QC due to limited sample volume.
Technical Information
Sample Dilutions
Sample 490673001 (9222-1) was diluted due to the presence of non -target analytes. The data from the dilution
are reported.
Page 12 of 16 SDG: 490673 Rev1

LCMSMS-Misc
Product: The Extraction and Analysis of Per and Polyfluroalkyl Substances Using LCMSMS
Analytical Method: EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
Analytical Procedure: GL-OA-E-076 REV# 7
Analytical Batches: 1921240 and 1921239
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).
GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
490673001 9222-1
1204391613 Method Blank (MB)
1204391614 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1204391615 Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary
All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.
Technical Information
Sample Dilutions
The following samples were diluted to bring the over range concentrations within the calibration range and/or
due to matrix interference that caused internal standards recoveries to fall outside the acceptance range.
490673001(9222-1).
Analyte
490673
001
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2 FTS)
100X
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2 FTS)
100X
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2 FTS)
lox
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
lox
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA)
lox
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)
lox
Miscellaneous Information
Additional Comments
Additional sample volume was not provided for matrix QC. Also, reduced sample volumes were used for all
samples except 490876002 (7607-EB) due to elevated concentrations of target analytes.
Certification Statement
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 13 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

Y
U
ice.,
� �� `�
";,,
✓
�
� '�' � �
6
a..
F5O
�
O
G :7 U M
Cj
nQ^
W
O'
N
_
m
'v
�
5
N
�
a
LLJ
cu
ILL
s
Z
<
o
r
q '
r
•C
x
s.lau5lttuoa Jo anglum, 1�#o,L
ir',` N
G
CC
u
C
i
O
cu
ti
v
v
T
ti
OO O
fc
w
IA s o
ejddi,.v loaT
m
s_ 2. _
rQ
cu
cu
CO-
uk
w
=
CO
O
LO
O
Z
- -
r
b
L
iJ
!
cu
`�
y
O
a
9,
ct�
k
V CCLL F
Cf]72
W
2
Y
N
C
>
Q v
ti-.
J
-
o n
a
co
U
-'�
4 E
CD
Q�QiQ
Q
O
fi
-
y o
Z Z
Cn
Q
t��'
II
_
v
�
j .r •.:ti
W
wl n
p
a
v II ii II if it
Page 14 of 16 SDG: 490673 Revl

Client. SAMPLE RECEIPT & REVIEW FORM
rt
Grele Aflplicabtc: --
ryry/�
CarrierfcdEx Ground UPS field Services
artd "frtet:irt� Number �" Courier
Other
►y1� � �l�,/ fl " � 1, �y��6'� ass`,
Suspected fla7ard Information
Z *If Net Counts > 100cp111 on samples not marked "radioactive", contact the Radiation Safety Group for further invcsti 'at A)Shipped as a DOT flazardous? flnzard Class Shipped: S too.
1f UN2910, is the Radioactive Shipment Survey Compliant? Yes____ No
Q) Did the client designate the samples are to be `
received as radioactive? COC notation or radioactive stickers oil containers equal client designatiou.
C) Did the RSO classify the samples as
radioactive? 4la-vimom Net Countsrh
Observed* (Observed Counts - Area Background Counts):
Chtsstftcdas: Ratll Rad? Rad3
D) Did Cite client des�jirtate samples arc CP,\1/ mR/f1r
hazardous? COC notation or hazard labels on containers equal client designation, f ,
E) Did the RSO identify If D or E is yes, select hazards below,
Y possible hazards? PCD's Flammable
Foreign Soil RCRA :Asbestos Sample Rcceipt Criteria Bcryfliam Differ: u Q c
r
! Shipping containers received intact and Circle Applicable: Seals broken otnntentsl
Qualifiers (Required for Non -Co nforming Items)
sealed? Damaged container
Chain of custody documents included . Loakutg container Other (describe)
2 Circle Applicable: Client contacted and provided COC
With shipment?
p COC created upon « ccipt
3 Samples requiring cold preservation
with n (0 < 6 deg. C)?* Preservation ,4tet I d: let t Ice Packs
'all tellDry ice None )permfires are corded in Celsius Other,
a Daily check perforated and passed on IR O
tetitperature gull? Temperatttt eDevice Serial k: _ T"EtNIP: _
Sec
S Sample containers ondaty Temperature Device Serial C 01'Applicable):
intact and sealed? f Circle Applicable: Seal troken
Y/ r ego comae • Leaking co ,nor
Off, r (describe)
G Samples requiring chemical preservation y � � /'
at proper pf(? f Sample ID's and Containers Affccicd:
Irpresen:vionadded Lotl:• .
? Do any samples require Volatile tf 1'es, are Encores or Soil tits )resent for solids? 1'es _ No
Do liquid VOr\ Analysis? ate., n....:.. ..... . . vials contain acid prescrvpreservation,!1`es �., •
NA_Oryes, take to VOA freezer)
IF ---.�,uapacc.` Yes— No NA
.Sany,le ID's and containers afticted; "—'—
3 Samples received within holding time?
ID's and tests afFectecl:
9 Sample ID's on COC match ID's on
bottles? ID's and containers affected:
10 Date R time on' COC Match date & i
ott bottles? ttntc Circle,`, I I abla: No darts on containers No times on coruainers
CC
If Nttlttber of containers received [patch Ciretc A)iplicable: No container count on COC Other (describe)
number indicated on COC?
12 Are sample containers identifiable as
Grl" rovidecC>
13 COC form is properly signed in
refill Uished/received sections? Circle Applicable:q : of relilluislt
Other (describe)
bnunculs (Use Continuation Fonn ii'needed):
P\'t (or P\d:1) revic�e: Initi:d, '
GL-CHL-SR-001 Rev 6
Page 15 of 16 SDG: 490673 Rev I

List of current GEL Certifications as of 08 November 2019
State
Certification
Alaska
17-018
Alaska Drinking Water
SC00012
Arkansas
88-0651
CLIA
42DO904046
California
2940
Colorado
SC00012
Connecticut
PH-0169
DoD ELAP/ ISO17025 A2LA
2567.01
Florida NELAP
E87156
Foreign Soils Permit
P330-15-00283, P330-15-00253
Georgia
SC00012
Georgia SDWA
967
Hawaii
SC00012
Idaho
SC00012
Illinois NELAP
200029
Indiana
C—SC-01
Kansas NELAP
E-10332
Kentucky SDWA
90129
Kentucky Wastewater
90129
Louisiana Drinking Water
LA024
Louisiana NELAP
03046 (AI33904)
Maine
2019020
Maryland
270
Massachusetts
M—SCO12
Massachusetts PFAS Approv
Letter
Michigan
9976
Mississippi
SC00012
Nebraska
NE—OS-26-13
Nevada
SC000122020-1
New Hampshire NELAP
2054
New Jersey NELAP
SCO02
New Mexico
SC00012
New York NELAP
11501
North Carolina
233
North Carolina SDWA
45709
North Dakota
R-158
Oklahoma
2019-165
Pennsylvania NELAP
68-00485
Puerto Rico
SC00012
S. Carolina Radiochem
10120002
Sanitation Districts of L
9255651
South Carolina Chemistry
10120001
Tennessee
TN 02934
Texas NELAP
T104704235-19-15
Utah NELAP
SC000122019-28
Vermont
VT87156
Virginia NELAP
460202
Washington
C780
Page 16 of 16 SDG: 490673 Rev1

® Laboratories a
©000
a member u� The GEL Group
November 08, 2019
Mr. Jim Riley
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Re: Analytical for Foothills Environmental Landfill
Work Order: 490860
Dear Mr. Riley:
PO Box 30712 Charleston. SC 29417
2040 Savage Road Chadeston SC 20407
P 843 556.8171
F 843 766.1178
GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the enclosed analytical results for the
sample(s) we received on September 19, 2019. This revised data report has been prepared and reviewed in
accordance with GEL's standard operating procedures. This package was revised to include PFPeA and PFOA.
Test results for NELAP or ISO 17025 accredited tests are verified to meet the requirements of those standards,
with any exceptions noted. The results reported relate only to the items tested and to the sample as received by
the laboratory. These results may not be reproduced except as full reports without approval by the laboratory.
Copies of GEL's accreditations and certifications can be found on our website at www.gel.com.
Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical services to enable you to meet your analytical needs
on time every time. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 4289.
Sincerely,
f
Julie Robinson
Project Manager
Purchase Order: GELP19-0905
Enclosures
gel.com
Page 1 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis Report
for
NWRA001 NWRA — Carolinas Chapter
Client SDG: 490860 GEL Work Order: 490860
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
** Analyte is a Tracer compound
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
The designation ND, if present, appears in the result column when the analyte concentration is not detected above
the limit as defined in the 'U' qualifier above.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL Laboratories LLC
standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Julie Robinson.
f
Reviewed by
Page 2 of 16 SDG: 490860 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
Address : 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Project: Analytical forFoothills Environmental Landfill
Client Sample ID:
1403-1
Sample ID:
490860001
Matrix:
Misc Liquid
Collect Date:
16-SEP-19 09:20
Receive Date:
19-SEP-19
Collector:
Client
Report Date: November 8, 2019
Project: NWRA00119
Client ID: NWRA001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As
Received"
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
101
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
257
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
82.6
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
U
ND
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
J
6.82
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
571
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
794
(PFHxS)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
71.4
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
J
7.08
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
296
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
50.6
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
1070
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
J
7.04
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
FTS)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
4400
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
744
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
3920
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFDA)
1650
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
U
ND
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)
U
ND
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
FTS)
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
13.2
37.6
ng/L
0.200 1 JLS 10/02/19 0849 1921240 1
13.2
40.0
ng/L
0.200 1
13.2
40.0
ng/L
0.200 1
6.60
19.4
ng/L
0.200 1
7.80
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
19.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.2
ng/L
0.200
1
7.00
19.2
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.6
ng/L
0.200
1
8.00
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.8
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
132
384
ng/L
0.200
10 JLS
66.0
178
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
70.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
1320
3800
ng/L
0.200
100 JLS
10/02/19 0657 1921240 2
10/02/19 1059 1921240 3
Page 3 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
Address : 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Project: Analytical forFoothills Environmental Landfill
Client Sample ID: 1403-1
Sample ID: 490860001
Report Date: November 8, 2019
Project: NWRA00119
Client ID: NWRA001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
SW846 8270 SIM 1,4-Dioxane in Liquid "As Received"
1,4-Dioxane 99.7 2.00 4.00 ug/L 0.200 2 JM133 09/24/19 1829 1919444 4
The following Prep Methods were performed:
Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch
EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Comp] PFCs Extraction in Liquid
SW846 3535A SW8270E SIM Prep 1,4-Dioxane
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
LMl 09/27/19 0830 1921239
SJW 1 09/23/19 1200 1919441
Method Description Analyst Comments
1 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
2 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
3 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
4 SW846 3535A/8270E SIM
Surrogate/Tracer Recovery Test Result Nominal Recovery% Acceptable Limits
1,4-Dioxane-d8 SW846 8270 SIM 1,4-Dioxane in Liquid "As 30.0 ug/L 40.0 75 (70%-130%)
Received"
Notes:
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor Lc/LC: Critical Level
DL: Detection Limit PF: Prep Factor
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity RL: Reporting Limit
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Page 4 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter QC Summary Renort Date: November 8, 2019
Page 1 of 7
1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Workorder: 490860
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
QC1204391614 LCS
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
18.2
15.7
ng/L
86
(60%-145%) JLS 10/02/19 06:05
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
18.5
20.4
ng/L
110
(56%-143%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
18.7
17.5
ng/L
94
(57%-138%)
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
19.5
19.3
ng/L
99
(63%-131%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
19.5
21.5
ng/L
111
(62%-133%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
17.2
16.6
ng/L
96
(68%-136%)
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
19.5
19.7
ng/L
101
(70%-133%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.8
16.8
ng/L
89
(53%-142%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
19.5
18.0
ng/L
93
(62%-135%)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
19.5
19.5
ng/L
100
(66%-131%)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
18.5
18.1
ng/L
98
(66%-138%)
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
19.5
17.9
ng/L
92
(67%-135%)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.7
14.5
ng/L
82
(64%-137%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
19.5
18.9
ng/L
97
(67%-133%)
Page 5 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490860
Page 2 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.7
17.5
ng/L
93
(66%-130%) JLS
10/02/19 06:05
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
19.5
21.1
ng/L
108
(66%-134%)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
19.5
21.5
ng/L
111
(68%-137%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
19.5
19.8
ng/L
102
(61%-131%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
19.5
18.8
ng/L
97
(63%-145%)
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
18.3
16.5
ng/L
90
(62%-139%)
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
19.5
19.3
ng/L
99
(69%-132%)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
19.5
22.5
ng/L
115
(65%-143%)
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
19.5
19.9
ng/L
102
(57%-149%)
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
19.5
19.1
ng/L
98
(65%-134%)
QC1204391615 LCSD
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
17.6
20.5
ng/L
26
116
(0%-35%)
10/02/19 06:14
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
17.9
17.6
ng/L
14
98
(0%-36%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
18.1
19.9
ng/L
13
110
(0%-39%)
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
18.8
20.1
ng/L
4
107
(0%-25%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
18.8
21.9
ng/L
2
116
(0%-26%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Page 6 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490860
Page 3 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
16.7
17.2
ng/L
4
103
(0%-30%) JLS 10/02/19 06:14
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
18.8
19.3
ng/L
2
102
(0%-30%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.2
17.2
ng/L
3
95
(0%-28%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
18.8
21.1
ng/L
16
112
(0%-29%)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
18.8
19.0
ng/L
3
101
(0%-30%)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
17.9
17.7
ng/L
2
99
(0%-30%)
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
18.8
19.6
ng/L
9
104
(0%-30%)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.2
16.8
ng/L
15
98
(0%-30%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
18.8
20.9
ng/L
10
111
(0%-23%)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.1
18.2
ng/L
4
101
(0%-27%)
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
18.8
18.7
ng/L
12
99
(0%-27%)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
18.8
20.2
ng/L
6
107
(0%-30%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
18.8
19.9
ng/L
1
106
(0%-27%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 18.8 18.9 ng/L 0 100 (0%-30%
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid 17.7 17.3 ng/L 4 98 (0%-29%
(PFPeS)
Page 7 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490860
Page 4 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
18.8
20.0
ng/L
3
106
(0%-30%) JLS 10/02/19 06:14
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
18.8
20.6
ng/L
9
109
(0%-30%)
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
18.8
17.7
ng/L
11
94
(0%-35%)
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
18.8
21.2
ng/L
10
112
(0%-28%)
QC1204391613 MB
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
ng/L
10/02/19 05:56
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) U ND ng/L
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFHpS)
Page 8 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490860
Page 5 of 7
Parmname NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
U
ND
ng/L JLS 10/02/19 05:56
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
U
ND
ng/L
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
Batch 1919444
QC1204387349 LCS
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00
3.55
ug/L 89 (70%-130%) JMB3 09/24/1912:24
Page 9 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490860
Page 6 of 7
Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
Semi -Volatile -GUMS
Batch 1919444
QC1204387350 LCSD
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00 3.18 ug/L 79 (70%-130%) JM133 09/24/1912:49
QC1204387348 MB
1,4-Dioxane U ND ug/L 09/24/1911:59
** 1,4-Dioxane-d8
Notes:
4.00 3.05 ug/L 76 (70%-130%)
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
< Result is less than value reported
> Result is greater than value reported
A The TIC is a suspected aldol-condensation product
B The target analyte was detected in the associated blank.
C Analyte has been confirmed by GUMS analysis
D Results are reported from a diluted aliquot of the sample
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range
H Analytical holding time was exceeded
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
JNX Non Calibrated Compound
N Organics --Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based
on nearest internal standard response factor
N Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based on nearest
internal standard response factor
N/A RPD or %Recovery limits do not apply.
N1 See case narrative
ND Analyte concentration is not detected above the detection limit
NJ Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
P Organics --The concentrations between the primary and confirmation columns/detectors is >40% different. For HPLC, the difference is >70%.
Q One or more quality control criteria have not been met. Refer to the applicable narrative or DER.
R Sample results are rejected
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
UJ Compound cannot be extracted
Page 10 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490860 Page 7 of 7
Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
X Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
Y QC Samples were not spiked with this compound
^ RPD of sample and duplicate evaluated using +/-RL. Concentrations are <5X the RL. Qualifier Not Applicable for Radiochemistry.
h Preparation or preservation holding time was exceeded
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more or %RPD not applicable.
The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than
five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +/- the
RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
* Indicates that a Quality Control parameter was not within specifications.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
Page 11 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

Technical Case Narrative
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
SDG #: 490860
GUMS Semivolatile
Product: Analysis of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Analytical Method: SW846 3535A/8270E SIM
Analytical Procedure: GL-OA-E-073 REV# 2
Analvtical Batch: 1919444
Preparation Method: SW846 3535A
Preparation Procedure: GL-OA-E-073 REV# 2
Preparation Batch: 1919441
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).
GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
490860001 1403-1
1204387348 Method Blank (MB)
1204387349 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1204387350 Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:
All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.
Quality Control (QC) Information
Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
An LCSD was used in place of matrix QC due to limited sample volume.
Technical Information
Sample Dilutions
Sample 490860001 (1403-1) was diluted due to the presence of one or more over -range target analytes.
LCMSMS-Misc
Product: The Extraction and Analysis of Per and Polyfluroalkyl Substances Using LCMSMS
Analytical Method: EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
Analytical Procedure: GL-OA-E-076 REV# 7
Analytical Batches: 1921240 and 1921239
Page 12 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).
GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
490860001 1403-1
1204391613 Method Blank (MB)
1204391614 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1204391615 Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:
All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.
Technical Information
Sample Dilutions
The following samples were diluted to bring the over range concentrations within the calibration range and/or
due to matrix interference that caused internal standards recoveries to fall outside the acceptance range.
490860001 (1403-1).
Analyte
490860
001
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2 FTS)
10OX
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2 FTS)
lox
Perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS)
lox
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
lox
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
lox
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
lox
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA)
lox
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)
lox
Miscellaneous Information
Additional Comments
Additional sample volume was not provided for matrix QC. Also, reduced sample volumes were used for all
samples except 490876002 (7607-EB) due to elevated concentrations of target analytes.
Certification Statement
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 13 of 16 SDG: 490860 Revl

it
Zi
'4lit
ti
ct
} y
6 O
.pCD
E
.�
N
W00
_
wo
a.
W
_
CJ O
X
U
N O
d :
U)
> ...
e13ir
B]lIIIB1110])tl ]o{jNOt114jO,j,
t^.i
'
Qi
..
'�
,ti
y
o
3
�,.
a
�1
v, v
s.:to
sp]ezrl(al9tssud
i^
W
[itfJtrlorri3'i
C:'r
N
.r
r
7
C
y v
njddn °anlal+f
c c
O au1a001PUM
�.
Y C J
C
cc
u`s
n
C
1�
UCD
N
O
'C
Z
t,)
00
L
C
�
p
C
U
v„ i
d a
CD
c
a
L
O
L
* u
rn
iP
o
y
-El-
'C C
..
y
^.
co
O
.a
y
]
ro
T
iH
J
7
: L
Sri J x
.^..
U
a.
(06
J
O ✓
c
VI
U
CD
r
C) tiU
U
m
G
r 1.
o
.- 00
O
0z
—
>
(yy
�
o
o
v y V
G
L
Q Z Z
EK
O
a)
li II
E
--ice
V
-
-'
l'
J
W
.`��
`V
t
J
G`
p
• •^-
C 'F' E
y
7 N
�'
G ❑
d
U
'J
c ,
U II I' JI
ts,
U
c.
<r_
C>
Nn,
A
,v
a U U a.
Page 14 of 16 SDG: 490860 Revl

CGS
Carrier and 'rracidlig Number
Ilazard Information
lZ5111pped as a DOT I lazardous?
Did the client designate fife saml)lcs are to be
:eived is radioactive?
Did (Ile RSO classify the samples as
ioactive?
Did the client desifnmte san)plcs are
L) Did the RSO identify possible h tzards?
—
Simple Receipt ipt C Criteria
I Shipping containers received intact
sealed?
Z Chain of custody documents included
With shipment?
3 % i; les requiring cold preservation
within (0 < 6 deg, C)?+
a Daily check performed and Passed oft IR
temperature gun?
5 Sample containers intact and scaled?
6 Samples requiring chcmical preservation
at proper pH?
7 Do any samples require Volatile
Analysis?
3 Samples received within holding time?
9 Sample ID's on COC match ID's on
bottles?
10 Date &time otr COC match date &time
on bottles'?
1 t Number of containers received match
number indicated on COC')
t Z Arc sample containers identifiable as
GFI. rovided?
13 COC form is properly signed in
relinquished/received sections?
aunncnts (Use Continaadan font if liceded):
SAMPLE RECEIPT
►yr� � '� e fcdEx Ground` ­PPucable:
-------------
UPS Field Services Courier Other
,Z, jX/G� , Jyy�'i U 'o�
'If Net Counts > �� o
100cpttt on samples not marked "radioactive", contact file Radiation Safety Group for further investigation.
Ha7ird Class Shipped:
If UN2910, Is file Radioactive Shipment Survey Compliant? Yes_ No`
COC notation or radioactive stickers on containers equal client designation.
Maximum Net Counts Observed- (Observed Counts - Area Background Counts); CPD1 / mfUttr
Classified as: Rid t Rad Z Rad
CDC notation or hazard labels on containers equal client designation.
tf D or E is yes, select I•fizards below.
PCB's f7mmmabte foreign Soil RCR A Asbestos Be
� o ryIlium Other:
Circle ApplicComments/Qualifiers (Required for Non -Conforming (terns)
able: Seals broken Damagcd container . Leaking container Other (descrih,•)
NM (or NMA) review; Initials
and provided COC COC created upon
:e Packs D
101i) Peratures arc c rded in Celsius ry'cc \onc Otller.
perature Device Serial
ndaryTemperature Device Scriat M (IfAppiicablep
) res, arc Encores or Soil Kits present for solid:
Do liquid VOr1 vials contain acid preservation?
Ire liquid VOrI vials free Ofhcadspace? yes
;uopie ID's and containers anicted:
Ts and tests i0ectedi:
Ys and containers at1ected;
rcle Ap))Iicible; No dates on containers No ti
rcle
confaincr count nn
Oil conta
TTEAM:D
yes, take pq fr
Ulloevn� o)
Other
'j Page _-- f- or
GL-CHL-SR-001 Rev 6
Page 15 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

List of current GEL Certifications as of 08 November 2019
State
Certification
Alaska
17-018
Alaska Drinking Water
SC00012
Arkansas
88-0651
CLIA
42DO904046
California
2940
Colorado
SC00012
Connecticut
PH-0169
DoD ELAP/ ISO17025 A2LA
2567.01
Florida NELAP
E87156
Foreign Soils Permit
P330-15-00283, P330-15-00253
Georgia
SC00012
Georgia SDWA
967
Hawaii
SC00012
Idaho
SC00012
Illinois NELAP
200029
Indiana
C—SC-01
Kansas NELAP
E-10332
Kentucky SDWA
90129
Kentucky Wastewater
90129
Louisiana Drinking Water
LA024
Louisiana NELAP
03046 (AI33904)
Maine
2019020
Maryland
270
Massachusetts
M—SCO12
Massachusetts PFAS Approv
Letter
Michigan
9976
Mississippi
SC00012
Nebraska
NE—OS-26-13
Nevada
SC000122020-1
New Hampshire NELAP
2054
New Jersey NELAP
SCO02
New Mexico
SC00012
New York NELAP
11501
North Carolina
233
North Carolina SDWA
45709
North Dakota
R-158
Oklahoma
2019-165
Pennsylvania NELAP
68-00485
Puerto Rico
SC00012
S. Carolina Radiochem
10120002
Sanitation Districts of L
9255651
South Carolina Chemistry
10120001
Tennessee
TN 02934
Texas NELAP
T104704235-19-15
Utah NELAP
SC000122019-28
Vermont
VT87156
Virginia NELAP
460202
Washington
C780
Page 16 of 16 SDG: 490860 Rev1

® Laboratories a
©000
a member u� The GEL Group
November 08, 2019
Mr. Jim Riley
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Re: Analytical for BFI-Charlotte motor Speedway Landfill V
Work Order: 490866
Dear Mr. Riley:
PO Box 30712 Charleston. SC 29417
2040 Savage Road Chadeston SC 20407
P 843 556.8171
F 843 766.1178
GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the enclosed analytical results for the
sample(s) we received on September 19, 2019. This revised data report has been prepared and reviewed in
accordance with GEL's standard operating procedures. This package was revised to include PFPeA and PFOA.
Test results for NELAP or ISO 17025 accredited tests are verified to meet the requirements of those standards,
with any exceptions noted. The results reported relate only to the items tested and to the sample as received by
the laboratory. These results may not be reproduced except as full reports without approval by the laboratory.
Copies of GEL's accreditations and certifications can be found on our website at www.gel.com.
Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical services to enable you to meet your analytical needs
on time every time. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 4289.
Sincerely,
f
Julie Robinson
Project Manager
Purchase Order: GELP19-0905
Enclosures
gel.com
Page 1 of 15 SDG: 490866 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis Report
for
NWRA001 NWRA — Carolinas Chapter
Client SDG: 490866 GEL Work Order: 490866
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
** Analyte is a Tracer compound
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
The designation ND, if present, appears in the result column when the analyte concentration is not detected above
the limit as defined in the 'U' qualifier above.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL Laboratories LLC
standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Julie Robinson.
f
Reviewed by
Page 2 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
Address : 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Project: Analytical forBFI-Charlotte motor Speedway Landfill V
Client Sample ID:
Sample ID:
Matrix:
Collect Date:
Receive Date:
Collector:
1304-1
490866001
Misc Liquid
16-SEP-19 12:55
19-SEP-19
Client
Report Date: November 8, 2019
Project: NWRA00119
Client ID: NWRA001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As
Received"
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
39.7
13.2
38.4
ng/L
0.200
1 JLS 10/02/19 0907 1921240
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
87.2
13.2
40.0
ng/L
0.200
1
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
258
13.2
40.0
ng/L
0.200
1
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
J
6.87
6.60
19.4
ng/L
0.200
1
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
590
7.80
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
63.3
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
J
8.17
6.60
19.0
ng/L
0.200
1
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
983
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
925
6.60
18.2
ng/L
0.200
1
(PFHxS)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
U
ND
7.00
19.2
ng/L
0.200
1
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
269
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
J
11.5
6.60
18.6
ng/L
0.200
1
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
356
8.00
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
73.2
6.60
18.8
ng/L
0.200
1
(PFPeS)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
30.8
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
5260
66.0
178
ng/L
0.200
10 JLS 10/02/19 0706 1921240
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
1920
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
3470
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
2210
70.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
2160
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
U
ND
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)
U
ND
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
1320
3760
ng/L
0.200
100 JLS 10/02/19 1117 1921240
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
1320
3800
ng/L
0.200
100
FTS)
The following Prep Methods were performed:
2
3
Page 3 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev 1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analvsis
Company: NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
Address : 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Project: Analytical forBFI-Charlotte motor Speedway Landfill V
Client Sample ID: 1304-1
Sample ID: 490866001
Report Date: November 8, 2019
Project: NWRA00119
Client ID: NWRA001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
The following Prep Methods were performed:
Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch
EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Comp] PFCs Extraction in Liquid
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
LMl 09/27/19 0830 1921239
Method Description Analyst Comments
1 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
2 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
3 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
Notes:
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor Lc/LC: Critical Level
DL: Detection Limit PF: Prep Factor
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity RL: Reporting Limit
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Page 4 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter QC Summary Renort Date: November 8, 2019
Page 1 of 6
1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Workorder: 490866
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
QC1204391614 LCS
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
18.2
15.7
ng/L
86
(60%-145%) JLS 10/02/19 06:05
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
18.5
20.4
ng/L
110
(56%-143%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
18.7
17.5
ng/L
94
(57%-138%)
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
19.5
19.3
ng/L
99
(63%-131%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
19.5
21.5
ng/L
111
(62%-133%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
17.2
16.6
ng/L
96
(68%-136%)
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
19.5
19.7
ng/L
101
(70%-133%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.8
16.8
ng/L
89
(53%-142%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
19.5
18.0
ng/L
93
(62%-135%)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
19.5
19.5
ng/L
100
(66%-131%)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
18.5
18.1
ng/L
98
(66%-138%)
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
19.5
17.9
ng/L
92
(67%-135%)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.7
14.5
ng/L
82
(64%-137%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
19.5
18.9
ng/L
97
(67%-133%)
Page 5 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev 1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490866
Page 2 of 6
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.7
17.5
ng/L
93
(66%-130%) JLS
10/02/19 06:05
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
19.5
21.1
ng/L
108
(66%-134%)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
19.5
21.5
ng/L
111
(68%-137%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
19.5
19.8
ng/L
102
(61%-131%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
19.5
18.8
ng/L
97
(63%-145%)
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
18.3
16.5
ng/L
90
(62%-139%)
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
19.5
19.3
ng/L
99
(69%-132%)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
19.5
22.5
ng/L
115
(65%-143%)
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
19.5
19.9
ng/L
102
(57%-149%)
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
19.5
19.1
ng/L
98
(65%-134%)
QC1204391615 LCSD
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
17.6
20.5
ng/L
26
116
(0%-35%)
10/02/19 06:14
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
17.9
17.6
ng/L
14
98
(0%-36%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
18.1
19.9
ng/L
13
110
(0%-39%)
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
18.8
20.1
ng/L
4
107
(0%-25%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
18.8
21.9
ng/L
2
116
(0%-26%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Page 6 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev 1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490866
Page 3 of 6
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
16.7
17.2
ng/L
4
103
(0%-30%) JLS 10/02/19 06:14
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
18.8
19.3
ng/L
2
102
(0%-30%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.2
17.2
ng/L
3
95
(0%-28%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
18.8
21.1
ng/L
16
112
(0%-29%)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
18.8
19.0
ng/L
3
101
(0%-30%)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
17.9
17.7
ng/L
2
99
(0%-30%)
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
18.8
19.6
ng/L
9
104
(0%-30%)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.2
16.8
ng/L
15
98
(0%-30%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
18.8
20.9
ng/L
10
111
(0%-23%)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.1
18.2
ng/L
4
101
(0%-27%)
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
18.8
18.7
ng/L
12
99
(0%-27%)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
18.8
20.2
ng/L
6
107
(0%-30%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
18.8
19.9
ng/L
1
106
(0%-27%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 18.8 18.9 ng/L 0 100 (0%-30%
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid 17.7 17.3 ng/L 4 98 (0%-29%
(PFPeS)
Page 7 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490866
Page 4 of 6
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
18.8
20.0
ng/L
3
106
(0%-30%) JLS 10/02/19 06:14
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
18.8
20.6
ng/L
9
109
(0%-30%)
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
18.8
17.7
ng/L
11
94
(0%-35%)
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
18.8
21.2
ng/L
10
112
(0%-28%)
QC1204391613 MB
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
ng/L
10/02/19 05:56
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) U ND ng/L
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFHpS)
Page 8 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev 1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490866
Page 5 of 6
Parmname
NOM Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
U
ND
ng/L JLS 10/02/19 05:56
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
U
ND
ng/L
Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
< Result is less than value reported
> Result is greater than value reported
Page 9 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490866
Page 6 of 6
Parmname NOM Sample Oual OC Units RPD/D% REC% Rance Anlst Date Time
A The TIC is a suspected aldol-condensation product
B The target analyte was detected in the associated blank.
C Analyte has been confirmed by GC/MS analysis
D Results are reported from a diluted aliquot of the sample
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range
H Analytical holding time was exceeded
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
JNX Non Calibrated Compound
N Organics --Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based
on nearest internal standard response factor
N Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based on nearest
internal standard response factor
N/A RPD or %Recovery limits do not apply.
N1 See case narrative
ND Analyte concentration is not detected above the detection limit
NJ Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
P Organics --The concentrations between the primary and confirmation columns/detectors is >40% different. For HPLC, the difference is >70%.
Q One or more quality control criteria have not been met. Refer to the applicable narrative or DER.
R Sample results are rejected
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
UJ Compound cannot be extracted
X Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
Y QC Samples were not spiked with this compound
^ RPD of sample and duplicate evaluated using +/-RL. Concentrations are <5X the RL. Qualifier Not Applicable for Radiochemistry.
h Preparation or preservation holding time was exceeded
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more or %RPD not applicable.
^ The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than
five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +/- the
RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
* Indicates that a Quality Control parameter was not within specifications.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
Page 10 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev1

LCMSMS-Misc
Technical Case Narrative
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
SDG #: 490866
Product: The Extraction and Analysis of Per and Polyfluroalkyl Substances Using LCMSMS
Analytical Method: EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
Analytical Procedure: GL-OA-E-076 REV# 7
Analytical Batches: 1921240 and 1921239
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).
GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
490866001 1304-1
1204391613 Method Blank (MB)
1204391614 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1204391615 Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:
All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.
Technical Information
Sample Dilutions
The following samples were diluted to bring the over range concentrations within the calibration range and/or
due to matrix interference that caused internal standards recoveries to fall outside the acceptance range.
490866001(1304-1).
Analyte
490866
001
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2 FTS)
10OX
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2 FTS)
10OX
Perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS)
lox
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
lox
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
lox
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
lox
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
lox
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA)
lox
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)
lox
Miscellaneous Information
Additional Comments
Additional sample volume was not provided for matrix QC. Also, reduced sample volumes were used for all
samples except 490876002 (7607-EB) due to elevated concentrations of target analytes.
Page 11 of 15 SDG: 490866 Revl

Certification Statement
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 12 of 15 SDG: 490866 Revl

J
cJ a
Cr
I
Ci v: t:J
V
C "Cl4
_
Ct § fi ,
z� t U
y
Y
c^
o b U
t
U
'�
w
tr
j
tt
V
N
�Z � U
cr
-
G r =
n "
U100
N
r
a
W
X,
d
o~
U
y
CV
.
_
U)
4
c
Q
E
c
-
...
'
t
x
r
, .
rt�
G
(,V'.
y
�'
y
E
J
—
O •.
SJbtlluiuU]JU J7tjtUUlt tulU,j;
r
?
Ju aHuuy tL)
- y
ui
`?
t:.
(� '= O
W
N
O
L
7
N
'ITOCO
@
s
co
�'
•°
a�
LO
4
Z
-
c
r
CDci
o
LO
M
ti
0_
s
LO
m
to
v
P.
z
=°
CY)
v
C
Q)
V
i
�
UCD
J
5
t!h I
Jn
N
4:4
C7
�
�
+°.
:..
� - ❑ems
.0
J
r+
o
.,
II li J C]
V
C
N
✓1
,y
C
O
C
-
r,
^
J,a..V�4 y ..
U
O
of
CY)
_
U
eo
Z
e
�
, y ^•
CD
C, CD0
}21,
CO
ti
U C�y L
Page 13 of 15 SDG: 490866 Revl

Carrier and'rraciting Number
Idnr.;trd Infornultion
:+Imapped as a DOT Hazardous?
0) Did the clicot designate the samples arc to be
received as radioactive?
C) Did the RSO classify the samples as
radioactive?
D) Did the clietft designate samples are
�..�n..l.... _r.
Did
S:umple Receipt Criteria
I Shipping containers rcceived intact
seated?
2 Chain of custody documents included
with shipment?
3 Samples requirinr, cold preservation
Within (0 < 6 den, 0-
4 Daily check performed and passed on I
temperature gun?
Sample containers intact and seated?
6 Samples requiring chemical preservation'
at proper pH?
Z Do any samples require Volatile
Analysis?
3 Samples received within holding time?
9 Sample ID's on COC match ID's of
bottles."
I O Date R time on' COC match date �C time
on bottles'?
I I Number of containers received match
number indicated on COC?
12 Are sample containers identifiable as
roviciLd?
13 COC form is property signed in
relinquished/received sections?
'e111111clus (Use Conlilltlatinn fictions .,.,.... �.
SIMPLE RECEIPT & REVIEW FORM
to
`new Appficabic;
J7 pedCx Groundp UPS field Services Courier Other
.19
'If Net Counts >
100cpnl on samples not marked "radioactive", contact the Radiation Safety Group for further investigation,
Hazard Class Shipped:
If UN2910, Is the Radioactive Shipment Survey Compliant? Yes_ No__
CDC notation or radioactive stickers oil containers equal client designation.
idasimual Net Counts Observed" (Observed Collins - Area Back Lround Counts):
Classified as: Rad ( Rad 2 Rad 3 CPINi / mR/tfr K
K K
COC flotation or hazard labels on containers equal client designation.
If D or * is yes, select Ida cords below
PC(3's Flammable Foreign Soil RCRA
\sbestos Dcrylliunl Other:
G e
Comments/Qultlrrers (Required for \on Conform hems)
Circle Applicable Scats broken Dam lecd _ . _
I'M (or NWA) review: Initials
.11.,10 appucaule: Client contacted and provided COC
COC created upon
Preservation 4lethod: let t ice packs
Dry ice None Other.
'III temperatures are corded in Celsius
Pcmperature Dcvicc Scriat #:
iecondary'1'entperaturc Device Scriat (If Applicable):
'ircle Applicable: Sealy�rroken a •c contau
/,�_ ' 5 [.caking copiner O
es, arc Encores or Soi! Kits pr,
liquid VOr\ viols contain acid
liquid VOA vials free of head!
lie ID's and wnlainers anicicd:
and tests atlocted
Ycs_ No
:\pplicoble: No dates oil containers No times on container
r\{iplicable: No container count or1 COC Other (d.cribe)
\pplicable: :'otrelinquisll' Other(describe)
1'EINIP:
to VOf
select A
pace I_ of S
GL-CHL-SR-001 Rev 6
Page 14 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev1

List of current GEL Certifications as of 08 November 2019
State
Certification
Alaska
17-018
Alaska Drinking Water
SC00012
Arkansas
88-0651
CLIA
42DO904046
California
2940
Colorado
SC00012
Connecticut
PH-0169
DoD ELAP/ ISO17025 A2LA
2567.01
Florida NELAP
E87156
Foreign Soils Permit
P330-15-00283, P330-15-00253
Georgia
SC00012
Georgia SDWA
967
Hawaii
SC00012
Idaho
SC00012
Illinois NELAP
200029
Indiana
C—SC-01
Kansas NELAP
E-10332
Kentucky SDWA
90129
Kentucky Wastewater
90129
Louisiana Drinking Water
LA024
Louisiana NELAP
03046 (AI33904)
Maine
2019020
Maryland
270
Massachusetts
M—SCO12
Massachusetts PFAS Approv
Letter
Michigan
9976
Mississippi
SC00012
Nebraska
NE—OS-26-13
Nevada
SC000122020-1
New Hampshire NELAP
2054
New Jersey NELAP
SCO02
New Mexico
SC00012
New York NELAP
11501
North Carolina
233
North Carolina SDWA
45709
North Dakota
R-158
Oklahoma
2019-165
Pennsylvania NELAP
68-00485
Puerto Rico
SC00012
S. Carolina Radiochem
10120002
Sanitation Districts of L
9255651
South Carolina Chemistry
10120001
Tennessee
TN 02934
Texas NELAP
T104704235-19-15
Utah NELAP
SC000122019-28
Vermont
VT87156
Virginia NELAP
460202
Washington
C780
Page 15 of 15 SDG: 490866 Rev1

® Laboratories a
©000
a member u� The GEL Group
November 08, 2019
Mr. Jim Riley
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Re: Analytical for Chambers Development MSWLF
Work Order: 490872
Dear Mr. Riley:
PO Box 30712 Charleston. SC 29417
2040 Savage Road Chadeston SC 20407
P 843 556.8171
F 843 766.1178
GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the enclosed analytical results for the
sample(s) we received on September 19, 2019. This revised data report has been prepared and reviewed in
accordance with GEL's standard operating procedures. This package was revised to include PFPeA and PFOA.
Test results for NELAP or ISO 17025 accredited tests are verified to meet the requirements of those standards,
with any exceptions noted. The results reported relate only to the items tested and to the sample as received by
the laboratory. These results may not be reproduced except as full reports without approval by the laboratory.
Copies of GEL's accreditations and certifications can be found on our website at www.gel.com.
Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical services to enable you to meet your analytical needs
on time every time. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 4289.
Sincerely,
f
Julie Robinson
Project Manager
Purchase Order: GELP19-0905
Enclosures
gel.com
Page 1 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis Report
for
NWRA001 NWRA — Carolinas Chapter
Client SDG: 490872 GEL Work Order: 490872
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
** Analyte is a Tracer compound
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
Q One or more quality control criteria have not been met. Refer to the applicable narrative or DER.
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
h Preparation or preservation holding time was exceeded
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
The designation ND, if present, appears in the result column when the analyte concentration is not detected above
the limit as defined in the 'U' qualifier above.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL Laboratories LLC
standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Julie Robinson.
f
Reviewed by
Page 2 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analysis
Company: NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
Address : 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Project: Analytical forChambers Development MSWLF
Client Sample ID:
0403-1
Sample ID:
490872001
Matrix:
Misc Liquid
Collect Date:
16-SEP-19 15:30
Receive Date:
19-SEP-19
Collector:
Client
Report Date: November 8, 2019
Project: NWRA00119
Client ID: NWRA001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units PF DF Analyst Date Time Batch Method
LCMSMS PFCs
EPA 537Mod PFCs by LC-MS/MS "As
Received"
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
J
14.9
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
50.5
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
23.6
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
U
ND
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
249
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
218
(PFHxS)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
U
ND
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
J
15.5
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
U
ND
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
84.2
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
345
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
19.6
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
780
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
U
ND
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
J
180
FTS)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
6290
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
831
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
2200
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
U
ND
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)
U
ND
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
FTS)
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
13.2
38.4
ng/L
0.200 1 JLS 10/02/19 0915 1921240 1
13.2
40.0
ng/L
0.200 1
13.2
40.0
ng/L
0.200 1
6.60
19.4
ng/L
0.200 1
7.80
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
19.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.2
ng/L
0.200
1
7.00
19.2
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.6
ng/L
0.200
1
8.00
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
7.00
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
18.8
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
6.60
20.0
ng/L
0.200
1
132
380
ng/L
0.200
10 JLS
66.0
178
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
66.0
200
ng/L
0.200
10
1320
3760
ng/L
0.200
100 JLS
10/02/19 0714 1921240 2
10/02/19 1125 1921240 3
Page 3 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Certificate of Analvsis
Report Date: November 8, 2019
Company: NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
Address : 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Project: Analytical forChambers Development MSWLF
Client Sample ID: 0403-1
Project: NWRA00119
Sample ID: 490872001
Client ID: NWRA001
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL
Units PF DF Analyst Date
Time Batch Method
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
SW846 8270 SIM 1,4-Dioxane in Liquid "As Received"
1,4-Dioxane Q 9.22 1.00 2.00
ug/L 0.200 1 JM133 09/24/19
1854 1919444 4
1,4-Dioxane h 14.8 1.00 2.00
ug/L 0.200 1 JM133 10/02/19
1652 1922216 5
The following Prep Methods were performed:
Method Description Analyst
Date Time Prep Batch
EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Comp] PFCs Extraction in Liquid LMl
09/27/19 0830 1921239
SW846 3535A SW8270E SIM Prep 1,4-Dioxane SJ
10/02/19 1000 1922215
SW846 3535A SW8270E SIM Prep 1,4-Dioxane SJWI
09/23/19 1200 1919441
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
Method Description
Analyst Comments
1 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
2 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
3 EPA 537.1 Mod, PFAS, Compliant with QSM Table B-15
4 SW846 3535A/8270E SIM
5 SW846 3535A/8270E SIM
Surrogate/Tracer Recovery Test
Result Nominal Recovery%
Acceptable Limits
1,4-Dioxane-d8 SW846 8270 SIM 1,4-Dioxane in Liquid "As
24.2 ug/L 40.0 60*
(70%-130%)
Received"
1,4-Dioxane-d8 SW846 8270 SIM 1,4-Dioxane in Liquid "As
37.7 ug/L 40.0 94
(70%-130%)
Received"
Notes:
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor Lc/LC: Critical Level
DL: Detection Limit PF: Prep Factor
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity RL: Reporting Limit
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Page 4 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter QC Summary Renort Date: November 8, 2019
Page 1 of 7
1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 804
Arlington, Virginia
Contact: Mr. Jim Riley
Workorder: 490872
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
QC1204391614 LCS
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
18.2
15.7
ng/L
86
(60%-145%) JLS 10/02/19 06:05
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
18.5
20.4
ng/L
110
(56%-143%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
18.7
17.5
ng/L
94
(57%-138%)
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
19.5
19.3
ng/L
99
(63%-131%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-1-
19.5
21.5
ng/L
111
(62%-133%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
17.2
16.6
ng/L
96
(68%-136%)
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
19.5
19.7
ng/L
101
(70%-133%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.8
16.8
ng/L
89
(53%-142%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
19.5
18.0
ng/L
93
(62%-135%)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
19.5
19.5
ng/L
100
(66%-131%)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
18.5
18.1
ng/L
98
(66%-138%)
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
19.5
17.9
ng/L
92
(67%-135%)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.7
14.5
ng/L
82
(64%-137%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
19.5
18.9
ng/L
97
(67%-133%)
Page 5 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490872
Page 2 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst
Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.7
17.5
ng/L
93
(66%-130%) JLS
10/02/19 06:05
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
19.5
21.1
ng/L
108
(66%-134%)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
19.5
21.5
ng/L
111
(68%-137%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
19.5
19.8
ng/L
102
(61%-131%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
19.5
18.8
ng/L
97
(63%-145%)
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
18.3
16.5
ng/L
90
(62%-139%)
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
19.5
19.3
ng/L
99
(69%-132%)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
19.5
22.5
ng/L
115
(65%-143%)
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
19.5
19.9
ng/L
102
(57%-149%)
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
19.5
19.1
ng/L
98
(65%-134%)
QC1204391615 LCSD
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
17.6
20.5
ng/L
26
116
(0%-35%)
10/02/19 06:14
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
17.9
17.6
ng/L
14
98
(0%-36%)
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
18.1
19.9
ng/L
13
110
(0%-39%)
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-l-
18.8
20.1
ng/L
4
107
(0%-25%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
18.8
21.9
ng/L
2
116
(0%-26%)
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Page 6 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490872
Page 3 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
16.7
17.2
ng/L
4
103
(0%-30%) JLS 10/02/19 06:14
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
18.8
19.3
ng/L
2
102
(0%-30%)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
18.2
17.2
ng/L
3
95
(0%-28%)
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
18.8
21.1
ng/L
16
112
(0%-29%)
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
18.8
19.0
ng/L
3
101
(0%-30%)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
17.9
17.7
ng/L
2
99
(0%-30%)
(PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
18.8
19.6
ng/L
9
104
(0%-30%)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
17.2
16.8
ng/L
15
98
(0%-30%)
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
18.8
20.9
ng/L
10
111
(0%-23%)
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
18.1
18.2
ng/L
4
101
(0%-27%)
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
18.8
18.7
ng/L
12
99
(0%-27%)
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
18.8
20.2
ng/L
6
107
(0%-30%)
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
18.8
19.9
ng/L
1
106
(0%-27%)
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 18.8 18.9 ng/L 0 100 (0%-30%
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid 17.7 17.3 ng/L 4 98 (0%-29%
(PFPeS)
Page 7 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490872
Page 4 of 7
Parmname
NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units
RPD/D%
REC%
Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
18.8
20.0
ng/L
3
106
(0%-30%) JLS 10/02/19 06:14
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
18.8
20.6
ng/L
9
109
(0%-30%)
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
18.8
17.7
ng/L
11
94
(0%-35%)
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
18.8
21.2
ng/L
10
112
(0%-28%)
QC1204391613 MB
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 (4:2
U
ND
ng/L
10/02/19 05:56
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 (6:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 (8:2
U
ND
ng/L
FTS)
N-ethylperfluoro-1-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
EtFOSAA)
N-methylperfluoro-l-
U
ND
ng/L
octanesulfonamidoacetic acid (N-
McFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFBS)
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFDS)
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) U ND ng/L
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) U ND ng/L
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid U ND ng/L
(PFHpS)
Page 8 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490872
Page 5 of 7
Parmname NOM
Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
Perfluorinated Compounds
Batch 1921240
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
U
ND
ng/L JLS 10/02/19 05:56
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFHxS)
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFNS)
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOSA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
U
ND
ng/L
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFTeDA)
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
U
ND
ng/L
(PFTrDA)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)
U
ND
ng/L
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
Batch 1919444
QC1204387349 LCS
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00
3.55
ug/L 89 (70%-130%) JMB3 09/24/1912:24
Page 9 of 17 SDG: 490872 Revl

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490872
Page 6 of 7
Parmname NOM Sample Qual
QC
Units RPD/D%
REC% Range Anlst Date Time
Semi-Volatile-GC/MS
Batch 1919444
QC1204387350 LCSD
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00
3.18
ug/L
79 (70%-130%) JM133 09/24/1912:49
QC1204387348 MB
1,4-Dioxane U
ND
ug/L
09/24/1911:59
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00
3.05
ug/L
76 (70%-130%)
Batch 1922216
QC1204393997 LCS
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00
4.08
ug/L
102 (70%-130%) JM133 10/02/1915:34
QC1204393998 LCSD
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00
3.76
ug/L
94 (70%-130%) 10/02/1916:02
QC1204393996 MB
1,4-Dioxane U
ND
ug/L
10/02/1915:07
**1,4-Dioxane-d8 4.00
3.87
ug/L
97 (70%-130%)
Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
** Analyte is a surrogate compound
< Result is less than value reported
> Result is greater than value reported
A The TIC is a suspected aldol-condensation product
B The target analyte was detected in the associated blank.
C Analyte has been confirmed by GUMS analysis
D Results are reported from a diluted aliquot of the sample
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range
H Analytical holding time was exceeded
J See case narrative for an explanation
J Value is estimated
JNX Non Calibrated Compound
Page 10 of 17 SDG: 490872 Rev1

GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
QC Summary
Workorder: 490872 Page 7 of 7
Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD/D% REC% Range Anlst Date Time
N Organics --Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based
on nearest internal standard response factor
N Presumptive evidence based on mass spectral library search to make a tentative identification of the analyte (TIC). Quantitation is based on nearest
internal standard response factor
N/A RPD or %Recovery limits do not apply.
N1 See case narrative
ND Analyte concentration is not detected above the detection limit
NJ Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
P Organics --The concentrations between the primary and confirmation columns/detectors is >40% different. For HPLC, the difference is >70%.
Q One or more quality control criteria have not been met. Refer to the applicable narrative or DER.
R Sample results are rejected
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
UJ Compound cannot be extracted
X Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
Y QC Samples were not spiked with this compound
^ RPD of sample and duplicate evaluated using +/-RL. Concentrations are <5X the RL. Qualifier Not Applicable for Radiochemistry.
h Preparation or preservation holding time was exceeded
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike cone. by a factor of 4 or more or %RPD not applicable.
^ The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than
five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +/- the
RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
* Indicates that a Quality Control parameter was not within specifications.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
Page 11 of 17 SDG: 490872 Rev1

Technical Case Narrative
NWRA - Carolinas Chapter
SDG #: 490872
GUMS Semivolatile
Product: Analysis of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Analytical Method: SW846 3535A/8270E SIM
Analytical Procedure: GL-OA-E-073 REV# 2
Analytical Batch: 1919444
Preparation Method: SW846 3535A
Preparation Procedure: GL-OA-E-073 REV# 2
Preparation Batch: 1919441
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).
GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
490872001 0403-1
1204387348 Method Blank (MB)
1204387349 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1204387350 Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:
All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.
Quality Control (QQ Information
Surrogate Recoveries
Sample (See Below) did not meet surrogate recovery acceptance criteria. The sample was re -extracted out of
holding and met acceptance criteria for all surrogates. Both sets of data results have been reported.
Sample
Analyte
Value
490872001 (0403-1)
1, 4-Dioxane-d8
60* (70%-130%)
Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
An LCSD was used in place of matrix QC due to limited sample volume.
Product: Analysis of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Analytical Method: SW846 3535A/8270E SIM
Analytical Procedure: GL-OA-E-073 REV# 2
Page 12 of 17 SDG: 490872 Rev1

V
y
s,,,
m
o
J
�o))
�/ .•-•
'J
ti
'*mow i
Q
u
YL
4 °
v W^
w
M
C,
3
t.
7,
Mf ^ r<
W
CD
c
to
a
—
W
Q
IM
E
E
-
O
X
xcy
U
O
-
s
v
6]Blflblu OJ rU JaqC1111IC hula,[;cr
�-
" w ` •�
sp,r.,c4'arq,scad
�"'
x
u
_
U
_
?
ao uswuN tL)
".
�'
_ r -
•� -ai
Q'
a o
.fjrjdti .LiYJrd)t)
C
'L.—.. •
0
1 I.
O
CD
~
O
oo
~
.d
O
tQ
''•
�..
II y ,'�.
LO
O
•^
(0
C
ti w�
V
�
�
L
�:
5
In
Y
'd
•
I � f
� � �
�
V
�
J
LL
'b
N
e't
�'
t
•'�.• N 5 F
rV
y
nvn
v/
�
_
U
5
y UC,�CL
m
CD
CD
M
=
o
-
'
o6
>
u
_
•�
�
L
a
o0
r c
V rn
O
=
Z
T
c
E
c Oid
d
N
Y
Y
C!]
CD
Q�Z'Z
a
o zv
Gy
G
.�
_
..
LZ
c
�, ti tYi II II II it II
A
2-
Page 15 of 17 SDG: 490872 Rev1